-DOCSTART- (10036953)

[ NN O O
Triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
involving NN O O
H2 NN O I-INT
blockaders NN O I-INT
for NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
low-dose NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
1-week NN O O
low-dose NN O O
triple-therapy NN O O
drug NN O O
regimens NN O O
involving NN O O
antisecretory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LPZ NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RNT NN O O
) NN O O
used NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
metrinidazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
combination NN O O
and NN O O
administration NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PPI NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
LPZ NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
MTZ NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
LCM NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
RNT NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
MTZ NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
RCM NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LCM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
79-97 NN O O
and NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RCM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
84-99 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10071998)

Anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
fertilization NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
UNLABELLED NN O O
Ultrasonically NN O O
guided NN O O
transvaginal NN O O
oocyte NN O O
retrieval NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
short NN O O
procedure NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
out-patient NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
optimal NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
should NN O O
allow NN O O
good NN O O
surgical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
recovery NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
successful NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

Spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
is NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
institution NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
others NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ultrasonically NN O I-PAR
guided NN O I-PAR
oocyte NN O I-PAR
retrieval NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
45 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
PACU NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
narcotic NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
evening NN O O
of NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
narcotics NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Timed NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
urination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
to NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
for NN O O
transvaginal NN O O
oocyte NN O O
retrieval NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OR NN O O
and NN O O
PACU NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
is NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
, NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
egg NN O O
retrieval NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
receive NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
narcotic NN O O
requirements NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10073522)

Fertility NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
salpingostomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
tubal NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10075386)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
insufficient NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
on NN O O
24-h NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ABPM NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
never-treated NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
According NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
either NN O O
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
week NN O O
apart NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
with NN O O
ABPM NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
sleep-deprivation NN O I-INT
day NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
mean NN O O
24-h NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
mean NN O O
24-h NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
workday NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
nighttime NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
at NN O O
night NN O O
during NN O O
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
sleep-insufficient NN O I-INT
night 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
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
situation NN O O
might NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
diseases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10077140)

Switching NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
chlorofluorocarbon NN O O
( NN O O
CFC NN O O
) NN O O
albuterol NN O O
to NN O O
hydrofluoroalkane-134a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Chlorofluorocarbon NN O O
( NN O O
CFC NN O O
) NN O O
propellants NN O O
deplete NN O O
stratospheric NN O O
ozone NN O O
. NN O O

Production NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CFCs NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
certain NN O O
critical NN O O
exemptions NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
prohibited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Montreal NN O O
Protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
CFCs NN O O
as NN O O
propellants NN O O
in NN O O
metered-dose NN O O
inhalers NN O O
( NN O O
MDIs NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
allowed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
U.S. NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
is NN O O
planning NN O O
the NN O O
transition NN O O
to NN O O
alternative NN O O
propellants NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
MDIs NN O O
. NN O O

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
non-ozone-depleting NN O O
propellant NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
reformulate NN O O
albuterol NN O O
( NN O O
HFA NN O O
albuterol NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
whether NN O O
comparable NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
continues NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
switched NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
CFC NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
HFA NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
stabilized NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CFC NN O I-PAR
albuterol NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O I-INT
continue NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
CFC NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
switched NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
HFA NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
yearlong NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
yearlong NN O O
trial NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
remained NN O O
on NN O O
CFC NN O O
albuterol NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
HFA NN O O
albuterol NN O O
. NN O O

Bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
serial NN O I-OUT
spirometry NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hr NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
self-administered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pulse 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
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
monitoring NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
performing NN O O
prestudy NN O O
and NN O O
poststudy NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
CFC NN O O
albuterol NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
HFA NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
switch NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
pulse 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
ECG NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
remaining NN O O
on NN O O
CFC NN O O
albuterol NN O O
reported NN O O
increased NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
HFA NN O O
albuterol NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
or NN O O
physical NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
switched NN O O
from NN O O
CFC NN O O
albuterol NN O O
to NN O O
HFA NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
receive NN O O
comparable NN O O
bronchodilation NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
CFC NN O O
albuterol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10080319)

Masticatory NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
chewing NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
implant-retained NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
overdentures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
masticatory NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
chewing NN O O
experience NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
explored NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
implant-retained NN O I-INT
overdentures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
many NN O O
relationships NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
oral NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
relationships NN O O
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
comminution NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
artificial NN O O
test NN O O
food NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
masticatory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
chewing NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
implant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
complete NN O I-INT
dentures NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
implant NN O O
treatment NN O O
involved NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
mainly NN O O
implant-supported NN O I-INT
mandibular NN O I-INT
overdenture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
transmandibular NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
implant-tissue-supported NN O I-INT
mandibular NN O I-INT
overdenture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
two NN O O
IMZ NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Masticatory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
chewing NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
substantially NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
implant-retained NN O O
overdentures NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
denture NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
emerged NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
TMI NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
IMZ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
any NN O O
comprehensibility NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
masticatory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chewing NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
linear NN O O
structural NN O O
relation NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
LISREL NN O O
) NN O O
no NN O O
direct NN O O
relationship NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
masticatory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
denture NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
masticatory NN O O
performance NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
imply NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
chewing NN O O
experience NN O O
and NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10084579)

Genotyping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CYP21 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
linked NN O O
chromosome NN O O
6p NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
sex-specific NN O O
gene NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
neonatal NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
genotyping NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
CYP21 NN O I-INT
mutations NN O O
, NN O O
linked NN O O
chromosome NN O O
6p NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
dimorphic NN O O
X-Y NN O O
marker NN O O
from NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood-impregnated NN O I-INT
filter NN O I-INT
papers NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Guthrie NN O O
cards NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
603 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
chosen NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
genotyped NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
17-hydroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
17-OHP NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Swiss NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
correlative NN O I-PAR
hormonal NN O I-PAR
data NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
genotyped NN O O
. NN O O

DNA NN O O
was NN O O
extracted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gene-specific NN O O
PCR NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

CYP21 NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
products NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
ligase NN O O
detection NN O O
reaction NN O O
, NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
analyzing NN O O
9 NN O O
CYP21 NN O O
mutations NN O O
; NN O O
PCR NN O O
products NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
genes NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
direct NN O O
gel NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CYP21 NN O I-INT
genotyping NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
heterozygote NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
classic NN O O
mutations NN O O
( NN O O
excluding NN O O
CYP21 NN O O
deletions NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
nonclassic NN O O
mutations NN O O
in NN O O
New NN O I-PAR
Zealanders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O O
full-term NN O O
affected NN O O
neonates NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
17-OHP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15-1400 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sick NN O O
or NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
or NN O O
infants NN O O
screened NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
17-OHP NN O I-OUT
proved NN O O
genetically NN O O
unaffected NN O O
. NN O O

Genetic NN O I-OUT
linkage NN O I-OUT
disequilibrium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
CYP21 NN O O
mutations NN O O
and NN O O
chromosome NN O O
6p NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

Guthrie NN O O
cards NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
accurately NN O O
genotype NN O O
CYP21 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
congenital NN O O
adrenal NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

CYP21 NN O I-OUT
heterozygote NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
classic NN O I-OUT
mutations NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
genotype NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
hormonal NN O O
newborn NN O I-PAR
screening NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10091821)

Independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
information NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
sphygmomanometrically NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
to NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Increased NN O O
conduit NN O O
vessel NN O O
stiffness NN O O
increases NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
pulsatile NN O O
load NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Pulse NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
modifiers NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
6,781 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Left NN O I-PAR
Ventricular NN O I-PAR
Dysfunction NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Pulse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
related NN O O
positively NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
and NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
inversely NN O O
to NN O O
prior NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
and NN O O
beta-adrenergic NN O O
blocking NN O O
agent NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
female NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diuretic NN O I-INT
use NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
reported NN O O
smoking NN O O
history NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
and NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
use NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
functional NN O O
class NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
a NN O O
61-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
1,582 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1,397 NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
covariates NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
total NN O O
mortality NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
1.05 NN O O
per NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
increment NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.01 NN O O
to NN O O
1.10 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
total NN O O
mortality NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.89 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.85 NN O O
to NN O O
0.94 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
One NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
two NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increased NN O I-OUT
conduit NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10093945)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
typhoid NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Dong NN O I-PAR
Nai NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
Typhoid NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
concerns NN O O
about NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
fluoroquinolone NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
have NN O O
become NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multidrug-resistant NN O I-PAR
typhoid NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
quinolone-resistant NN O O
strains NN O O
of NN O O
Salmonella NN O O
typhi NN O O
have NN O O
recently NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
from NN O O
Vietnam NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
quinolone NN O O
resistance NN O O
becomes NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
alternative NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Cefixime NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
third NN O O
generation NN O O
cephalosporin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
typhoid NN O O
fever NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
typhoid NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
S. NN O O
typhi NN O O
was NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cefixime NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
isolates NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
multidrug-resistant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4.4 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5.2 NN O O
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
9.9 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
1.8 NN O O
to NN O O
15.2 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
cefixime-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( 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
were NN O O
11 NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
relapse NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Short NN O O
course NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
typhoid NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
short NN O O
course NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10094243)

Epinephrine-induced NN O O
panic NN O O
attacks NN O O
and NN O O
hyperventilation NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ventilation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
phobics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
pooled NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
previous NN O O
infusion NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
PCO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tcPCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
continuously NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
epinephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirteen NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
panic NN O O
attack NN O O
during NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tcPCO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
panicking NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
panic NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
tcPCO2 NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
panic NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
substantial NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
indicate NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
hyperventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
index NN O O
for NN O O
epinephrine-induced NN O O
panic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tcPCO2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
rather NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety-related NN O I-OUT
somatic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
further NN O O
reduce NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
bodily NN O O
sensations NN O O
in NN O O
epinephrine-induced NN O I-INT
panic NN O O
attacks NN O O
and NN O O
favor NN O O
a NN O O
biological NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10097996)

The NN O O
TOM NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
new NN O O
instrument NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O I-PAR
theory NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mind NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O O
and NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
instrument NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
TOM NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
scores NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
only NN O O
succeeded NN O O
on NN O O
TOM NN O O
items NN O O
that NN O O
tap NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
domains NN O O
of NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
emotion NN O O
recognition NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
passed NN O O
items NN O O
that NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
mature NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
humor NN O O
, NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
second-order NN O O
beliefs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
2 NN O O
showed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
possesses NN O O
sufficient NN O O
test-retest NN O O
stability NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
3 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
the NN O O
interrater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
4 NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
e.g. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Attention-deficit NN O I-PAR
Hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O O
underlines NN O O
the NN O O
discriminant NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
Study NN O O
4 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
intelligence NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
indexed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Wechsler NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reliable NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
. NN O O

Altogether NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
TOM NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
and NN O O
valid NN O O
instrument NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
various NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10100592)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
nausea/vomiting NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
cancer NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
without NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
in NN O O
tumors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
organs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Keihanshin NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
of NN O O
Hematological NN O O
Malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nausea/vomiting NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
multidrug NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
excluding NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
organs NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
30-min NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
intravenous NN O O
injection NN O O
given NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
s. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
two-group NN O O
random-allocation NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cooperation NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
registration NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
described NN O O
as NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
good NN O O
health NN O O
by NN O O
61.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
55/93 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
instillation NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
47.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
44/93 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
slow NN O O
injection NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
usefulness NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
judgement NN O O
of NN O O
physicians NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
discernible NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sex NN O O
difference NN O O
concerning NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
an NN O O
anemic NN O O
tendency NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
appetite NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
anticancer NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
administration NN O O
method NN O O
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
malignant NN O O
hemopathy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10148879)

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nurse-administered NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
using NN O O
intravenous NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preliminary NN O O
observations NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
narcotic NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
helpful NN O O
during NN O O
labor NN O O
without NN O O
undue NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
investigation NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
request NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
dilation NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
fentanyl NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=37 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
demand NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=43 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
labor NN O O
revealed NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
delay NN O O
in NN O O
setting NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
requesting NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
limitations NN O O
with NN O O
self-administration NN O O
. NN O O

Maternal NN O I-OUT
oversedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

Neonatal NN O I-OUT
naloxone NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
infrequently NN O O
, NN O O
umbilical NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fentanyl NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
postnatal NN O I-OUT
neuroadaptive NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
comparable NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
during NN O O
labor NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
reducing NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
avoiding NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10155556)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
polyarteritis NN O I-PAR
nodosa NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Churg-Strauss NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
indications NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
exchanges NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
polyarteritis NN O I-PAR
nodosa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Churg-Strauss NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
undertook NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
prospective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trials NN O O
including NN O O
236 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
tried NN O O
to NN O O
answer NN O O
several NN O O
important NN O O
questions NN O O
: NN O O
Should NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CYC NN O O
) NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
? NN O O
What NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
place NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
exchanges NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PE NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
vasculitis NN O O
? NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HBV NN O O
) NN O O
related NN O O
PAN NN O O
require NN O O
treatment NN O O
? NN O O
Our NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1981-1983 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
association NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CYC NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
corticosteroids NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
CYC NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CSS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O O
December NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
two NN O O
trials NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
78 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
strategy NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
steroid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immunosuppressive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PAN NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anti-viral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
the NN O O
etiological NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vasculitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
protocol NN O O
including NN O O
56 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
addressed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
CSS NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
PE NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twelve NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
PAN NN O O
and NN O O
CSS NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
think NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
strategy NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
In NN O O
PAN NN O O
without NN O O
HBV NN O O
and NN O O
CSS NN O O
: NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
association NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CYC NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
better NN O O
CYC NN O O
dose NN O O
adaptation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
PAN NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
HBV NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
anti-viral NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
seroconverted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
its NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
delay NN O O
before NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
therapy NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
necrotizing NN O O
vasculitis NN O O
: NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
are NN O O
obviously NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
PAN NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
where NN O O
immune NN O O
complex NN O O
deposition NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
PAN NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
HBV NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
CSS NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
presently NN O O
no NN O O
argument NN O O
supporting NN O O
systematic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10172265)

Protocol NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Acute NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Trial NN O O
-- NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Acute NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
MAST NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
companion NN O O
article NN O O
appearing NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
developed NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
stroke NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombolysis NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
recanalisation NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
recent NN O O
meta NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
small-sized NN O O
studies NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
thrombolysis NN O I-INT
could NN O O
offer NN O O
some NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
invalidity NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
adequately NN O O
designed NN O O
and NN O O
sized NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10188144)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MILOR NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Mizolastine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
histamine NN O O
H1-antagonist NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
Europe NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
and NN O O
urticaria NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
loratadine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
urticaria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
247 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CIU NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
88 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
79 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
80 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mizolastine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
both NN O O
relieved NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CIU NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
loratadine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mizolastine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-36.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-29.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0071 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-16.3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mizolastine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0090 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
weekly NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urticaria NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
mizolastine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
7.9 NN O O
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0061 NN O O
; NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
8.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0221 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
13.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Angioedema NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
extent NN O O
with NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
repolarisation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
either NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
loratadine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Mizolastine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
confirmed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
agent NN O O
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
loratadine NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
CIU NN O O
. NN O O

Mizolastine NN O I-INT
acted NN O O
as NN O O
rapidly NN O O
as NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
urticarial NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10190267)

Rett NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rett NN O O
syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
severe NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
etiology NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
almost NN O O
exclusively NN O O
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
etiology NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
carnitine NN O O
deficiency NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Rett NN O O
syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
Rett NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
phases NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
parents/caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
medical NN O O
follow-up NN O O
using NN O O
three NN O O
established NN O O
tools NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Rett NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Motor NN O I-OUT
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hand NN O I-OUT
Apraxia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
Well-Being NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
comparing NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
parents/caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
medical NN O O
follow-up NN O O
detected NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
well-being NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
medical NN O O
review NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Hand NN O I-OUT
Apraxia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
girls NN O O
on NN O O
L-carnitine NN O O
. NN O O

Identification NN O O
of NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Rett NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
While NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
major NN O O
functional NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
ability NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
reported NN O O
could NN O O
still NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
only NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
girls NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
disorder NN O O
are NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10194485)

High-pressure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rapid-inflation NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
venous NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
post-thrombotic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
preventable NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mortality NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
important NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
DVT NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
intermittent NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
compression NN O O
( NN O O
IPC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
venous NN O O
stasis NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
velocity NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
return NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
conventional NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
IPC NN O O
use NN O O
low NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
slow NN O O
inflation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
air NN O O
bladder NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
leg NN O O
to NN O O
augment NN O O
venous NN O O
return NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
compression NN O O
devices NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
that NN O O
produce NN O O
high NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
inflation NN O O
of NN O O
air NN O O
cuffs NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
plantar NN O O
plexus NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
foot NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
calf NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
venous NN O O
velocity NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
high-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
rapid-inflation NN O O
compression NN O O
devices NN O O
versus NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
low-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
slow-inflation NN O O
compression NN O O
devices NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
post-thrombotic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremities NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremities NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
post-thrombotic NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
duplex NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ATL-Ultramark NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
Advanced NN O O
Tech NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
Bothell NN O O
, NN O O
Wash NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
DVT NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
before NN O O
subject NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Venous NN O O
velocities NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
IPC NN O O
devices NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-INT
high-pressure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rapid-compression NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-pressure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
slow-inflation NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

Maximal NN O O
venous NN O O
velocities NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
popliteal NN O O
vein NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
devices NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
velocity NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
compression NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
velocities NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
venous NN O O
velocities NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
veins NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
popliteal NN O O
veins NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
volunteers NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
post-thrombotic NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rapid-inflation NN O I-OUT
compression NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
popliteal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
and NN O O
post-thrombotic NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

High-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
rapid-inflation NN O O
compression NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
popliteal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
veins NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
healthy NN O O
volunteers NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
post-thrombotic NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
compression NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
volunteers NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
post-thrombotic NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
velocity NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
popliteal NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
High-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
rapid-inflation NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
compression NN O O
increases NN O O
popliteal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
low-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
slow-inflation NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
compression NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-thrombotic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
compromised NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
IPC NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
velocity NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
rapid-inflation NN O O
compression NN O O
device NN O O
is NN O O
preserved NN O O
. NN O O

High-pressure NN O O
, NN O O
rapid-inflation NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
compression NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
additional NN O O
protection NN O O
from NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
complications NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
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
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
post-thrombotic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10195003)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
non-ionic NN O I-INT
dimer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iodixanol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O I-INT
non-ionic NN O I-INT
monomer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iohexol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
urography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
392 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
whether NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
intravenous NN O O
urograms NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
dimeric NN O O
, NN O O
non-ionic NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
iodixanol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
monomeric NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
non-ionic NN O I-INT
iohexol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
iodixanol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
iohexol NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
either NN O O
9 NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
gI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
film NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
consensus NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
four NN O O
radiologists NN O O
. NN O O

Iodixanol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
was NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
over NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Iohexol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
gI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
81.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
gI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
iodixanol NN O O
9 NN O O
gI NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
both NN O O
iohexol NN O I-INT
9 NN O O
gI NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
gI NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
for NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Iodixanol NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
distension NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
iohexol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Iodixanol NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
iohexol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10197379)

Isoniazid NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials 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 O
of NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
in NN O O
tuberculin NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
test-positive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Mexico NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Haiti NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Zambia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Uganda NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Kenya NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2367 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2162 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
isoniazid NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
systematic NN O O
search NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
from NN O O
1985 NN O O
to NN O O
October NN O O
1997 NN O O
for NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
reviewers NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
candidate NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
eligible NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
effect NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
conducting NN O O
secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
for NN O O
tuberculin NN O O
skin NN O O
test-positive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
persons NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
trials NN O O
varied NN O O
between NN O O
0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
3.2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Pooling NN O O
all NN O O
seven NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
developing NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
of NN O O
0.58 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.43-0.80 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
0.94 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.83-1.07 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
tuberculin NN O O
skin NN O O
test-positive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
persons NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.40 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.24-0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.84 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.54-1.30 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
summary NN O O
estimates NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consistency NN O O
of NN O O
results NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
across NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.10 NN O O
, NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
value NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
restricted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tuberculin NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
test-positive NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10200837)

Behavioral NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Grandin NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Hug NN O I-INT
Machine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
One NN O O
symptom NN O O
common NN O O
to NN O O
many NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
arousal NN O O
or NN O O
anxiety NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
on NN O O
arousal NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
with NN O O
Grandin NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Hug NN O I-INT
Machine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
that NN O O
allows NN O O
self-administration NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
body NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
disengaged NN O I-INT
Hug NN O I-INT
Machine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
20-min NN O O
sessions NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Arousal NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
behaviorally NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Conners NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiologically NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
galvanic NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GSR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Behavioral NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
marginally NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whose NN O O
GSR NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
deep NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
somewhat NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
GSR NN O I-OUT
arousal NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
priori NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
calming NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
arousal NN O O
or NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10201101)

Reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
overselectivity NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
nonverbal NN O I-INT
differential NN O I-INT
observing NN O I-INT
responses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O I-PAR
stimulus NN O I-OUT
overselectivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-PAR
matching-to-sample NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
which NN O O
two NN O I-INT
sample NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
were NN O O
displayed NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Intermediate NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
could NN O O
match NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
samples NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Accuracy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
condition NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
observing NN O O
response NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
procedure NN O O
prompted NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
identity-matching NN O O
responses NN O O
that NN O O
required NN O O
observation NN O O
and NN O O
discrimination NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
sample NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observing NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
never NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
differential NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
observing NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
prompted NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
differential NN O I-INT
observing NN O I-INT
responses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
prompted NN O O
, NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
to NN O O
intermediate NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
stimulus NN O I-OUT
overselectivity NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
controls NN O O
observing NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
verifies NN O O
discrimination NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
such NN O O
procedures NN O O
alone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
insufficient NN O O
for NN O O
lasting NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10203382)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
Mycobacterium NN O O
avium NN O O
complex NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
( NN O O
MAC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
MAC NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O O
HIV NN O O
Trials NN O O
Network NN O O
Protocol NN O O
010 NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
including NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
current NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mycobacterial NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bacteriologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Mycobacterium NN O I-PAR
avium NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MAC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
bacteremia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
An NN O O
observational NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
MAC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
hospital-based NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
cities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bacteriologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
consecutive NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MAC NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
apart NN O O
within NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Prior NN O O
AIDS NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
Karnofsky NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
active NN O O
unstable NN O O
AIDS-related NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O O
carinii NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
univariate NN O O
regression NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
rifabutin NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
survival NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
study NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
mycobacterial NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
relative NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
clearing NN O O
, NN O O
1.97 NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
log10 NN O O
colony NN O O
forming NN O O
count 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
1.36-2.87 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
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
univariate NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
clearance NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
previous NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
rifabutin NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
predictor NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
clearing NN O O
, NN O O
0.39 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.17-0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
MAC NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
clearance NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10208073)

Clinical NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
aspirations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
aspirations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CB NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
or NN O O
CB NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain-related NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
at NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Hypnosis NN O O
and NN O O
CB NN O O
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
exhibited NN O O
more NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CB NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
and NN O O
CB NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preparing NN O I-OUT
pediatric NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
aspiration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10209728)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
visual NN O O
field NN O O
damage NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal-tension NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-normal NN O I-PAR
intraocular NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
brovincamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
selective NN O O
cerebral NN O I-INT
vasodilator NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
further NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
field NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal-tension NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NTG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-normal 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
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NTG NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
57.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
consistently NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
brovincamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
untreated NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
field NN O I-INT
examinations NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
30-2 NN O O
Humphrey NN O O
perimeter NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPSD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
74 NN O O
test NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
without NN O O
media NN O O
opacity NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
refraction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
MD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CPSD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
TD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
[ NN O O
SE NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
were NN O O
-0.778 NN O O
( NN O O
0.178 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-0.071 NN O O
( NN O O
0.195 NN O O
) NN O O
dB/year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
negative NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CPSD NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.032 NN O O
( NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.004 NN O O
( NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
dB/year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
intergroup NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
TD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
negative NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
test NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
points NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
trend NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
intergroup NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
13.1 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
brovincamine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
intergroup NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
brovincamine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
retard NN O O
further NN O O
visual NN O O
field NN O O
deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NTG NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
low-normal NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10211492)

Local NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
rubber NN O I-PAR
band NN O I-PAR
ligation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
local NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
hemorrhoidal NN O O
banding NN O O
causes NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
After NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoidal NN O I-PAR
banding NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1:200,000 NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
just NN O I-INT
superior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
band NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
graded NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
postbanding NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
115 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
42 NN O O
received NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
received NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postbanding NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
graded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
shaking NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
postbanding NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
sustained NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
banding NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shaking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lightheadedness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Bupivacaine NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
symptoms NN O O
long NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O O
a NN O O
trip NN O O
home NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
outpatient NN O O
department NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10213233)

Microbiologic NN O O
yields NN O O
and NN O O
complication NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
vitreous NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
mechanized NN O I-INT
vitreous NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Endophthalmitis NN O O
Vitrectomy NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
microbiologic NN O O
yields NN O O
and NN O O
complication NN O O
rates NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
vitreous NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
tap NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vitreous NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Endophthalmitis NN O I-PAR
Vitrectomy NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EVS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
420 NN O I-PAR
EVS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
endophthalmitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
201 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
vitreous NN O I-INT
tap NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
pars NN O I-INT
plana NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
193 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
9-12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Vitreous NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
biopsy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
20-gauge NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
cutting NN O O
instrument NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
needle NN O O
tap NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
22-27-gauge NN O O
needle NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
aspiration NN O O
by NN O O
needle NN O O
tap NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
vitreous NN O O
biopsy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
201 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
tap NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
needle NN O I-PAR
tap NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
127 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
mechanized NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
needle NN O I-PAR
tap NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
was NN O O
aborted NN O O
to NN O O
mechanized NN O O
biopsy NN O O
( NN O O
abort NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
hyphema NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
tap NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
biopsy NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
abort NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
tap NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
biopsy NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
abort NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Respective NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
tap NN O O
eyes NN O O
and NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
biopsy NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
final NN O O
acuity NN O O
< NN O O
5/200 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
tap NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
biopsy NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
abort NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
largely NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
virulent NN O I-OUT
organisms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tap NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
biopsy NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
thresholds NN O O
( NN O O
20/40 NN O O
and NN O O
20/100 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
mechanized NN O O
vitreous NN O O
biopsy NN O O
and NN O O
needle NN O O
tap NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
microbiologic NN O O
yield NN O O
, NN O O
operative NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
short-term NN O O
( NN O O
9-12 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachment NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
visual NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Choice NN O O
of NN O O
vitreous NN O O
sampling NN O O
procedure NN O O
must NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
judgment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10213554)

Isradipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
raised NN O O
glycosylated NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10223244)

Allelic NN O I-OUT
imbalance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clonal NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
understand NN O O
better NN O O
the NN O O
genetic NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clonal NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
files NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Mayo NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
retropubic NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
between NN O I-PAR
1987-1991 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DNA NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O O
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
from NN O O
primary NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
matched NN O O
synchronous NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
metastases NN O O
by NN O O
tissue NN O O
microdissection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oligonucleotide NN O O
primer NN O O
pairs NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
microsatellite NN O O
DNA NN O O
markers NN O O
were NN O O
D8S133 NN O O
, NN O O
D8S136 NN O O
, NN O O
D8S137 NN O O
, NN O O
ANK1 NN O O
on NN O O
chromosome NN O O
8p12-21 NN O O
, NN O O
LPLTET NN O O
on NN O O
chromosome NN O O
8p22 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
D17S855 NN O O
( NN O O
intragenic NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
gene NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
chromosome NN O O
17q21 NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
case NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
informative NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
loci NN O O
tested NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
further NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allelic NN O I-OUT
imbalance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
paired NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
informative NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
matched NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
metastatic NN O O
tumors NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
marker NN O O
locus NN O O
; NN O O
discordant NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
allele NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
marker NN O O
loci NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
metastatic NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
discordant NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
other NN O O
marker NN O O
loci NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
genetic NN O O
marker NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metastatic NN O O
tumor NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
matched NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
patients NN O O
displayed NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
allele NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
more NN O O
marker NN O O
loci NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
matched NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allelic NN O I-OUT
imbalance NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
metastatic NN O O
tumors NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
marker NN O O
analyzed 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
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
different NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
allelic NN O I-OUT
deletion NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
acquired NN O O
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
progression NN O O
to NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
genetic NN O O
composition NN O O
between NN O O
primary NN O O
prostate NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
metastases NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
cancer NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
genetic NN O O
instability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clonal NN O O
divergence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10225743)

Blood NN O I-OUT
purification NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
critical NN O O
care NN O O
medicine NN O O
: NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
adsorption NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
purifying NN O I-INT
technologies NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
since NN O O
1979 NN O O
when NN O O
plasma NN O O
exchange NN O O
with NN O O
hollow-fiber NN O O
membranes NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
technologies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
applied NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
toxic NN O O
substances NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O O
diseases NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
associated NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
summarizes NN O O
these NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
efficacies NN O O
for NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Attempts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
remove NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
sepsis NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
circulation NN O O
using NN O O
polymyxin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
immobilized NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
charcoal NN O I-INT
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Attempts NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
remove NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
eicosanoides NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
coagulative NN O O
factors NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
circulation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
body NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O O
hemofiltration NN O O
or NN O O
hemodiafiltration NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
representative NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
methods NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
several NN O O
issues NN O O
remain NN O O
unresolved NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
sepsis NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
with NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
indications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
removal NN O O
with NN O O
polymyxin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
immobilized NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
are NN O O
summarized NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10230191)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
communication NN O O
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 I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
communication NN O O
skills 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
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3.0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
5.1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
appropriate NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Communication NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
from NN O O
videotaped NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
seminaturalistic NN O I-INT
parent-child NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Child NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
language NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
similar NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
9.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-124 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
echolalia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.16 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Spearman NN O O
rho NN O O
= NN O O
0.58 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
's NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
words NN O O
( NN O O
rho NN O O
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
modest NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
and NN O O
restlessness NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
short-term NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
deficit NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10235220)

Long NN O O
term NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
anti-HBe-positive NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
poor NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
anti-HBe-positive NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
is NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
whether NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
anti-HBe-positive NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
alpha-N1 NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
t.w NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
24 NN O O
wk NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
: NN O O
720 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
9 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
t.w NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
18 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
( NN O O
972 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

t.w NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
16 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
756 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
HBV-DNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
10 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
response NN O O
by NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
tested NN O O
monthly NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
undetectable NN O I-OUT
HBV-DNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
IgM NN O O
anti-HBc NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
7 NN O O
I.U NN O O
. NN O O

Paul NN O O
Ehrlich NN O O
Institute NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
tested NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
18-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
maintained NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
34 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
three NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
interferon NN O O
of NN O O
anti-HBe-positive NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
is NN O O
poor NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
IFN NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
schedule NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
stringent NN O O
the NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
the NN O O
relapse NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10337083)

Getting NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O O
behavior NN O O
survey NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
three NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
survey NN O O
on NN O O
sexual NN O O
behavior 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
specify NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
accurate NN O O
, NN O O
reliable NN O O
and NN O O
valid NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assure NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
keep NN O O
respondents NN O O
' NN O O
privacy NN O O
confidential NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
anonymous NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
survey NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
360 NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
respondents NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
basic NN O I-PAR
resident NN O I-PAR
registers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
geographically NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
the NN O O
registries NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
represent NN O O
each NN O O
sex NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
each NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
procedure NN O O
of NN O O
requesting NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
and NN O O
providing NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Postal NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Telephone NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Face-to-face NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
survey NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
from NN O O
October NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
mentioned NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
69.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
69.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
55.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
method NN O O
when NN O O
only NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
judging NN O O
from NN O O
our NN O O
effort NN O O
and NN O O
expense NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mail NN O I-INT
survey NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
possible NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
national NN O O
sexual NN O O
behavior NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10337657)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pathologic NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
limit NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initial NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Italian NN O I-PAR
PROSIT NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
finding NN O O
organ-confined NN O O
untreated NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
PCa NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
pathological NN O O
examination NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
only NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
clinically NN O O
organ-confined NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
tumour NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
resection NN O O
margin NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
T2 NN O O
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
understaging NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O O
limit NN O O
positivity NN O O
have NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
management NN O O
practices NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NHT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
optimal NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
NHT NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
undertook NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NHT NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCa NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
limit NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
either NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
RP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
259 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
retropubic NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
PROSIT NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whole NN O O
mount NN O O
sectioning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
RP NN O O
specimens NN O O
was NN O O
adopted NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
centre NN O O
for NN O O
accurately NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
pathologic NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
limit NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
By NN O O
February NN O O
1998 NN O O
, NN O O
haematoxylin NN O O
and NN O O
eosin NN O O
stained NN O O
sections NN O O
from NN O O
155 NN O O
RP NN O O
specimens NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
received NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
reviewing NN O O
pathologist NN O O
( NN O O
RM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

64 NN O O
cases NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
total NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

NHT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O O
RP NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
58 NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

114 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
B NN O O
whereas NN O O
41 NN O O
were NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
C. NN O O
After NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
B NN O O
tumours NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
vs. NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
NHT NN O O
therapy NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
clinical NN O O
C NN O O
tumours NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
B NN O O
tumours NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
pathological NN O O
stage NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
C NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Negative NN O O
margins NN O O
: NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial 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
total NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
RP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
B NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
downstaging NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
RP NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
two NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
NHT NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
C NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10337847)

Problem-solving NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caregivers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cognitively NN O O
impaired NN O O
: NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Individualized NN O O
problem-solving NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caregivers NN O O
of NN O O
cognitively NN O O
impaired NN O O
relatives NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
caregivers NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
caregiving NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
counseling NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
caregivers NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
problem-solving NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
expenditures NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
utilization NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Caregivers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cognitively NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Psychosocial NN O O
adjustment NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expenditures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
caregivers NN O O
receiving NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
adjustment NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
they NN O O
found NN O O
counseling NN O O
very NN O O
helpful NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
caregivers NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
logical NN O O
analysis NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
had NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,53 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
9.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,53 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
4.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.035 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Caregivers NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
counseling NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
whose NN O O
relatives NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
23 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
live NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Almost NN O O
half NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
relatives NN O O
entered NN O O
nursing NN O O
homes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
counseling NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
relatives NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
annualized NN O O
per NN O O
person NN O O
expenditures NN O O
for NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Cdn NN O O
$ NN O O
23,437 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Cdn NN O O
$ NN O O
15,151 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Caregivers NN O O
found NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
most NN O O
helpful NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
indicating NN O O
infrequent NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
logical NN O O
analysis NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
showed NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10338217)

Oral NN O O
and NN O O
parenteral NN O O
glutamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
transplantation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Total NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GLN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
enteral NN O O
and NN O O
parenteral NN O O
glutamine NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
For NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
GLN NN O O
in NN O O
BMT NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
GLN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
glycine-control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GLY NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
g NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
became NN O O
necessary NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
GLN NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
GLN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.57 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
GLY NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
, NN O O
isocaloric NN O O
and NN O O
isonitrogenous NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
allogeneic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALLO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
BMT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AUTO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
AUTO NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
in-hospital NN O I-PAR
deaths NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
GLN NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
respective NN O O
comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
ALLO NN O O
and NN O O
AUTO NN O O
transplants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GLN NN O O
and NN O O
GLY NN O O
hematologic NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
AUTO NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
tumor 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
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
BMT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TPN NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
500/mm3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Acute NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
us NN O I-OUT
host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
GLN NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
GLY NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
TPN NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
GLN NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
and NN O O
parenteral NN O O
GLN NN O I-INT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
having NN O O
AUTO NN O O
or NN O O
ALLO NN O O
BMT NN O O
for NN O O
hematologic NN O O
or NN O O
solid NN O O
malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GLN NN O O
in NN O O
BMT NN O O
seems NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10340153)

Gender NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
objective NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
indexes NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
K. NN O O
A. NN O O
Perkins NN O O
( NN O O
1996 NN O O
) NN O O
recently NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
reinforcement NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
consequently NN O O
, NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
should NN O O
benefit NN O O
men NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
tested NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O

Polysomnographic NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postcessation NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-PAR
nicotine NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O O
sleep NN O O
parameters NN O O
supported NN O O
Perkins NN O O
's NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
and NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
suppressing NN O I-OUT
certain NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O I-OUT
produce NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
iatrogenic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Valid NN O O
and NN O O
reliable NN O O
self-report NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
reveal NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
NRT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10352330)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte/colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte/colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
respiratory NN O O
distress NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
ARDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
ARDS NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
infection NN O O
differed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
historical NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
132 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematological NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-PAR
organ NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
ARDS NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
infection NN O O
between NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
remarkable NN O I-PAR
difference NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
administered NN O O
differed NN O O
slightly NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
documented NN O O
infection NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
ARDS NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
any NN O O
anticancer NN O O
agent NN O O
or NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
ARDS NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
session NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.10 NN O O
, NN O O
per NN O O
case NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.30 NN O O
, NN O O
chi2 NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ARDS NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
session NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.21 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
tendency NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.100 NN O O
, NN O O
chi2 NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ARDS NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.025 NN O O
, NN O O
chi2 NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ARDS NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
promotes NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
ARDS NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10356632)

Event-related NN O O
potential NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O O
selective NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
dependent NN O I-PAR
amphetamine NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND 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
further NN O O
investigate NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
attention-related NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
dependent NN O I-PAR
amphetamine NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
event-related NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
selective NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
ERPs NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
that NN O O
involved NN O O
detecting NN O O
infrequent NN O O
long-duration NN O O
target NN O O
tones NN O O
presented NN O O
among NN O O
short-duration NN O O
tones NN O O
that NN O O
varied NN O O
in NN O O
location NN O O
( NN O O
left NN O O
vs. NN O O
right NN O O
ear NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pitch NN O O
( NN O O
low NN O O
vs. NN O O
high NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Amphetamine NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
amphetamine NN O I-PAR
Severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Dependence NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
high-dependence NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
slowed NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
negativity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
N1 NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
location-relevant NN O O
nontarget NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

Poor NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
SAT NN O O
was NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
processing NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
poor NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Wechsler NN O I-OUT
Memory NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
Attention/Concentration NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
severely NN O O
dependent NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
suffer NN O O
an NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
selectively NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
relevant NN O O
auditory NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
produce NN O O
poor NN O O
automatic NN O O
preferential NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
relevant NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O O
load NN O O
on NN O O
limited NN O O
attentional NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10360656)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
human NN O I-INT
interferon-beta NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
natural NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
interferon-beta NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN-beta NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
5-FU NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
5-FU NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
after NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

bolus NN O O
of NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IFN-beta NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
weekly NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
M NN O O
IU NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
intolerable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
IFN-3 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
7.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0435 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
15.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
significantly NN O O
increasing NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
5-FU NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Cumulative NN O I-OUT
5-FU NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fever NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
only NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
was NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
initiated NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
synergy NN O O
between NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
and NN O O
IFN-beta NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10361382)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
starvation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Starvation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
blunted NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
thyrotropin-releasing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
peak NN O O
minus NN O O
baseline NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
mIU/L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
basal NN O O
TSH NN O O
and NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
somatostatin NN O O
on NN O O
TSH NN O O
secretion NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
is NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
hypothalamic NN O I-OUT
somatostatinergic NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
starving NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
possible NN O O
involvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endogenous NN O I-OUT
opioids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mechanism NN O I-OUT
underlying NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
TSH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
micrograms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
bolus NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T3 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
urinary-free NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
27-35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
ideal NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
21 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TRH NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
overnight NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
administrations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
prolonged NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
56 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
starvation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
starvation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
remaining NN O O
7 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
at NN O O
weekly NN O O
intervals NN O O
with NN O O
TRH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
a NN O O
fasting NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
of NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
TRH-induced NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
prolonged NN O O
starvation NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
overnight NN O O
fast NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
changed NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
TSH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
starvation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
naloxone NN O O
and NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
TRH-induced NN O O
TSH NN O O
rise NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
overnight NN O O
fasting NN O O
, NN O O
naloxone NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
4 NN O O
subjects NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
TSH NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
TRH NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
TSH NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
TRH NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
naloxone NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TRH NN O I-INT
the NN O O
TSH NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TRH NN O O
plus NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
naloxone-sensitive NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioids NN O O
exert NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cholinergic NN O I-OUT
stimulatory NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
prolonged NN O O
starvation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O O
hypothalamic NN O O
somatostatinergic NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
TSH NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
TRH NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10361648)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
videotape NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
on NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
compliance NN O O
after NN O O
coronary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
recommended NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
videotapes NN O I-INT
that NN O O
involved NN O O
different NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
preparing NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
posthospital NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tapes NN O O
differed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
portrayed NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
steady NN O O
, NN O O
forward NN O O
progression NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
ups NN O O
and NN O O
downs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixteen NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
view NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
videotapes NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
also NN O O
completed NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
viewed NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
videotapes NN O I-INT
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
release NN O O
reported NN O O
higher NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
adhering NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recommended NN O I-OUT
low-fat NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Viewing NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
videotapes NN O O
also NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
viewed NN O O
the NN O O
tape NN O O
that NN O O
portrayed NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
as NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
ups NN O O
and NN O O
downs NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
strenuous NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
videotapes NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
CABG NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10373718)

Emerging NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
platelet NN O I-INT
glycoprotein NN O I-INT
IIB/IIIA NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10374155)

Primary NN O I-INT
capsulectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lensectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
limbal NN O O
versus NN O O
pars NN O O
plana NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
limbal NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O O
pars NN O I-INT
plana NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
capsulectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-OUT
cataract NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SETTING NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Ophthalmology NN O O
, NN O O
Labbafinejad NN O O
Medical NN O O
Center NN O O
, NN O O
Tehran NN O O
, NN O O
Iran NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
being NN O O
matched NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
eyes 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
and NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lensectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
intraocular NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
IOL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
capsulectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
limbus NN O O
in NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
pars NN O O
plana NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postsurgical NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
clarity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
synechias NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
iris NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IOL NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
capsulectomy NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glaucoma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cystoid NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
tear NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
refraction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
approaches NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
anatomic NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
encouraging NN O O
when NN O O
posterior NN O I-INT
capsulectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
limbal NN O O
or NN O O
pars NN O O
plana NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
lensectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
IOL NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
techniques NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
surgeon NN O O
experience NN O O
and NN O O
skill NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10380161)

Inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2.0 NN O I-PAR
ppm NN O I-PAR
nitrogen NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nitrogen NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NO2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
indoor NN O O
air NN O O
pollutant NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
homes NN O O
with NN O O
unvented NN O O
combustion NN O O
appliances NN O O
. NN O O

Epidemiological NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
living NN O O
in NN O O
homes NN O O
with NN O O
unvented NN O O
heating NN O O
sources NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
respiratory NN O O
infections NN O O
than NN O O
children NN O O
living NN O O
in NN O O
homes NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
human NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
acutely NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5-2.0 NN O O
ppm NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
little NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
inflammation NN O O
or NN O O
decreased NN O O
host NN O O
resistance NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
reported NN O O
here NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2.0 NN O I-PAR
ppm NN O I-PAR
NO2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
filtered NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
moderate NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bronchoalveolar NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
morning NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lavage NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
predominantly NN O O
bronchial NN O O
washing NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
lavage NN O O
; NN O O
BL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
predominantly NN O O
alveolar NN O O
washing NN O O
( NN O O
BAL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
BL NN O O
, NN O O
NO2 NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
polymorphonuclear NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PMNs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alpha1-antitrypsin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
epithelial NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
BAL NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
NO2-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
mediators NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
alveolar NN O O
macrophages NN O O
from NN O O
BAL NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
phagocytose NN O I-OUT
unopsonized NN O I-OUT
Candida NN O I-OUT
albicans NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
superoxide NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
NO2- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
air-exposed NN O O
macrophages NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
aerosol NN O O
bolus NN O O
recovery NN O O
technique NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fraction NN O O
of NN O O
aerosol NN O O
recovered NN O O
following NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
obstructive NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10382082)

Cycle NN O O
control NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
levonorgestrel/ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms/20 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
norethindrone/ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
micrograms/20 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LNG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Aless/Loette NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1000 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
norethindrone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NETA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Loestrin NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
1/20 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
control NN O O
over NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
274 NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
LNG/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
289 NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NETA/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
LNG/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
menstrual NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intermenstrual NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amenorrhea NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
NETA/EE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cycle NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
63.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
normal NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LNG/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
41.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NETA/EE NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
cycles NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NETA/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
amenorrheic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LNG/EE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
spotting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
cycles NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LNG/EE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
34.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
NETA/EE NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
62.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
56.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
cycle NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
good NN O O
cycle NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
OC NN O O
containing NN O O
20 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
EE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
LNG/20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O O
EE NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
better NN O O
cycle NN O O
control NN O O
than NN O O
1000 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
NETA/20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O O
EE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10385063)

Calcitriol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
bone NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Osteoporosis NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
calcitriol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on 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
76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
calcitriol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
vertebrae NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
dual-energy NN O I-OUT
X-ray NN O I-OUT
absorptiometry NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12-57 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
apart NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
annual NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
-0.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
25th NN O O
and NN O O
75th NN O O
percentiles NN O O
) NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.6 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
-1.4 NN O O
( NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
, NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
annual NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
annual NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
-0.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
-2.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
25th NN O O
and NN O O
75th NN O O
percentiles NN O O
) NN O O
annual NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
( NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
( NN O O
-3.8 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
calcitriol NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10402369)

Adjuvant NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
in-vitro NN O O
fertilization NN O O
in NN O O
poor NN O I-PAR
responder NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
prospectively NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
gonadotrophin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
poor NN O I-PAR
responder NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
assisted NN O I-PAR
reproduction NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
flare-up NN O I-INT
gonadotrophin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRHa NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
elevated NN O I-INT
pure NN O I-INT
follicle NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pFSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
flare-up NN O I-INT
GnRHa NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
elevated NN O I-INT
pFSH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
submitted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
oestradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ultrasonographic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
follicular NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diameter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
thickness NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
uterine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perifollicular NN O I-INT
arteries NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
evaluations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
follicular NN O O
fluid NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
arginine NN O O
, NN O O
citrulline NN O O
, NN O O
nitrite/nitrate NN O O
( NN O O
NO2-/NO3- NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
insulin-like NN O O
growth NN O O
factor-1 NN O O
( NN O O
IGF-1 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
cancellation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
collected NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
transferred NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arginine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
citrulline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NO2-/NO3- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IGF-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
poor NN O I-PAR
responder NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
improve NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
receptivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10404444)

Asthma NN O O
: NN O O
communication NN O O
between NN O O
hospital NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
actively NN O O
involve NN O O
General NN O I-PAR
Practitioners NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
postdischarge NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
improved NN O O
their NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
staff NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODOLOGY NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Royal NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Melbourne NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
identifiable NN O I-PAR
GP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
GPs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
telephoned NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
admission NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
GPs NN O O
received NN O O
printed NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
detailing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recommended NN O I-INT
postdischarge NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
booklets NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follow-up NN O I-INT
appointments NN O I-INT
were NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
their NN O O
GPs NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
GPs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
GPs NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
communication NN O O
( NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
48.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
GPs NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
communication NN O O
as NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
extremely NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
GPs NN O O
believed NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
75.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
44.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
understanding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
62.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
despite NN O O
there NN O O
being NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
GPs NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
72.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Qualitative NN O O
data NN O O
supported NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
with NN O O
GPs NN O O
expressing NN O O
approval NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
actively NN O O
involve NN O O
GPs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postdischarge NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
staff NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
Royal NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Hospital NN O O
, NN O O
Melbourne NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
insufficient NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10410152)

[ NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
between NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
granisetron NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
randomization NN O O
between NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
granisetron NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Granisetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
micrograms/kg NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
at NN O O
125 NN O O
mg/body NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
difference NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
scored NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
grades NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
every NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
its NN O O
completion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
as NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
combination NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Nausea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
46.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
92.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
clearly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevention NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
7 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
2-10 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
it NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2-5 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
its NN O O
completion NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Granisetron NN O I-INT
revealed NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10414756)

Moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
elements NN O O
of NN O O
step NN O O
aerobics NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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 I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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 I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
9yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
ramp NN O O
pattern NN O O
cycle NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
uptake NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
12-week NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
progressing NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
aerobics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
perform NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
to NN O O
18.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9mL/kg/min NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
26 NN O O
to NN O O
99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
watts NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.000 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
parameters NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
critical NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Moderate-intensity NN O O
step NN O O
aerobics NN O O
training NN O O
significantly NN O O
increases NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
workloads NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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 I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10424316)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
7-day NN O O
periods NN O O
on NN O O
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Neither NN O O
captopril NN O O
nor NN O O
enalapril NN O O
influenced NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Captopril NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
decreased NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Enalapril NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
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
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
central NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
were NN O O
minor NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
constant NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10429005)

Why NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
sudden NN O O
infant NN O O
death NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
chemoreflex NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
why NN O O
prone NN O O
sleeping NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
sudden NN O O
infant NN O O
death NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
SIDS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Swallowing NN O O
and NN O O
arousal NN O O
are NN O O
crucial NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
chemoreflex NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
these NN O O
reflexes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
pharyngeal NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
sleep NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
after NN O O
parental NN O O
consent NN O O
and NN O O
ethics NN O O
approval NN O O
. NN O O

Polygraphic NN O O
recordings NN O O
included NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quiet NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
electroencephalogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
solid NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initial NN O I-INT
sleeping NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
minute NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
instilled NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
oropharynx NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
power NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
> NN O O
/=10 NN O O
babies NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
statistics NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
164 NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
evoked NN O O
airway NN O O
protective NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
pharyngeal NN O O
infusion NN O O
were NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
arousal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
( NN O O
prone NN O O
: NN O O
21.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.0 NN O O
] NN O O
swallows/min NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
-9.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.1 NN O O
] NN O O
breaths/min NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
supine NN O O
: NN O O
32 NN O O
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-2 NN O O
. NN O O

9 NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) 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
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
arousal NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
water NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
airway NN O O
protection NN O O
is NN O O
compromised NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
sleeping NN O O
position NN O O
during NN O O
active NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
infants NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
minute NN O O
pharyngeal NN O O
fluid NN O O
volumes NN O O
of NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mL NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
because NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
compensatory NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
arousal NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
reflexes NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O O
sleep NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
SIDS NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10437192)

Clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obstinate NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
supplementing NN O I-INT
qi NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
activating NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10439763)

Preoperative NN O O
small-dose NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
preemptive NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
preemptive NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
128 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
0.15 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5-mL NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
0.15 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
standard NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
procedure NN O O
including NN O O
sufentanil NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
analgesia NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

morphine NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
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
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
intergroup NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
hallucinations NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
nightmares NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
administering NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
We NN O O
administered NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
small NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preoperative NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
elicit NN O O
a NN O O
preemptive NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Ketamine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
at NN O O
closure NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10441604)

Phenobarbital NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Seizures NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
phenobarbital NN O I-INT
or NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
directly NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
1990 NN O O
to NN O O
1995 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
electroencephalography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
neonates 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
phenobarbital NN O I-INT
or NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
free NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
microg NN O O
per NN O O
milliliter NN O O
for NN O O
phenobarbital NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
microg NN O O
per NN O O
milliliter NN O O
for NN O O
phenytoin NN O O
. NN O O

Neonates NN O O
whose NN O O
seizures NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
controlled NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Seizure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seizures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
phenobarbital NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
43 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
phenytoin NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
45 NN O O
percent NN O O
; NN O O
P=1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
, NN O O
seizure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neonates NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
phenobarbital NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
phenytoin NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Neonates NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
with NN O O
seizures NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
decreasing NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
their NN O O
seizures NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Phenobarbital NN O I-INT
and NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
are NN O O
equally NN O O
but NN O O
incompletely NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
anticonvulsants NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
seizures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neonates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10448447)

Befriending NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inner NN O I-PAR
city NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
: NN O O
Role NN O O
of NN O O
fresh-start NN O O
experiences NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Volunteer NN O I-INT
befriending NN O I-INT
promoted NN O O
remission NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
factors NN O O
relevant NN O O
for NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Factors NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
interview NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
factors NN O O
occurring NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
'fresh-start NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fresh-start NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
style NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
chances NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
severe NN O O
stressors NN O O
and NN O O
markedly NN O O
poor NN O O
coping NN O O
strategies NN O O
liable NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
it NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
volunteer NN O O
befriending NN O I-INT
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
positive NN O O
result NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preceding NN O O
paper NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
artefact NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
fresh-start NN O O
experiences NN O O
, NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
severe NN O O
stressors NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
attachment NN O O
style NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
important NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
knowledge NN O O
might NN O O
profitably NN O O
be NN O O
incorporated NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
existing NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10463377)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
physostigmine NN O I-OUT
patch NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
senile NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Owing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
conventional NN O O
routes NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
overcome NN O O
the NN O O
problems NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
transdermal NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
system NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
patches NN O O
containing NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
physostigmine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
guidelines NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
anti-dementia NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
included 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
probable NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
probable NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
136 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
according-to-protocol NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
167 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intention-to-treat NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
181 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
contrary NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
even NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
physostigmine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
100 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
linear NN O O
dose NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
dosages NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
cholinesterase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
patch NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
apparently NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
physostigmine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
in NN O O
affected NN O O
brain NN O O
areas NN O O
and NN O O
produce NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
transdermal NN O O
system NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Modifications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patch NN O O
system NN O O
may NN O O
perhaps NN O O
make NN O O
it NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
higher NN O O
physostigmine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10463847)

Delineation NN O O
of NN O O
cryptogenic NN O O
Lennox-Gastaut NN O O
syndrome NN O O
and NN O O
myoclonic NN O O
astatic NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
using NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
correspondence NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
distinguish NN O O
various NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
cryptogenic/idiopathic NN O I-PAR
generalised NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
reproducible NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
correspondence NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
applied NN O O
MCA NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
damage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
starting NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
generalised NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
excluded NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
infantile NN O I-PAR
spasms NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
absences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MCA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
EEG NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O O
throughout NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
including NN O O
all NN O O
follow-up NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
male NN O O
predominance NN O O
, NN O O
familial NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
febrile NN O O
convulsions NN O O
, NN O O
massive NN O O
myoclonus NN O O
, NN O O
tonic-clonic NN O O
fits NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
was NN O O
favourable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mildly NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interictal NN O O
EEG NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
short NN O I-OUT
sequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irregular NN O I-OUT
3-Hz NN O I-OUT
spike-waves NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
18 NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
exhibited NN O O
myoclonic NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vibratory NN O I-OUT
tonic NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
persisting NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

EEG NN O O
showed NN O O
long NN O I-OUT
sequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
generalised NN O I-OUT
irregular NN O I-OUT
spike NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
slow NN O I-OUT
waves NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Those NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
onset NN O O
myoclonic-astatic NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
( NN O O
MAE NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
favourable NN O O
and NN O O
unfavourable NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Eleven NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
later NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
atypical NN O I-OUT
absences NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tonic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
myoclonus NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
vibratory NN O O
tonic NN O O
seizures NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
had NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
retardation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
persisting NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O O
showed NN O O
long NN O I-OUT
sequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
slow NN O I-OUT
spike-wave NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
half NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
spike NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
slow NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
foci NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
patients NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
Lennox-Gastaut NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
parameters NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
Lennox-Gastaut NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
myoclonic NN O O
astatic NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
MAE NN O O
groups NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
EEG NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
retardation NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
validate NN O O
statistically NN O O
the NN O O
distinction NN O O
between NN O O
discrete NN O O
epileptic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
. NN O O

Myoclonic NN O O
astatic NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
Lennox-Gastaut NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
distinction NN O O
appears NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10476617)

Trial NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
TXA2 NN O I-INT
synthetase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ozagrel NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
thromboxane NN O I-INT
A2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TXA2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
synthetase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preeclampsia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ozagrel NN O I-INT
Hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
orally NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventeen NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ozagrel NN O O
Hydrochloride NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TXB2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TXA2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
62.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
6-keto NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
F1 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PGI2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
206.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
52.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
seems NN O O
likely NN O O
that NN O O
Ozagrel NN O I-INT
Hydrochloride NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10482855)

Inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Dactylis NN O I-PAR
glomerata NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
nasal-sinus NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10489959)

Assessment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood-sugar NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lancet NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
thumb NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
lancet NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
finger NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
venepuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
elbow NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Success NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10492627)

Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
operable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Dutch NN O O
randomised NN O O
FAMTX NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Dutch NN O I-PAR
Gastric NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
DGCG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
curative NN O I-OUT
resectability NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAMTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
undergo NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stomach NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
computed NN O I-PAR
tomography NN O I-PAR
scan NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cardia NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
progressive NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
courses NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
upon NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

Otherwise NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
stable NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
more NN O O
courses NN O O
were NN O O
scheduled NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
standard NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
( NN O O
D1 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
staging NN O O
biopsy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
para-aortic NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
September NN O O
1993 NN O O
and NN O O
February NN O O
1996 NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
27 NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
FAMTX NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
surgery NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
FAMTX NN O O
+ NN O O
surgery NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
15/27 NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
curative NN O I-OUT
resections NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
18/29 NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
only 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
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TNM NN O I-OUT
stages NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
15/27 NN O O
versus NN O O
15/29 NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
PD NN O O
and/or NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
complete NN O O
the NN O O
planned NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
FAMTX NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O O
evaluation NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
: NN O O
2 NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
PR NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
SD NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
PD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
curative NN O I-OUT
resectability NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
was NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
-32 NN O O
to NN O O
+19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Downstaging NN O O
for NN O O
stages NN O O
I NN O O
+ NN O O
II NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

PD NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
the NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
planned NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
than NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
active NN O O
regimens NN O O
than NN O O
FAMTX NN O I-INT
are NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
randomised NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10499652)

Gabexate NN O I-INT
mesilate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
antithrombin NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
for NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
in NN O O
heparin NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
revascularization NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
admitted NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study 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
test NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
preserving NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
antithrombin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AT-III NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
heparinization NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
management NN O O
plus NN O O
two NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
antithrombin NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
IU NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
GA NN O O
received NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
IU/kg NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
IU/kg/h NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gabexate NN O I-INT
mesilate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg/h NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
antithrombin NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
as NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
GA NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
preservation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
AT-III NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
GA NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
heparin NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
GA NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
Purified NN O O
AT-III NN O O
administration NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
heparin NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
gabexate NN O O
mesilate NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
protocol NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
AT-III NN O I-OUT
preservation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10509459)

Tactile NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
present NN O O
during NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
applications NN O O
of NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MIS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
rapidly NN O O
expanding NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
this NN O O
expansion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
haptic NN O O
feedback NN O O
during NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
incomplete NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
many NN O O
surgeons NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
eliminates NN O O
force NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tactile NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
haptics NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
haptics NN O O
in NN O O
MIS NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
fully NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
considerable NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
simulators NN O O
for NN O O
MIS NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
force NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
experienced NN O I-PAR
surgeons NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
interpret NN O O
haptic NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
texture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shape NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
surgeons NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
objects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
identity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inspection NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
palpation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laparoscopic NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

Statistic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
chi-square NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
appropriate NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
Fischer NN O O
exact NN O O
probability NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Direct NN O I-OUT
palpation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
accuracy NN O O
for NN O O
shape NN O O
identification NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
conventional NN O O
instruments 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
laparoscopic NN O O
instruments NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fine NN O O
texture NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
instrument NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
instrument NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
direct NN O O
palpation NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
consistency NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
instruments NN O O
do NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
fact NN O O
, NN O O
provide NN O O
surgeons NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
haptic NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
texture NN O O
, NN O O
shape NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consistency NN O O
of NN O O
objects NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
some NN O O
situations NN O O
, NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
instruments NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
amplify NN O O
the NN O O
haptic NN O O
information NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
ongoing NN O O
work NN O O
is NN O O
directed NN O O
at NN O O
further NN O O
defining NN O O
force NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10517189)

Ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
brucellosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
brucellosis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O O
45 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
rifampicin NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
brucellosis NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
microbiological NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
regarding NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
distribution NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
: NN O O
3.85+/-1.98 NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.78+/-1.03 NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
had NN O O
clinical NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
brucellosis NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10517426)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
neuraminidase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
oseltamivir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Influenza NN O O
virus NN O O
neuraminidase NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
essential NN O O
for NN O O
virus NN O O
replication NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
available NN O O
neuraminidase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
zanamivir NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
topically NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antiviral NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
neuraminidase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
( NN O O
GS4104/Ro64-0796 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
experimentally NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Two NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
conducted NN O O
between NN O O
June NN O O
and NN O O
July NN O O
1997 NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Individual NN O O
hotel NN O O
rooms NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
117 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
susceptible NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
hemagglutination-inhibition NN O I-PAR
antibody NN O I-PAR
titer NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1:8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
inoculated NN O I-INT
intranasally NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
A/Texas/36/91 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H1N1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
oseltamivir NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
26 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
virus NN O O
inoculation NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
starting NN O O
28 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
inoculation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Comparing NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
pooled NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
shedding NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
viral NN O O
shedding NN O O
in NN O O
titers NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
recipients NN O O
became NN O O
infected NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
; NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0 NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
recipients NN O O
shed NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
recipient NN O O
had NN O O
infection-related NN O O
respiratory NN O O
illness NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
infected NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
69 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
viral NN O I-OUT
titer NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
] NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
[ NN O O
23-151 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
273 NN O O
[ NN O O
79-306 NN O O
] NN O O
log10 NN O O
tissue NN O O
culture-infective NN O O
doses50 NN O O
per NN O O
milliliter NN O O
x NN O O
hour NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IQR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
shedding NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
107 NN O O
( NN O O
83-131 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
58 NN O O
( NN O O
35-59 NN O O
) NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oseltamivir NN O O
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
] NN O O
score-hours NN O O
, NN O O
225 NN O O
[ NN O O
97-349 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
400 NN O O
[ NN O O
189-645 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
and NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Transient NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
88 NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-11 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
largely NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
ingestion NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
oseltamivir NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
antiviral NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10525558)

An NN O O
empirical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
St NN O O
George NN O O
's NN O O
Respiratory NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Chronic NN O O
Respiratory NN O O
Disease NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
CRQ NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Chronic NN O O
Respiratory NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
CRQ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
St NN O O
George NN O O
's NN O O
Respiratory NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
most NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
directly NN O O
the NN O O
self-administered NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
feasibility NN O O
, NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
, NN O O
validity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salmeterol NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured 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

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
missing NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
patient NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
( NN O O
0.54 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
internal NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
good NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
( NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
coefficients NN O O
> NN O O
/= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
and NN O O
> NN O O
/= NN O O
0.76 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Factor NN O O
analysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
domain NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
with NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
but NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
discriminate NN O O
between NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
symptom NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

Cross NN O O
sectionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
were NN O O
moderately NN O O
to NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
( NN O O
coefficients NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.35 NN O O
to NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Longitudinally NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
coefficients NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.17 NN O O
to NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CRQ NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SGRQ NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SGRQ NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
domain NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
crossed NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Since NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
reliability NN O O
, NN O O
validity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
favour NN O O
one NN O O
instrument NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
CRQ NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
considerations NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
required NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
reference NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10539493)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
functionality NN O O
on NN O O
service NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
presentation NN O O
by NN O O
Sandra NN O O
L. NN O O
Tunis NN O O
, NN O O
PhD NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
advent NN O O
of NN O O
atypical NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
policy NN O O
makers NN O O
must NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
accompany NN O O
greater NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
reveal NN O O
that NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
show NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
important NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
differentiate NN O O
medications NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
atypical NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
are NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
functioning NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
comparing NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
seen NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
highly NN O O
affected NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
therefore NN O O
serve NN O O
2 NN O O
purposes NN O O
: NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
compliance NN O O
by NN O O
improving NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
making NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
formulary NN O O
decisions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10554112)

Comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aerosol NN O I-OUT
generated NN O O
by NN O O
nebulizer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
aqueous NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10554799)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
fluconazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
haematological NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
U.K. NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
Antifungal NN O O
Prophylaxis NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Fluconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
antifungal NN O I-OUT
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
ineffective NN O O
against NN O O
Aspergillus NN O O
. NN O O

Itraconazole NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
broader NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
capsules NN O O
give NN O O
erratic NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
in NN O O
neutropenic NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
antifungal NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
haematological NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg/d NN O O
itraconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
itra NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
( NN O O
288 NN O O
episodes NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
suspension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
flu NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
293 NN O O
episodes NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
until NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
recovery NN O O
or NN O O
suspected NN O O
fungal NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
reviewers NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
proven NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
flu NN O O
( NN O O
Aspergillus NN O O
four NN O O
, NN O O
Candida NN O O
tropicalis NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
C. NN O O
krusei NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
itra NN O O
( NN O O
C. NN O O
albicans NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
fatal NN O O
( NN O O
four NN O O
versus NN O O
nil NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
reached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
when NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
episodes NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
separately NN O O
( NN O O
six NN O O
flu NN O O
versus NN O O
nil NN O O
itra NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
presumed NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
origin NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
flu NN O O
than NN O O
itra NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
versus NN O O
nil NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
proven NN O O
aspergillosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
flu NN O O
than NN O O
itra NN O O
( NN O O
six NN O O
versus NN O O
nil NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
, NN O O
5/6 NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
fatal NN O O
) NN O O
if NN O O
those NN O O
occurring NN O O
outside NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
are NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
flu NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
58 NN O O
v NN O O
39 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
blinded NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
11 NN O O
proven NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
candidal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
flu NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
in NN O O
itra NN O O
. NN O O

Itraconazole NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
effective NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
Candida NN O O
but NN O O
itraconazole NN O O
affords NN O O
greater NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
fatal NN O O
aspergillosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10555930)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Cys NN O I-INT
LT1 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockade NN O I-INT
on NN O O
airway NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
allergen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
experimental NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MK-571 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
airway NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
allergen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Clinical NN O O
research NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
An NN O O
intravenous NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
8-hour NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MK-571 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
7- NN O O
to NN O O
14-day NN O O
washout NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
challenge NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1 NN O O
second NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
serially NN O O
. NN O O

MK-571 NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
about NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
protection NN O O
during NN O O
maximum NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
responses NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
8-24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Airway NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
histamine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Blocking NN O O
Cys NN O O
LT1 NN O O
receptors NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
responses NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
interrupt NN O O
the NN O O
cascade NN O O
of NN O O
events NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
subsequent NN O O
allergen-induced NN O O
airway NN O O
obstruction NN O O
and NN O O
hyperreactivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10566623)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O O
human NN O O
thyrotropin NN O O
and NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
remnant NN O O
or NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
monitoring NN O O
for NN O O
thyroid NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
recurrence NN O O
or NN O O
persistence NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
attendant NN O O
morbidity NN O O
of NN O O
hypothyroidism NN O O
seen NN O O
after NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
withdrawal 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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
administered NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
with NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
radioiodine NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
scanning NN O O
( NN O O
WBS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
thyroglobulin NN O O
( NN O O
Tg NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
radioiodine NN O I-PAR
WBS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Radioiodine NN O I-INT
WBS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
serum NN O O
Tg NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
again NN O O
after NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Radioiodine NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
scans NN O O
were NN O O
concordant NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
recombinant NN O I-OUT
TSH-stimulated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
phases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
195 NN O O
of NN O O
220 NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
discordant NN O O
scans NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
superior NN O O
scans NN O O
after NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
superior NN O O
scans NN O O
after NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.108 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
Tg NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
, NN O O
thyroid NN O O
tissue NN O O
or NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
during NN O O
thyroid NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O O
in NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
thyroid NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
in NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
radioiodine NN O O
WBS NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
Tg NN O O
after NN O O
recombinant NN O O
human NN O O
TSH NN O O
stimulation NN O O
detected NN O O
thyroid NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
stimulating NN O O
radioiodine NN O O
uptake NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
Tg NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
persistence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10575594)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
antiresorptive NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
ipriflavone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
isoflavone NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
elcatonin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
eel NN O I-INT
carbocalcitonin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
mineral NN O I-PAR
density NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronological NN O I-PAR
sequence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Katsuragi NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
I NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
ipriflavone NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
was NN O O
weekly NN O O
injected NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
units NN O O
elcatonin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Asu1-7 NN O I-INT
eel NN O I-INT
calcitonin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
carbocalcitonin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
dual-energy NN O I-INT
X-ray NN O I-INT
absorptiometry NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
trabecular NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
, NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O O
diaphysis NN O O
by NN O O
peripheral NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
, NN O O
8th NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12th NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone-specific NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tartrate-resistant NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PICP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ICTP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
pyridinoline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calcium/creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ca/Cr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calcitonin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Radial NN O I-OUT
trabecular NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ipriflavone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
elcatonin NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elcatonin NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ipriflavone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ipriflavone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O I-OUT
pyridinoline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
12th NN O O
month NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ipriflavone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
comparing NN O O
bone NN O O
gainers NN O O
with NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
with NN O O
bone NN O O
losers NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
Ca/Cr NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
markers NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
gainers NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
losers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10588965)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Secretin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
peptide NN O O
hormone NN O O
that NN O O
stimulates NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
secretion NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
recent NN O O
publicity NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
whose NN O O
condition NN O O
markedly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thousands NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
have NN O O
received NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted 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
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
microg NN O O
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
standardized NN O O
behavioral NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
impairment NN O O
at NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
outside NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
return NN O O
for NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
was NN O O
59.0 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
158 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
value NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
greater NN O O
impairment NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
63.2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
four-week NN O O
period NN O O
were NN O O
8.9 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
17.8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-8.9 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-19.4 NN O O
to NN O O
1.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
treatment-limiting NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
said NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
interested NN O O
in NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
autism NN O O
or NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10593347)

Cholesterol-lowering NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
US NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
US NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
run-in NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
318 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
margarine-like NN O O
spreads NN O O
containing NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
EU NN O O
3 NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
per NN O O
8-g NN O O
serving NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
European NN O O
formula NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
US NN O O
3 NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
per NN O O
8-g NN O O
serving NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
US NN O O
reformulation NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
US NN O O
2 NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
0.67 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ester NN O O
form NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
8-g NN O O
serving NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
US NN O O
reformulation NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
spread NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
233+/-20 NN O O
and NN O O
153+21 NN O O
mg+/-dL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
3 NN O O
G NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
g NN O O
daily NN O O
of NN O O
stanol NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
lowered NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
response NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
US NN O O
2 NN O O
G NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Triglyceride NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Stanol NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
lowered NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
mildly NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
dietary NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10594393)

Ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
restorative NN O O
proctocolectomy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Poor NN O O
pouch NN O O
function NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
bile NN O O
acid NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
faecal NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
. NN O O

Bile NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
might NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
, NN O O
provided NN O O
that NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
aggravated NN O O
by NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
bile NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
pouch NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
restorative NN O O
proctocolectomy NN O O
for NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
pouch NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-point NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
for NN O O
inclusion NN O O
to 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
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
given NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
restorative NN O O
proctocolectomy NN O O
for NN O O
U.C NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10594396)

Standard-dose NN O I-INT
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
healing NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
oesophagitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Lansoprazole NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
reflux NN O O
oesophagitis NN O O
, NN O O
H2-receptor NN O O
antagonists NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
apparent NN O O
higher NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
H2-receptor NN O O
antagonists NN O O
are NN O O
now NN O O
increasingly NN O O
being NN O O
used NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
standard-dose NN O I-INT
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
in NN O O
moderately NN O O
severe NN O O
reflux NN O O
oesophagitis NN O O
( NN O O
grades NN O O
II-III NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Lansoprazole NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
133 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
4-8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
endoscopically-verified NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
on NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
both NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
smoking NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
oesophagitis NN O O
healing NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Heartburn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retrosternal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
belching NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
patient-rated NN O O
overall NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
somewhat NN O O
faster NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Standard-dose NN O I-INT
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
moderately NN O O
severe NN O O
reflux NN O O
oesophagitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10599355)

Enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
ESS-1 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
substudy NN O O
-- NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ESS-1 NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
ACEI NN O O
) NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cardio-pulmonary NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
scleroderma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
estimated NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
comprise NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
23 NN O O
ones NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
observe NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricle NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Enalapril NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricle NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nevertheless NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
MVA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
almost NN O O
of NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Echocardiographic NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10602739)

Ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lomefloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
osteomyelitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
fluoroquinolones NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lomefloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
osteomyelitis NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
quinolone-sensitive NN O I-PAR
organisms NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O I-INT
lomefloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Levofloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Lomefloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
11.8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
60.6 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Gram-positive NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Oral NN O O
fluoroquinolones NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
course NN O O
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
infections NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
susceptible NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
gram-negative NN O O
organisms NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
adequate NN O O
surgical NN O O
debridement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10607234)

Quantitative NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interferon-alpha NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Several NN O O
investigators NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibodies NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAHB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
Asian NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
quantitative NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
work NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
analysed NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
CAHB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
CAHB NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
prednisolone/interferon-alpha2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha2b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consecutively NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
indirect NN O O
immunofluorescence NN O O
( NN O O
IF NN O O
) NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HBV NN O O
) NN O O
DNA NN O O
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
chemiluminescent NN O O
, NN O O
molecular-hybridization NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
seven NN O O
Chinese NN O O
control NN O O
individuals NN O O
comprised NN O O
63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
CD3+ NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
CD4+ NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
CD8+ NN O O
subsets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
was NN O O
1.9 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
= NN O O
1.1-2.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
peaked NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prednisolone NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IFN-alpha2b NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
marked NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
viral NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IFN-alpha2b NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
HBV NN O O
DNA NN O O
levels NN O O
below NN O O
10 NN O O
000 NN O O
pg NN O O
ml-1 NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
CAHB NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CAHB NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
when NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
similar NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
enumeration NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
. NN O O

Profound NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
replication NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
prednisolone/IFN-alpha2b NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modulatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets NN O O
and NN O O
cytokine NN O O
profiles NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
HBV NN O O
infection NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10624759)

Prediction NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
maximum NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
ergometry NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
widely-cited NN O O
studies NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
utilized NN O O
either NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
selection NN O O
bias NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
overestimation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
likely NN O O
consequence NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
equations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
gas NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
maximum NN O I-INT
ramp-incremental NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
ergometry NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomly-selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
8,000 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Regular NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
anthropometry NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dual NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
X-ray NN O I-OUT
absorptiometry NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
75 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
isokinetic NN O I-OUT
dynamometry NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Previously NN O O
reported NN O O
equations NN O O
typically NN O O
overestimated NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake 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

Prediction NN O O
linear NN O O
equations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
by NN O O
backward NN O O
stepwise NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
including NN O O
: NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
knee NN O O
extensor NN O O
peak NN O O
torque NN O O
, NN O O
bone-free NN O O
lean NN O O
leg NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
lean NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Reference NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
: NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
values NN O O
differed NN O O
markedly NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
formerly NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
therefore NN O O
might NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
appropriate NN O O
frame NN O O
of NN O O
reference NN O O
for NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
symptom-limited NN O I-OUT
ramp NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
ergometry NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

those NN O O
usually NN O O
referred NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
exercise NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10634835)

Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
triggered NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
fast NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
patient NN O O
triggered NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
fast NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
ventilation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
birthweights NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
trigger NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
SLE NN O I-INT
2000 NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
28 NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
week NN O O
definitions NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pneumothorax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraventricular NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventilator NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patient NN O O
triggered NN O O
ventilation NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
fast NN O O
rate NN O O
ventilation NN O O
in NN O O
important NN O O
medium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10634838)

Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
following NN O O
trophic NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
trophic NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
ill NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1750 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
ventilatory NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
TF NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
infants NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
trophic NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5-1 NN O I-INT
ml/h NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
until NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
finished NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
infants NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nutritive NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
was NN O O
then NN O O
introduced NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
measured NN O O
included NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
postnatal NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
birthweight NN O O
, NN O O
gestation NN O O
and NN O O
CRIB NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
TF NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
41.4 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
73.7 NN O O
) NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
130 NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
250 NN O O
) NN O O
g NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
head NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
0.7 NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
; NN O O
fewer NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
( NN O O
-1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
; NN O O
less NN O O
parenteral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
-11.5 NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
-20 NN O O
, NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

03 NN O O
; NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
full NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
feeds NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
165 NN O O
ml/kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
earlier NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
-11.2 NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
-19 NN O O
, NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
; NN O O
reduced NN O O
requirement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
-22.4 NN O O
( NN O O
CI-41.5 NN O O
, NN O O
-3.3 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
discharged NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
-22.1 NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
-42.1 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.2 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Trophic NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
ill NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (10636373)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
we NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
lowers NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10637238)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chemohormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hormone-sensitive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
An NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Although NN O O
hormonal NN O O
therapy NN O O
represents NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
metastatic NN O O
hormone-sensitive NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
receive NN O O
initial NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
location NN O O
, NN O O
bulk NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
aggressiveness NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
simultaneous NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Eastern NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
trial NN O O
E3186 NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
this NN O O
question NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
231 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ER-unknown NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
?CAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chemohormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Halotestin NN O I-INT
?fluoxymesterone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Pharmacia-Upjohn NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Kalamazoo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
?CAFTH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
front-line NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
either NN O O
received NN O O
or NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
maintenance NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O O
, NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
, NN O O
fluorouracil NN O O
, NN O O
prednisone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TH NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
CAF NN O O
and NN O O
CAFTH NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
69.2 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
68.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.99 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
chemohormonal NN O O
therapy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
13.4 NN O O
months NN O O
v NN O O
10.3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.087 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TTF NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
ER-positive NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ER-negative NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
17.4 NN O O
months NN O O
v NN O O
10.3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
ER NN O O
status NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30.0 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
for NN O O
CAF NN O O
v NN O O
29.3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CAFTH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
potentially NN O O
hormone-sensitive NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chemohormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
prolongs NN O I-INT
TTF NN O O
for NN O O
ER-positive NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
improving NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10643677)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
24h NN O I-OUT
substrate NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
macronutrient NN O I-INT
composition NN O I-INT
on NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
substrate NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
16 NN O O
month NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
executed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VLED NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
36.3+/-5.1 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
94.6+/-13.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
30.8+/-3.0 NN O I-PAR
kg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
well-trained NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
36.2+/-7.2 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
72.2+/-5.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
22.3+/-1.7 NN O I-PAR
kg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Substrate NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
36 NN O O
h NN O O
stay NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
respiration NN O O
chamber NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
respiration NN O O
chamber NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
high-fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hi.F NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
En NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reduced-fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Red.F NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
En NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
well-trained NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
once NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
respiration NN O O
chamber NN O O
for NN O O
36 NN O O
h NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
consumed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
balances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chamber NN O O
were NN O O
mostly NN O O
negative NN O O
( NN O O
means NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
+31 NN O O
to NN O O
-98 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
balances NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O O
positive NN O O
( NN O O
means NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
-26 NN O O
to NN O O
+38 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
obese NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lean NN O O
, NN O O
well-trained NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
both NN O O
diets NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
shortage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
70 NN O I-OUT
g NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
33 NN O O
g NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
obese NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
CHO NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
well-trained NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
24h NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
negative NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
-103 NN O O
to NN O O
-185 NN O O
g/d NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Red.F NN O O
and NN O O
Hi.F NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
under NN O O
similar NN O O
conditions NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
trained NN O O
obese NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
substrate NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
obese NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
well-trained NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
reliance NN O O
on NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
24 NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10649829)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
sort NN O O
out NN O O
this NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
neurobiological NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
vary NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
to NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT NN O I-INT
1d NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
linked NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serotonergic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eleven NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
SQ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
challenges NN O O
, NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
one-week NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
adult NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
YBOCS-compulsion NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
positively NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
dimension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
parallels NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT NN O I-INT
1d NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
manifest NN O O
by NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10651597)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Few NN O O
investigations NN O O
include NN O O
both NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Beneficial NN O O
interventions NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
invasive NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
, NN O O
applied NN O O
by NN O O
experienced NN O O
physical NN O O
therapists NN O O
with NN O O
formal NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
manual NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
military NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
, NN O O
hip NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ankle NN O O
as NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
subtherapeutic NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
W/cm2 NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
pulsed NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
subscores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
tester NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
made NN O O
group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
visit NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
average NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distances NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
55.8 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
confounding NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
170 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O O
to NN O O
270 NN O O
m NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
599 NN O O
mm NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
197 NN O O
to NN O O
1002 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
undergone NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
arthroplasty NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
yields NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
delay NN O O
or NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10660161)

Regression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
after NN O O
stentless NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
biological NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
stentless NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Stentless NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Freestyle NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Toronto NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
biological NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Carpentier-Edwards NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O O
. NN O O

Preoperatively NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
aortic NN O I-OUT
valve NN O I-OUT
pathology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
gradients NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
annulus NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.55 NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.46 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
measured NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
213+/-77 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
( NN O O
stentless NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
202+/-72 NN O O
( NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
141+/-41 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stentless NN O O
and NN O O
170+/-43 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional 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

Regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
stentless NN O I-INT
bioprostheses NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
enhancement NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
risk NN O O
profile NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10661479)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
show NN O O
symptoms NN O O
as NN O O
fatigue NN O O
, NN O O
wasting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
working NN O O
capacity NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
cardiac NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
state NN O O
may NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
be NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
imbalance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
somatostatin/somatomedine NN O O
axis NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
catabolism NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
correct NN O O
this NN O O
catabolic NN O O
state NN O O
by NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
exogenous NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
6-month NN O O
study NN O O
comprising NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
enfeebled NN O I-INT
hemodialysis NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
, NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhGH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
IU/m2 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
. NN O O

Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
working NN O O
capacity NN O O
( NN O O
MWC NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
bicycle NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementary NN O O
electrocardiography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
LVM NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
172 NN O O
to NN O O
220 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhGH-treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
an NN O O
insignificant NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
281 NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
EF NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

MWC NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
, NN O O
insignificant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
ECG NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
ST NN O I-OUT
deviations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
regarding NN O O
B-Hb NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
or NN O O
pulse NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Irregular NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
aggravated NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
rhGH NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
overcome NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
-blocking NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
rhGH NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O O
chronic NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
or NN O O
maximal NN O O
working NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
developed NN O O
symptoms NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
B-Hb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
pulse NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10663363)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Vertebral NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
with NN O O
Risedronate NN O O
Therapy NN O O
( NN O O
VERT NN O O
) NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
risedronate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
vertebral NN O O
fractures NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1226 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
prevalent NN O I-PAR
vertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-INT
risedronate NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
elemental NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
IU/day NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
discontinued NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
amendment NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Lateral NN O O
spinal NN O O
radiographs NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
annually NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
vertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
dual-energy NN O O
X-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Risedronate NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
vertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year 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
fracture NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
risedronate NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nonvertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risedronate NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
hip NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adverse-event NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Risedronate NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
provides NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
vertebral NN O O
fractures NN O O
and NN O O
improving NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10665129)

Bronchodilatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstuctive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
within-patient NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
assigned NN O O
on NN O O
six NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

40 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Atrovent NN O I-INT
MDI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
micrograms/puff NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
puffs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
B NN O O
. NN O O

12 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Foradil NN O I-INT
MDI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
micrograms/puff NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
puffs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
C. NN O O
80 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
D. NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
puffs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
E. NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
puff NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
F. NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
puffs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
spirometric NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hourly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
including NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
maximum NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
ipratropium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
335.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
SE NN O O
24.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
peak NN O O
changes NN O O
following NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
tested NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ipratropium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10671339)

Granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
as NN O O
immunomodulating NN O O
factor NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
serological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
vaccine NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
hemagglutination-inhibition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
of NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
ELISA 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
antibody NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
either NN O O
influenza NN O O
A NN O O
or NN O O
B NN O O
in NN O O
64 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
at NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
53 NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
SCT NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
HAI NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
influenza NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment 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

ELISA NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
autologous NN O I-PAR
SCT NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
influenza NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
early NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
4-12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
. NN O O

GM-CSF NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
SCT NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10674229)

Differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
ketoacid NN O O
on NN O O
protein NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
, NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
AA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
branched-chain NN O O
ketoacid NN O O
( NN O O
KA NN O O
) NN O O
availability NN O O
on NN O O
leucine NN O O
kinetics NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
y 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
24 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
euglycemic NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
1-14C NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
leucine NN O I-INT
turnover NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
; NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
with NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O O
plasma NN O O
AA NN O O
and NN O O
branched-chain NN O O
KA NN O O
concentrations NN O O
; NN O O
study NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
with NN O O
hyperaminoacidemia NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
plasma NN O O
branched-chain NN O O
KA NN O O
concentrations NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
plus NN O O
basal NN O O
plasma NN O O
AA NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
elevated NN O O
branched-chain NN O O
KA NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
leucine NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ELF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
averaged NN O O
1.20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
( NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
basal NN O O
leucine NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LOX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
non-oxidative NN O I-OUT
leucine NN O I-OUT
disposal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NOLD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
. NN O O

ELF NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
0.77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
branched-chain NN O I-OUT
KA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
either NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
their NN O O
basal NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
increased NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
studies NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ELF NN O O
declined NN O O
further NN O O
( NN O O
0.64 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
0.66 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.66 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
Ps NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LOX NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
0.12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
studies NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
0.31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
0.37 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.40 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
Ps NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
study NN O O
IV NN O O
versus NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
study NN O O
III NN O O
versus NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

NOLD NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
0.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mumol/kg.min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
neither NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
AA/branched-chain NN O I-OUT
KA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
; NN O O
0.89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
the NN O O
elevation NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
branched-chain NN O I-OUT
KA NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
study NN O O
IV NN O O
; NN O O
0.96 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mumol.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
NOLD NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
NOLD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
study NN O O
III NN O O
; NN O O
1.23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
mumol/kg.min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
anabolic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
ketoanalogs NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pivotal NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
AA NN O O
availability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
whole-body NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10674680)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
of NN O O
Plasmodium NN O O
falciparum NN O O
to NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
transmission NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Colombia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CQ NN O O
) NN O O
resistance NN O O
was NN O O
first NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
Colombia NN O O
in NN O O
1961 NN O O
and NN O O
sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SP NN O O
) NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
1981 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
failures NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
Colombia NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
modified NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
14-day NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
drug NN O O
efficacy NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
Plasmodium NN O O
falciparum NN O O
malaria NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
with NN O O
intense NN O O
malaria NN O O
transmission NN O O
was NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
reflect NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
malaria NN O O
transmission NN O O
area NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Pacific NN O O
Coast NN O O
Region NN O O
of NN O O
Colombia NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
parasite NN O I-PAR
density NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1,000 NN O I-PAR
asexual NN O I-PAR
parasites NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
microliter NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CQ-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ETFs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LTFs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
SP-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
ETFs NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
LTFs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CQ-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
age NN O O
< NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
old NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
parasite NN O O
density NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
CQ NN O I-INT
or NN O O
sulfa-containing NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
malaria NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
CQ NN O I-INT
detected NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
underscores NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
and NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
rational NN O O
national NN O O
antimalarial NN O O
drug NN O O
policy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
SP NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
South NN O O
American NN O O
countries NN O O
raises NN O O
further NN O O
questions NN O O
regarding NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10674681)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
primaquine NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primaquine-resistant NN O O
Plasmodium NN O O
vivax NN O O
malaria NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Fansidar NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
F. NN O I-INT
Hoffmann-La NN O I-INT
Roche NN O I-INT
Ltd. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Basel NN O I-INT
Switzerland NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sulfadoxine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
primaquine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
artesunate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
acute NN O O
Plasmodium NN O O
vivax NN O O
malaria NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
3 NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
serial NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Thailand-Myanmar NN O I-PAR
border NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
Fansidar NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
tablets NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1,500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sulfadoxine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
Fansidar NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1,500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sulfadoxine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
primaquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O I-INT
primaquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O I-INT
artesunate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
primaquine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
showing NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
reappearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parasitemia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
parasitemias NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Artesunate NN O O
plus NN O O
primaquine NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
cleared NN O O
parasitemia NN O I-OUT
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
3 NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
ineffectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Fansidar NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
P. NN O O
vivax NN O O
malaria NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
P. NN O O
vivax NN O O
malaria NN O O
acquired NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Thailand-Myanmar NN O O
border NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
primaquine NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
P. NN O O
vivax NN O O
malaria NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10683506)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
and NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
activities NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Previously NN O O
, NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thermography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plethysmography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
activity NN O O
following NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
using NN O O
power NN O O
spectral NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
calculated NN O O
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
and NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
to NN O O
what NN O O
extent NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
applied NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
thenar NN O O
muscle NN O O
and NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
cavum NN O O
concha NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ear NN O O
induced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
and/or NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
34.4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
23-48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
randomly NN O O
distributed NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
initial NN O O
visit NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
introduced NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
needle NN O I-INT
sensation NN O I-INT
by NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
needle NN O O
inserted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
LI NN O O
11 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
needle NN O O
sensation NN O O
was NN O O
evoked NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
trained NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
characteristic NN O O
needle NN O O
sensation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
introduction NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
test NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

SESSION NN O O
A NN O O
A NN O O
short NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
Seirin NN O O
no NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
emptyv NN O O
; NN O O
0.20x15 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
earpoint NN O O
, NN O O
Lu NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
inferior NN O O
hemi-conchae NN O O
. NN O O

SESSION NN O O
B NN O O
An NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Hwato NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
emptyv NN O O
; NN O O
0.30x30 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
Hegu NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
LI NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
middle NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
dorsal NN O O
thenar NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

SESSION NN O O
C NN O O
An NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Hwato NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
emptyv NN O O
; NN O O
0.30x30 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
superficially NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
overlying NN O O
the NN O O
Hegu NN O O
point NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
hand NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
. NN O O

Stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ear NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
parasympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
25 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
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
60 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
thenar NN O O
muscle NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
parasympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
period 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
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
post-stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
superficial NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
overlaying NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
thenar NN O O
muscle NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
pronounced NN O O
balanced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parasympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O O
stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acupunctura NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changed NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parasympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
depending NN O O
on NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
and NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10685169)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
rh-TGF-beta NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
transforming NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
factor-beta NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
full-thickness NN O O
, NN O O
excisional NN O O
wounds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
limb NN O O
of NN O O
horses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
block NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

ANIMALS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
Standardbred NN O I-PAR
geldings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PROCEDURE NN O O
Four NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
cm2 NN O O
, NN O O
full-thickness NN O O
wounds NN O O
were NN O O
created NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
and NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metacarpus NN O O
or NN O O
metatarsus NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
limb NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
giving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
each NN O O
limb NN O O
, NN O O
wounds NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Methyl NN O I-INT
Cellulose NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
ng/wound NN O I-INT
rhTGF-beta NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
ng/wound NN O I-INT
rhTGF-beta NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Wounds NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exuberant NN O I-OUT
granulation NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
excision NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
excision NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wounds NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
excised NN O O
wounds NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
TGF-beta NN O O
1 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
concentrations NN O O
studied 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
total NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wounds NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulation NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
histological NN O O
assessment NN O O
or NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wounds NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
TGF-beta NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
if NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
wound NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
horses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10685722)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
low-dose NN O O
perindopril/indapamide NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/indapamide NN O I-INT
0.625 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
Per/Ind NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
Ate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
446 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
55.8 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
Per/Ind NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Ate 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
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sSBP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sDBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Equivalence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
two NN O O
one-sided NN O O
tests NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Per/Ind NN O O
and NN O O
Ate NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
sSBP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
-20.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
-20.1 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
-2.3 NN O O
; NN O O
1.5 NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intertreatment NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
fell NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O I-OUT
equivalence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
-8 NN O O
; NN O O
+8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sDBP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
-15.1 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
Per/Ind NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-16.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
Ate NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intertreatment NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
whose NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
; NN O O
2.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
] NN O O
fell NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
equivalence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
-4 NN O O
; NN O O
+4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
thus NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Per/Ind NN O O
and NN O O
Ate NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
65 NN O O
, NN O O
Per/Ind NN O O
induces NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
sSBP NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
Ate NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Per/Ind NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10685817)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
whiplash NN O O
associated NN O O
neck NN O O
pain NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
with NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin-A NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Up NN O O
to NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
whiplash NN O O
associated NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
WAD NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
some NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
spasm NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
contributory NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

Botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BTX-A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
prolonged NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxation NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
easily NN O O
targeted NN O O
to NN O O
affected NN O O
muscles NN O O
. NN O O

BTX-A NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
offering NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
or NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
BTX-A NN O I-INT
as NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
WAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WAD-II NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
vehicle NN O I-PAR
accident NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One-half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
BTX-A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diluted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
half NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
just NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
trigger NN O O
points NN O O
received NN O O
0.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
injectant NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
gauge NN O O
needle NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Vernon-Mior NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Followup NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
BTX-A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
saline NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O I-OUT
toward NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-injection NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-injection NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
from NN O O
preinjection NN O O
levels 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
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Vernon-Mior NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
BTX-A NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
WAD NN O O
II NN O O
neck NN O O
pain NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10690138)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
-bupivacaine NN O O
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
RS-bupivacaine NN O O
for NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
S NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
RS-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
epidural NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
labour NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
initiated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
10-ml NN O I-INT
top-ups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
studied NN O O
137 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3-129 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
( NN O O
7-157 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
-bupivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
RS NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimated NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-4 NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-13 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O O
patients NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
-bupivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
after NN O O
RS-bupivacaine NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
top-up NN O O
was NN O O
82 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3-164 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
-bupivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
( NN O O
22-221 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
RS-bupivacaine NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
investigators NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10690697)

Hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
falls NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
falling NN O O
and NN O O
falls NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
( NN O O
belief NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
falling NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Aged-care NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sydney NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
131 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
falls NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
fall NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
encouragement NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
enrolment NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
wider NN O O
study NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hip NN O O
fractures NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Modified NN O I-OUT
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
4-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
readministered NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
observer NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
aware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
allocation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participant NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Modified NN O I-OUT
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
using NN O O
hip NN O O
protectors NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
= NN O O
2.58 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hip NN O I-INT
protector NN O I-INT
users NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
falls NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.44 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Modified NN O I-OUT
Falls NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.08 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
falls NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
users NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O I-INT
protectors NN O I-INT
feel NN O O
more NN O O
confident NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
complete NN O O
tasks NN O O
safely NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
become NN O O
more NN O O
physically NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
require NN O O
less NN O O
assistance NN O O
with NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10693733)

Sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
primary NN O O
care NN O O
practice NN O O
patterns NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
clinicians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
current NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
clinicians NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
their NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
advocacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SETTING NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
caring NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Hampshire NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
serving NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
towns NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
multicomponent NN O I-PAR
SunSafe NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recreation NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN/INTERVENTION NN O O
A NN O O
statewide NN O O
survey NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
serving NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
addressed NN O O
their NN O O
self-reported NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
advocacy NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinicians NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
systematically NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
towns NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
assistance NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
practices NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
establishing NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
office NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
promoted NN O I-INT
sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
office NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
promotion NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
clinicians NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
self NN O O
report NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
assistant NN O O
observation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
261 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
statewide NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
about NN O O
half NN O O
provide NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
counseling NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
almost NN O I-OUT
always NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
summer NN O O
well NN O O
care NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Pediatricians NN O O
do NN O O
so NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
family NN O O
physicians NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
handouts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waiting NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sunscreen NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
town NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
towns NN O O
reported NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
clinician NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
SunSafe NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
intervention NN O O
increased NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
counseling NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
participating NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
single-focus NN O O
preventive NN O O
service NN O O
office NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
include NN O O
in NN O O
community NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10703628)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
barrier NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
as NN O O
protective NN O O
measures NN O O
against NN O O
occupational NN O I-OUT
irritant NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
actual NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
barrier NN O I-INT
creams NN O I-INT
over NN O O
bland NN O O
emollients NN O O
for NN O O
skin NN O O
protection NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
hotly NN O O
debated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
newly-introduced NN O O
barrier NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
moisturizing NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
regarding NN O O
their NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
compatibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
panels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
irritation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
products NN O O
provided NN O O
( NN O I-INT
verum NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
weekly NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
instrumental NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
bioengineering NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
barrier NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
and NN O O
stratum NN O I-OUT
corneum NN O I-OUT
hydration NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accepted NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
showing NN O O
both NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
debate NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
strict NN O O
distinction NN O O
between NN O O
skin NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
protection NN O O
products NN O O
is NN O O
justified NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
is NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
positively NN O O
influencing NN O O
skin NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Emphasis NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
laid NN O O
on NN O O
regular NN O O
, NN O O
frequent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
correct NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
product NN O O
for NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10706930)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
variables NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
verified NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
are NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
verified 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
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
long-cycle NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
17-beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
microg/24 NN O O
hour NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
medroxy-progesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hemostatic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
inhibitors NN O I-OUT
antithrombin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O O
decreases NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
1+2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
thrombin-antithrombin NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
questionable NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
long-cycle NN O I-INT
progestins NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
net NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
reduced NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
inhibitors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10707032)

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
of NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridaemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
1.2 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
1 NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
concentration NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
insulin NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
re-evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fasting NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
1.2 NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=168 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
triglyceride NN O I-PAR
concentration NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1.7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=6.5 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=140 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=180 NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=90 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=105 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
waist-to-hip NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=0.95 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
850 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Metformin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
either NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Apo NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
1 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
further NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
consistency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
BIGPRO NN O O
trials NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
that NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
several NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
favourably NN O O
in NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10714690)

Combination NN O O
cyclopentolate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
in NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heavily NN O I-PAR
pigmented NN O I-PAR
irides NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heavily NN O I-PAR
pigmented NN O I-PAR
irides NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
combination NN O O
cyclopentolate NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
eyedrops NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
combination NN O O
cyclopentolate NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
eye-drops NN O O
with NN O O
triple NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
tropicamide NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
babies NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dark NN O I-PAR
irides NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
birthweight NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
1600 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Infants NN O O
' NN O O
eyes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
dilated NN O O
twice NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pupil NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Good NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pupil NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
starting NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Pulse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
decelerated NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
large NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
single NN O O
combination NN O O
eyedrop NN O O
of NN O O
cyclopentolate NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
a NN O O
mydriatic NN O O
for NN O O
infants NN O O
with NN O O
dark NN O O
irides NN O O
as NN O O
both NN O O
tropicamide NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10715372)

Study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O O
tolerance NN O O
to NN O O
Acidform NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
acid-buffering NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bioadhesive NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vaginal NN O O
tolerance NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
potential NN O O
microbicidal NN O O
and NN O O
spermicidal NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
acid-buffering NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Acidform NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nonoxynol-9 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
potential NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
other NN O O
vaginal NN O O
products NN O O
include NN O O
keeping NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
pH NN O O
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
irritating NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
N-9 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
or NN O O
vaginal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
retention NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreasing NN O O
messiness NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
vaginal NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
Acidform NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
N-9 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Colposcopic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
for NN O O
vulvar NN O O
, NN O O
vaginal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cervical NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
irritation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
and NN O O
photographs NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
time NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gel NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
users NN O O
of NN O O
Acidform NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
N-9 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-OUT
generalized NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intense NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cervix NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
Acidform/N-9 NN O I-INT
users NN O O
and NN O O
abrasion NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Vulvar NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
N-9 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gel NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
5.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exulceration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
de-epithelialization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Acidform NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
N-9 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
volunteers NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
protect NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
, NN O O
vagina NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vulva NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
N-9 NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10720081)

Growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
GH-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
arginine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
incidentaloma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
enhanced NN O O
somatostatinergic NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

Spontaneous NN O O
and NN O O
stimulated NN O O
GH NN O O
secretion NN O O
is NN O O
blunted NN O O
in NN O O
hypercortisolemic NN O O
states NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
hypothalamic NN O O
somatostatinergic NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
secretion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incidentally NN O I-PAR
discovered NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
interesting NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
studying NN O O
GH NN O O
secretion NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
cortisol NN O O
excess NN O O
may NN O O
frequently NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
clear NN O I-PAR
Cushingoid NN O I-PAR
sign NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
48-63 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
discovered NN O I-PAR
serendipitously NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
somatostatin NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
arginine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Briefly NN O O
, NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
-30 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
injected NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
immunoradiometric NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IRMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
every NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
150 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-INT
IGF-I NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIA NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
acid-ethanol NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
morning NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
adenoma NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
features NN O O
and NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
uptake NN O O
on NN O O
adrenal NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
included NN O O
also NN O O
an NN O O
endocrine NN O O
work-up NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
0800 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
0800 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
overnight NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
mg NN O I-OUT
dexamethasone NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
borderline NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
UFC NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
blunted NN O O
ACTH NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
failure NN O O
of NN O O
cortisol NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
after NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
patient NN O O
displayed NN O O
low NN O O
ACTH NN O O
and NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
suppression NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
unilateral NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tracer NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mass NN O O
with NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
normal NN O O
adrenal NN O O
gland NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
displayed NN O O
greater NN O O
UFC NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
GHRH NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
blunted NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
bearing NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
incidentaloma NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
GH NN O O
peak NN O O
, NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
18.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.0 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
arginine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
elicit NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
GH NN O O
peak NN O O
, NN O O
33.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
33.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.5 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O O
between NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
GHRH NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
arginine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
GHRH NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
751 NN O O
+/- NN O O
531 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
GH NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
after NN O O
GHRH NN O O
plus NN O O
saline NN O O
or NN O O
GHRH NN O O
plus NN O O
arginine NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incidental NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
GHRH NN O O
is NN O O
blunted NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
somatostatinergic NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
restored NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
by NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
somatostatin NN O O
antagonist NN O O
arginine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blunted NN O O
GH NN O O
release NN O O
to NN O O
GHRH NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
lasting NN O O
sign NN O O
of NN O O
autonomous NN O O
cortisol NN O O
secretion NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
adrenal NN O O
adenoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10726430)

Evaluating NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Maximum NN O O
lactate NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
( NN O O
MLSS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
exercise NN O O
level NN O O
one NN O O
can NN O O
maintain NN O O
while NN O O
also NN O O
maintaining NN O O
an NN O O
equilibrium NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
lactate NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
diffusion NN O O
of NN O O
lactate NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

MLSS NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
fitness NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
predicting NN O O
endurance NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
designing NN O O
training NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
investigation NN O O
assesses NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Lactate NN O I-INT
Minimum NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
lactic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
VO2peak NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
eight-minute NN O O
walking NN O O
recovery NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
running NN O O
velocity NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
lactate NN O O
value NN O O
predicts NN O O
the NN O O
MLSS NN O O
velocity NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
this NN O O
LMT NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
constant NN O O
velocity NN O O
28-minute NN O O
runs NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
predicted NN O O
MLSS NN O O
velocity NN O O
( NN O O
trial NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
0.13 NN O O
m NN O O
sec-1 NN O O
( NN O O
4-8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
predicted NN O O
MLSS NN O O
velocity NN O O
( NN O O
trial NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
yrs 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
; NN O I-PAR
65.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
16.4 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
VO2peak NN O I-PAR
40.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7.5 NN O I-PAR
ml.kg-1.min-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
trial NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mmol NN O O
l-1 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
lactate NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mmol.l-1 NN O O
increase NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
value NN O O
signified NN O O
LSS NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
comparison NN O O
during NN O O
trial NN O O
2 NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mmol.l-1 NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
lactate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
signifying NN O O
a NN O O
workload NN O O
above NN O O
LSS NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
confirming NN O O
trial NN O O
1 NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
LSS NN O O
( NN O O
MLSS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
protocol NN O O
accurately NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
MLSS NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10735838)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anaesthetics NN O I-INT
for NN O O
venepuncture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
EMLA NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Ametop NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
venous NN O I-PAR
cannulation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Single NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
agents NN O O
produced NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
Ametop NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of 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



-DOCSTART- (10742359)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
encounter-based NN O I-INT
prompting NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
on NN O O
resident NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunization NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
an NN O O
encounter-based NN O I-INT
immunization NN O I-INT
prompting NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
on NN O O
resident NN O I-PAR
performance NN O O
in NN O O
administering NN O O
vaccines NN O O
and NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
immunization NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN/METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
first- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
second-year NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital-based NN O I-PAR
continuity NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
prompts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
immunizations NN O I-INT
due NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postclinic NN O O
chart NN O O
review NN O O
compared NN O O
immunizations NN O O
due NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Acceptable NN O O
and NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
administering NN O O
vaccines NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
. NN O O

Resident NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
70-item NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
missed NN O I-OUT
opportunities/vaccine NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
21.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
too NN O O
early 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
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
postponed NN O O
to NN O O
next NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postintervention NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
: NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
75.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
80.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
76.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
immunization NN O O
prompting NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hospital-based NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
resident NN O I-PAR
continuity NN O O
clinic NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
missed NN O I-OUT
opportunities/vaccine NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
significantly NN O O
impacting NN O O
resident NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
immunization NN O O
guidelines.immunization NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
immunization NN O O
, NN O O
prompting NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
resident NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10754477)

The NN O O
GH NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
hormone-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
NH2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
attenuated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
longstanding NN O I-PAR
post-irradiation NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
post-irradiation NN O O
GH NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
GHRH NN O O
secretion NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
release NN O O
GH NN O O
following NN O O
exogenous NN O O
GHRH NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
supramaximal NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
GHRH NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
may NN O O
decline NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
re-evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
cranial NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
21.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18.4-26.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
13.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11.4-15.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
post-radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
30Gy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
of NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
NH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
doses NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
upper NN O O
( NN O O
0.15 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curves NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
supramaximal NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
2min NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
5min NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
irradiated NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
0.15 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
peak NN O O
Irradiated NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

5mU/l NN O O
vs NN O O
median NN O O
Controls NN O O
, NN O O
37.4mU/l 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
1.0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
peak NN O O
Irradiated NN O O
, NN O O
4.8mU/l NN O O
vs NN O O
median NN O O
Controls NN O O
, NN O O
15.2mU/l NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

05 NN O O
) NN O O
GHRH NN O O
( NN O O
1-29 NN O O
) NN O O
NH NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
irradiated NN O O
subjects NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
NH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
median NN O I-INT
AUC NN O O
: NN O O
122mU/l.min NN O O
vs NN O O
179mU/l.min NN O O
vs NN O O
268mU/l.min NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
reflecting NN O O
altered NN O O
pituitary NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
GH NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
bolus NN O O
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
NH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
attenuated NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
direct NN O O
pituitary NN O O
damage NN O O
and/or NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tropic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
GHRH NN O O
deficiency NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10755175)

Auditory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
behavioral NN O O
benefits NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

Auditory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
, NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
included NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
observational NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social/adaptive NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
parent-rated NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
observational NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ear-occlusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
on NN O O
teacher-rated NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
IQs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
adaptive/social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
quotients NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
retrospect NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O I-OUT
individual NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
benefiting NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
educationally NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10757250)

Antisaccade NN O O
and NN O O
smooth NN O O
pursuit NN O O
eye NN O O
movements NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
sertraline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
lorazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
demonstrate NN O O
abnormally NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
saccadic NN O O
distractibility NN O O
when NN O O
carrying NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
antisaccade NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
particularly NN O O
thoroughly NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
large NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
accumulated NN O O
from NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
may NN O O
arise NN O O
from NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobe NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
psychopharmacology NN O O
of NN O O
saccadic NN O O
distractibility NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
relevant NN O O
both NN O O
to NN O O
interpreting NN O O
patient NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
establishing NN O O
the NN O O
neurological NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sertraline NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Antisaccade NN O O
, NN O O
no-saccade NN O O
, NN O O
visually NN O O
guided NN O O
saccade NN O O
and NN O O
smooth NN O O
pursuit NN O O
tasks NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
drugs NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Lorazepam NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
antisaccade NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
no-saccade NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
dose-dependent NN O I-OUT
manner NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sertraline NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Correlation NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
rather NN O I-OUT
weak NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
association NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smooth NN O I-OUT
pursuit NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Practice NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
shown NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
have NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
powerful NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
antisaccade NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
supports NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
work NN O O
by NN O O
confirming NN O O
that NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-OUT
reliably NN O I-OUT
worsens NN O I-OUT
saccadic NN O I-OUT
distractibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
psychotropic NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
sertraline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chlorpromazine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
suggest NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
parallel NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
design NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
should NN O I-OUT
take NN O I-OUT
account NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10757579)

Ropivacaine-clonidine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caudal NN O I-PAR
blockade NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Adding NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
weak NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
( NN O O
< NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
potentially NN O O
enhance NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
further NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
unwanted NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain-relieving NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
-clonidine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
caudal NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
observer-blinded NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
subumbilical NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
caudal NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
ml/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R0.2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
ml/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R0.1C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
evaluate NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
postoperatively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Residual NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
R0.1C NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
18/20 NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
without NN O O
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
R0.2 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11/20 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine-ropivacaine NN O O
mixture NN O O
is NN O O
achieved NN O O
without NN O O
causing NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10758987)

American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Cardiology/European NN O O
Society NN O O
of NN O O
Cardiology NN O O
International NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Angiographic NN O O
Data NN O O
Compression NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lossy NN O O
data NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
on NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
features NN O O
in NN O O
digital NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
varying NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
lossy NN O I-INT
Joint NN O I-INT
Photographic NN O I-OUT
Experts NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JPEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
on NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Compression NN O O
of NN O O
digital NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiograms NN O O
facilitates NN O O
playback NN O O
of NN O O
images NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
little NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
compression NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiography NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
At NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
angiographers NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
sequences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
sequences NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25-sequence NN O I-PAR
subsets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
was NN O O
displayed NN O O
either NN O O
as NN O O
original NN O O
images NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
compression NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
CRs NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
6:1 NN O O
, NN O O
10:1 NN O O
or NN O O
16:1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lossy NN O I-OUT
compression NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
compression NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
graded NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
angiographers NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lossy NN O I-OUT
compression NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
16:1 NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
features NN O O
( NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
largest NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcification NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
16:1 NN O O
compression NN O O
vs. NN O O
original NN O O
images NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
interpretation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
CRs NN O O
of NN O O
10:1 NN O O
and NN O O
16:1 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
With NN O O
increased NN O O
ratios NN O O
of NN O O
lossy NN O O
compression NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
digital NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiograms NN O O
occurs NN O O
that NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
was NN O O
impaired NN O O
. NN O O

Caution NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
angiograms NN O I-INT
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
lossy NN O O
JPEG NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
beyond NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
6:1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10759619)

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
including NN O O
two NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
rational NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
induced NN O O
peptic NN O O
ulcer NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
acid NN O O
suppression NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
well NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
tissue NN O O
under NN O O
steady-state NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
two NN O O
crossover NN O O
studies NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
gastric NN O O
juice NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
tissue NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
juice NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.0-5.0 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.3-0.4 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
antrum NN O O
: NN O O
3.8-4.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.8 NN O O
microg/g NN O O
, NN O O
fundus NN O O
: NN O O
5.9-7.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.2-4.4 NN O O
microg/g NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
and NN O O
roxithromycin NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
roxithromycin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
stomach NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinically NN O O
proven NN O O
synergic NN O O
beneficial NN O O
action NN O O
in NN O O
eradication NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10768434)

Photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5-aminolaevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
recalcitrant NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
5-aminolaevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
incoherent NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
recalcitrant NN O O
warts NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
beneficial NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O O
versus NN O O
placeboPDT NN O O
for NN O O
recalcitrant NN O O
foot NN O O
and NN O O
hand NN O O
warts NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Recalcitrant NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
warts NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
repetitive NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo-PDT NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
encompassing NN O I-INT
paring NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
keratolytic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Verucid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Standardised NN O O
photographs NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
wart NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
weeks NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
entry NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
from NN O O
photographs NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
evaluator NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
five-point NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
232 NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
warts NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
117 NN O O
warts NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
115 NN O O
warts NN O O
to NN O O
placebo-PDT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
week NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-PDT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vanishing NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
wart NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
persisting NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
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
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O I-INT
warts NN O O
were NN O O
graded NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
placebo-PDT NN O I-INT
warts NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
ALA-PDT NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo-PDT NN O I-INT
when NN O O
both NN O O
wart NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vanishing NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10770301)

Low NN O I-INT
molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

HAEST NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin NN O O
in NN O O
Acute NN O O
Embolic NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
heparins NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
advocated NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
missing NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Acute NN O O
Embolic NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
HAEST NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMWH NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
IU/kg NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
449 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
started NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
19/244 NN O O
( NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
dalteparin-allocated NN O O
patients NN O O
versus NN O O
17/225 NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
aspirin-allocated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio=1.13 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.57-2.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
events NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
6/224 NN O O
versus NN O O
4/225 NN O O
; NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
26/224 NN O O
versus NN O O
32/225 NN O O
; NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
24/224 NN O O
versus NN O O
17/225 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
21/224 NN O O
versus NN O O
16/225 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
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
any NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
exclude NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
smaller NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
still NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
, NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10770979)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high-fiber NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Polyp NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
inhibit NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
precursors NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
large-bowel NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
2079 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
calories NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
kcal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fruits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.5 NN O I-INT
servings NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
kcal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
brochure NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
healthy NN O I-INT
eating NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
entered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
after NN O O
undergoing NN O O
complete NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
adenomatous NN O O
polyps NN O O
; NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
undergoing NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
randomization 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
1905 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
91.6 NN O I-PAR
percent 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
Of NN O O
the NN O O
958 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
947 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
39.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
39.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
unadjusted NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.00 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.90 NN O O
to NN O O
1.12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
recurrent NN O O
adenomas NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+/-SE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.85+/-0.08 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1.84+/-0.07 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
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
maximal NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
advanced NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
lesions NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
maximal NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
25 NN O O
percent NN O O
villous NN O O
elements NN O O
or NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
high-grade NN O O
dysplasia NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adopting NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
fiber NN O O
, NN O O
fruits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
adenomas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10778276)

Human NN O O
motor NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
aversive NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
valued NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
presentation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aversive NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
simultaneous NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bogus NN O I-INT
intelligence NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
a NN O O
subject NN O O
's NN O O
aggressive NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subject NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
fist NN O I-OUT
clenching NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
generated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
delivered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O I-INT
aversive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonaversive NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
failure NN O O
or NN O O
success NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

20 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
17-34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
, NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
reception NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aversive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonaversive NN O I-INT
acoustic NN O I-INT
signal NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
press NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
hand NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
that NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
slide NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
slide NN O O
presented NN O O
an NN O O
item NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
intelligence NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
either NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
answer NN O O
successfully NN O O
( NN O O
success NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
failure NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
's NN O O
autonomic NN O I-OUT
arousal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
photoplethysmographic NN O I-OUT
sensors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
stimulation NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
condition NN O O
with NN O O
aversive NN O O
stimulation NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clenching NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
was NN O O
interpreted NN O O
as NN O O
indicating NN O O
subject NN O O
's NN O O
tendencies NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
frustration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10781855)

Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reactogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
meningococcal NN O O
conjugate NN O O
vaccine NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
A+C NN O O
meningococcal NN O O
polysaccharide NN O O
vaccine NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
observer-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reactogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
meningococcal NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MenC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A+C NN O I-INT
meningococcal NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MenPS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomised 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
MenC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=92 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
MenPS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
C NN O O
meningococcal NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bactericidal NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MenC NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
MenPS NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
22.8 NN O O
U/ml NN O O
vs NN O O
4.0 NN O O
U/ml 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
87 NN O O
vs NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
U/ml NN O O
vs NN O O
3.0 NN O O
U/ml 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
81.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
20.2 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
immunisation NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
candidate NN O O
meningococcal NN O O
conjugate NN O O
vaccine NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
licensed NN O O
polysaccharide NN O O
vaccine NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10790473)

Language NN O O
, NN O O
speech NN O O
sound NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognition NN O O
in NN O O
three-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relation NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
early-life NN O O
otitis NN O O
media NN O O
on NN O O
speech NN O O
, NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
cumulative NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
middle NN O O
ear NN O O
effusion NN O O
( NN O O
MEE NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
6350 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
town/rural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
suburban NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
intensively NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
middle NN O O
ear NN O O
status NN O O
by NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
otoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
tympanometry NN O I-INT
, NN O O
throughout NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
; NN O O
we NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
otoscopic NN O O
observations NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
basis NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
otitis NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
specified NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
persistence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
became NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
tympanostomy NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
either NN O O
promptly NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
defined NN O O
extended NN O O
period NN O O
if NN O O
MEE NN O O
remained NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
sociodemographic NN O I-PAR
strata NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
241 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
represented NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
cumulative NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
fell NN O I-PAR
just NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
so NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
none NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
65.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
these NN O O
241 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
formal NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
conversational NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
weak NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
negative NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
cumulative NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
MEE NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
periods NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
formal NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
receptive NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
scores NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
MEE NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
beyond NN O O
that NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
sociodemographic NN O O
variables NN O O
ranged NN O O
only NN O O
from NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
concentrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
whose NN O O
families NN O O
had NN O O
private NN O O
health NN O O
insurance NN O O
( NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
subgroup NN O O
between NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
MEE NN O O
during NN O O
antecedent NN O O
periods NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
wide NN O O
margins NN O O
, NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
highest NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
socioeconomically NN O O
advantaged NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
socioeconomically NN O O
disadvantaged NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
either NN O O
that NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
early-life NN O I-PAR
MEE NN O I-PAR
actually NN O O
causes NN O O
later NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
circumscribed NN O O
impairments NN O O
of NN O O
receptive NN O O
language NN O O
and NN O O
verbal NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
cognition NN O O
in NN O O
certain NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
or NN O O
that NN O O
unidentified NN O O
, NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
predispose NN O O
children NN O O
both NN O O
to NN O O
early-life NN O O
otitis NN O O
media NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
certain NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
developmental NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
should NN O O
help NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
causality NN O O
and NN O O
confounding NN O O
as NN O O
explanations NN O O
for NN O O
our NN O O
findings.language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
otitis NN O O
media NN O O
, NN O O
middle NN O O
ear NN O O
effusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10807619)

Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
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
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
ISOLDE NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
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
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
751 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
expiratory NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Inhaled NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
microgram NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
metered NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
inhaler NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
: NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
withdrawals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O O
measures NN O O
: NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.16 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
remained NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
exacerbation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
1.32 NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
0.99 NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
on NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
3.2 NN O O
units NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2.0 NN O O
units NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
on NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.0043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Withdrawals NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
disease NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
malignancy NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
microgram NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
did NN O O
produce NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
on NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
slower NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment 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
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10808042)

Increased NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
to NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serotonergic NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT NN O O
) NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT1d NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT1d NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
SQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
separated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-week NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
diagnosisxdrugxtime NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
repeated NN O O
measure NN O O
analysis NN O O
covaried NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
than NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
5-HT NN O O
regulation NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT1d NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
receptor NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10811665)

Outcome NN O O
of NN O O
CNS NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
disseminated NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
noncleaved-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
CNS NN O O
involvement NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
failure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
noncleaved-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-INT
successive NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
462 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CNS NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CNS+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CNS NN O O
disease NN O O
included NN O O
meningeal NN O O
disease NN O O
or NN O O
CNS NN O O
parenchymal NN O O
masses NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
cranial NN O O
neuropathies NN O O
( NN O O
CSF+/Mass NN O O
; NN O O
CNPs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
isolated NN O O
CNPs NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CNS+ NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
M2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
blasts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
M3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
blasts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
protocol-based NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
CNS NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Relapses NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CNS NN O O
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CNS+ NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
CSF+/Mass NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
nominally NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CNS- NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
marrow NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
lactate NN O O
dehydrogenase NN O O
( NN O O
LDH NN O O
) NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.52 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
to NN O O
2.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
RFRs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
M2 NN O O
or NN O O
M3 NN O O
marrow NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
LDH NN O O
levels NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
500 NN O O
IU/L NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
CNS NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.4 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.96 NN O O
to NN O O
2.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.029 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.2 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RFR NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
isolated NN O I-OUT
CNPs NN O I-OUT
was 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
0.36 NN O O
to NN O O
2.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
used NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
covered NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
CSF+/Mass NN O O
CNS NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
nominally NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
independent NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
LDH NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10814606)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
ATP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glucose NN O O
turnover NN O O
and NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O O
cachexia NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
lipolysis NN O O
, NN O O
proteolysis NN O O
and NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

ATP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
inhibit NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
fat-free NN O O
mass NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
exploring NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ATP NN O I-INT
on NN O O
whole-body NN O O
glucose NN O O
turnover NN O O
, NN O O
alanine NN O O
turnover NN O O
and NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O O
from NN O O
alanine NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
22-24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
an NN O O
overnight NN O O
fast NN O O
, NN O O
turnover NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O O
and NN O O
alanine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O O
from NN O O
alanine NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
primed NN O O
constant NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
?6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
?lucose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
?3- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
C?lanine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirteen NN O I-INT
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eleven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O O
as NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
without NN O O
ATP NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
microg.min NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
.kg NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.62+/-0.07 NN O O
mmol.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

44+/-0.13 NN O O
mmol.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
non-significant NN O O
, NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
?baseline NN O O
, NN O O
0.30+/-0.16 NN O O
mmol.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
during NN O O
ATP NN O O
, NN O O
0.37+/-0.13 NN O O
mmol.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
lower NN O O
ATP NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
( NN O O
37-50 NN O O
microg NN O O
. NN O O

min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
( NN O O
r=0.58 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
dose 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
indicate NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
high-dose NN O O
ATP NN O O
infusion NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
low-dose NN O O
ATP NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
treated NN O O
with NN O O
high-dose NN O O
ATP NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
and NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
would NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
repeated NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
ATP NN O I-INT
infusions NN O O
may NN O O
inhibit NN O O
glucose NN O O
turnover NN O O
between NN O O
infusion NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10816058)

Heparin-coated NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
circulating NN O O
complement NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
in NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
( NN O O
CPB NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
intention NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
biocompatibility NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
heparin-coated NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
apply NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
20 NN O O
operations NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
heparin-coated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
HC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
reactants NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukins NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
granulocytic NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
after NN O O
CPB NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
C3a NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
851 NN O O
( NN O O
791-959 NN O O
) NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
[ NN O O
median NN O O
with NN O O
quartiles NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
497 NN O O
( NN O O
476-573 NN O O
) NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
HC NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Terminal NN O I-OUT
Complement NN O I-OUT
Complex NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
114 NN O O
( NN O O
71-130 NN O O
) NN O O
AU/ml NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
35.5 NN O O
( NN O O
28.9-51.4 NN O O
) NN O O
AU/ml NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
HC NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
570 NN O O
( NN O O
203-743 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
168 NN O O
( NN O O
111-206 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
HC NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
HC NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin-coated NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
circuits NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
the NN O O
biocompatibility NN O O
of NN O O
CPB NN O O
during NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
complement NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10817768)

Does NN O O
waiting NN O O
matter NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-PAR
non-urgent NN O I-PAR
rheumatology NN O I-PAR
out-patient NN O I-PAR
referrals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
waiting NN O O
times NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
non-urgent NN O I-PAR
rheumatology NN O I-PAR
opinion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
'fast NN O I-INT
track NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
6-week NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
'ordinary NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-PAR
city NN O I-PAR
out-patient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
rheumatology NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Lothian NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Borders NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
million NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SF12 NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
summary NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
T-scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EuroQol NN O I-OUT
instrument NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
societal NN O I-OUT
perspective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
waiting NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
43 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
sigma NN O O
= NN O O
+/-16 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
105 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
sigma NN O O
= NN O O
+/-51 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
'fast NN O O
track NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
'ordinary NN O O
' NN O O
appointments NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
11 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
16 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
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
0.11 NN O O
( NN O O
0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
15-month NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Rationing NN O O
by NN O O
delay NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
detrimental NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
mental NN O O
or NN O O
physical NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Expenditure NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
on NN O O
waiting NN O O
times NN O O
without NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
wasteful NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
resources NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
directed NN O O
at NN O O
achieving NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
research NN O O
into NN O O
effective NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
controlling NN O O
demand NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
would NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
specialist NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10832773)

Comments NN O O
on NN O O
Secretin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
two-part NN O O
clinical NN O O
investigation NN O O
by NN O O
M.G NN O O
. NN O O

Chez NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10848655)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
eradicating NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
screen NN O O
and NN O O
treat NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

Leeds NN O O
Help NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
preventing NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
, 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
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
eradicating NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
programme NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40-49 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lists NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
attended NN O O
their NN O O
local NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
13C-urea NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Infected NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tinidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
OCT NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
identical NN O O
placebos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
13C-urea NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
two NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
13C-urea NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
missing NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
visit 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
32 NN O I-PAR
929 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
attend NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8407 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2329 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori-positive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1161 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
OCT NN O O
and NN O O
1163 NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
over NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
returned NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
repeat NN O O
13C-urea NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
on NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
occasion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
OCT NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
, NN O O
710 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
1161 NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
58-64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
evaluable NN O O
710 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
967 NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
71-76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
took NN O O
all NN O O
medication NN O O
645 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
769 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
81-87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
2.5 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
2.1-2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compliance NN O O
, NN O O
male NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prescription NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
experiencing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
bitter NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
OCT NN O O
regimen NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
less NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
programme NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
hospital NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
dyspeptic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10850381)

Reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
r-metHuG-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
necrosis NN O O
of NN O O
mucosal NN O O
membranes NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
and NN O O
debilitating NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
many NN O O
cancer NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
were NN O O
interested NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
methionyl NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
r-metHuG-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CAE NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
filgrastim NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
unblinded NN O O
filgrastim NN O O
in NN O O
subsequent NN O O
CAE NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
occurred NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
reported NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
sign NN O O
or NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
candidiasis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
chi-square NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
stratified NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
cycle NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
filgrastim NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
all NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
filgrastim NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
across NN O O
multiple NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
filgrastim NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10860330)

A NN O O
laser-powered NN O I-INT
hydrokinetic NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
for NN O O
caries NN O O
removal NN O O
and NN O O
cavity NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Laser NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cutting NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
hard NN O O
tissues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
erbium NN O O
, NN O O
chromium NN O O
: NN O O
yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
air-water NN O O
spray NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
for NN O O
cavity NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cavity NN O I-PAR
preparation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
turbine/bur NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser-powered NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
split-mouth NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
prepared NN O O
Class NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
cavities NN O O
, NN O O
placed NN O O
resin NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
for NN O O
pulp NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
restoration NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty-seven NN O I-PAR
subjects 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
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
exception 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
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
cavity NN O O
preparation NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
declined NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
Class NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
cavities NN O O
and NN O O
resin NN O O
restorations NN O O
are NN O O
retained NN O O
by NN O O
lased NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Hard-tissue NN O O
cutting NN O O
lasers NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
introduced NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
operative NN O O
dentistry NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
cavity NN O O
preparation NN O O
and NN O O
restoration NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10861653)

Response NN O O
of NN O O
pre-core NN O I-PAR
mutant NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pre-core NN O I-PAR
mutant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
Mediterranean NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Asia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pre-core NN O I-PAR
mutant NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
e NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
HBeAg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
HBV NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pre-core NN O O
mutant NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
infection NN O O
usually NN O O
proceeds NN O O
to NN O O
serious NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Wild-type NN O O
HBV NN O O
infection NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
respond NN O O
relatively NN O O
well NN O O
to NN O O
interferon NN O O
( NN O O
IFN NN O O
) NN O O
alpha NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
IFN NN O O
alpha NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
pre-core NN O O
mutant NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pre-core NN O I-PAR
mutant NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
profound NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
replication NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pre-core NN O I-PAR
mutant NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (10870534)

Clinical NN O O
pathway NN O O
for NN O O
fractured NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
pathway NN O O
for NN O O
managing NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fractured NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
pseudorandomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
St NN O I-PAR
Vincent NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Melbourne NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Victoria NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
111 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fractured NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Management NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pathway NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
55 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
established NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Timing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
referrals NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
planning NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
total 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
complication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
managed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
pathway NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
8.0 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
assessment NN O O
for NN O O
placement NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Aged NN O O
Care NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Service NN O O
was NN O O
required NN O O
( NN O O
9.5 NN O O
versus NN O O
13.6 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
pathway NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
complication NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.40 NN O O
; NN O O
readmission NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Coordinated NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fractured NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10889149)

Atrophy NN O O
and NN O O
intestinal NN O I-PAR
metaplasia NN O I-PAR
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
cure NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
& NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori-infected NN O O
gastric NN O O
mucosa NN O O
evolves NN O O
through NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
gastritis NN O O
, NN O O
intestinal NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
( NN O O
IM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
glandular NN O O
atrophy NN O O
( NN O O
GA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dysplasia NN O O
before NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
develops NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
if NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
would NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
premalignant NN O O
histologic NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stomach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Volunteers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Yantai NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
specimens NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
antrum NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
corpus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
endoscopies NN O O
with NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
587 NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
OAC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
295 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
292 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
was NN O O
eradicated NN O O
in NN O O
226 NN O O
subjects NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
OAC NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
245 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
paired NN O O
samples NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
gastritis NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
antrum NN O O
and NN O O
corpus NN O O
after NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication 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
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IM NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
antrum NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori-infected NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
antral NN O O
biopsy NN O O
specimens NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
gastritis 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
whereas NN O O
corpus NN O O
specimens NN O O
showed NN O O
increased NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
gastritis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
marginal NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
GA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.052 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
histologic NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
gastritis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
after NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
IM NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori-infected NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
GA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
corpus 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
At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
pathologic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10889804)

The NN O O
Finnish NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Finnish NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O O
Study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
diet-exercise NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
or NN O O
delaying NN O O
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IGT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
programme NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
vascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
ongoing NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
523 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IGT NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
measure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
is NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
saturated NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
individually NN O O
guided NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
receives NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
benefits NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
healthy NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
began NN O O
in NN O O
1993 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
ended NN O O
in NN O O
1998 NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
April NN O O
1999 NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
65 NN O O
new NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
34 NN O O
drop-outs NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
-4.6 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
152 NN O O
) 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
n NN O O
= NN O O
143 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
43.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
41.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
5 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
14.0 NN O O
and NN O O
12.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
interim NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ongoing NN O O
Finnish NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Study NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
intervention NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10901647)

Transesophageal NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
emboli NN O O
during NN O O
femoral NN O O
nailing NN O O
: NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
quantified NN O O
the NN O O
embolic NN O O
load NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lungs NN O O
created NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
techniques NN O O
of NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
fractures NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
fractures NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Intramedullary NN O O
nailing NN O O
was NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
AO/ASIF* NN O O
universal NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
or NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Transesophageal NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TEE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emboli NN O I-OUT
generated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
nailing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
software NN O O
that NN O O
digitized NN O O
the NN O O
TEE NN O O
images NN O O
and NN O O
quantified NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
embolic NN O O
particles NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
frame NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
embolic NN O O
phenomena NN O O
( NN O O
zero NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
total NN O O
embolic NN O O
load NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
steps NN O O
( NN O O
fracture NN O O
manipulation NN O O
, NN O O
proximal NN O O
portal NN O O
opening NN O O
, NN O O
reaming NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nail NN O O
passage NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Manual NN O O
grading NN O O
of NN O O
emboli NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
software NN O O
quantification NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
similarity NN O O
of NN O O
emboli NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramedullary NN O I-OUT
nailing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Unreamed NN O I-OUT
nails NN O I-OUT
do NN O O
not NN O O
protect NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
from NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
embolization NN O O
of NN O O
marrow NN O O
contents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10926339)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
even NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O O
asthma NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
clear NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
started NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inhaled NN O O
steroid NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
steroid NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
pharmacological NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
800 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Turbuhaler NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
inhaler NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
evening NN O I-OUT
PEF NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
spirometric NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
rescue NN O O
beta2-agonists NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
marked NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
borderline NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.10 NN O O
high NN O O
vs. NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
marked NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
high NN O O
vs. NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
; NN O O
high NN O O
vs. NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
EPX NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
; NN O O
high NN O O
vs. NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
budesonide NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
newly NN O O
detected NN O O
asthma NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
started NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
steroid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
asthmatic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
despite NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10928228)

Is NN O O
a NN O O
calculated NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
BMD NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
The NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
measurement NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
avoid NN O O
the NN O O
errors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
accepted NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
measurement NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
early NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
mineral NN O I-INT
density NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
measurements NN O O
at NN O O
other NN O O
hip NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
directly NN O O
measured NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
formula NN O O
: NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.48 NN O O
x NN O O
Neck NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
+ NN O O
0.62 NN O O
x NN O O
Trochanteric NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
+ NN O O
0.03 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
state NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
agreement NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O O
r2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.96 NN O O
, NN O O
SEE NN O O
0.012 NN O O
g/cm2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
formula NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compute NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
agreement NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
remained NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
estimate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
represented NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
estimate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
too NN O O
great NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
conclusions NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
calculated NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
reasonable NN O O
point NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
estimates NN O O
are NN O O
too NN O O
imprecise NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
conclusions NN O O
about NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10934908)

On NN O O
the NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
neurophysiological NN O I-PAR
manifestation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recollective NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
M.E NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Smith NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
event-related NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
potentials NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ERPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
performing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recognition NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
remember NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
R NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
know NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
K NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
judgments NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
observing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ERP NN O O
a NN O O
neurophysiological NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
recollective NN O O
experience NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
waveforms NN O O
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
stimuli NN O O
that NN O O
yielded NN O O
R NN O O
and NN O O
K NN O O
judgments NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
replicated NN O O
his NN O O
experiment NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
componential NN O O
structure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
R NN O O
> NN O O
K NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
ways NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
correction NN O O
for NN O O
P300 NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
jitter NN O I-OUT
eliminated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
Smith NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
principal NN O O
component NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
waveform NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
words NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
list NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
P300 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
analyses NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
component NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
memory-evoked NN O I-OUT
shift NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
recollection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10939601)

5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
This NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
biomodulation NN O O
of NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
: NN O O
FA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
iv NN O O
bolus NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
iv NN O O
bolus NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
FA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
iv NN O O
bolus NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
iv NN O O
bolus NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
IFO NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2,000 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
1000 NN O O
mL NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
dextrose NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2-hr NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
arm NN O O
B. NN O O
Mesna NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
IFO NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
hemorrhagic NN O O
cystitis NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-38 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
5-FU NN O O
plus NN O O
FA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-21 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IFO NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-49 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-43 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
nonhematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
notable NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
grade NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
IFO NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-FU NN O O
plus NN O O
FA NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10960380)

The NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Reports NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O O
neurological NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
subarachnoid NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
generated NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
alternate NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
of NN O O
intermediate NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
60- NN O O
and NN O O
80-mg NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
preservative-free NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
4 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
60-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
31 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
4 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
80-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
outlasted NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
subarachnoid NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Epidural NN O O
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
block NN O O
regressed NN O O
to NN O O
L-1 NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
last NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cephalad NN O I-OUT
dermatome NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Times NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
two-segment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
T-10 NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
112 NN O O
+/- NN O O
26 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
versus NN O O
122 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
L-1 NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
146 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
versus NN O O
159 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
milestones NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
negligible NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
reported NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
plain NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
60- NN O O
or NN O O
80-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
recovery NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
60- NN O O
and NN O O
80-mg NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
plain NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
for NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
doses NN O O
produced NN O O
comparable NN O O
sensory NN O O
and NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
milestones NN O O
were NN O O
20-30 NN O O
min NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
80-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
negligible NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
reported NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
24-h NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10963640)

Epirubicin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
role NN O O
of NN O O
dose-intensity NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
modify NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of 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 I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
anthracycline-naive NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
11 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-INT
FEC NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
same NN O O
regimen NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
then NN O O
eight NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
then NN O O
restart NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
regimen NN O O
at NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
response NN O O
or NN O O
stabilization NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
= NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
= NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
= NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
= NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
= NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
( NN O O
49.2 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
56.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
47.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=.06 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
second-line NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
100 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
41 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=.012 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
arms NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
17.9 NN O O
, NN O O
18.9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=.49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
MBC NN O O
, NN O O
longer NN O O
epirubicin-based NN O O
regimens NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FEC NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
regimens NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
initial NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
and NN O O
identical NN O O
retreatment NN O O
at NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
yielded NN O O
equivalent NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
longer NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10968308)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
enrollees NN O O
in NN O O
Medicare NN O O
Plus NN O O
Choice NN O O
plans NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
case NN O O
management NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
1-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Multiple NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
San NN O I-PAR
Francisco NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
provider NN O I-PAR
organization NN O I-PAR
bearing NN O I-PAR
financial NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6409 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Screening NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
work-based NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
more NN O O
case NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.09 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.02 NN O O
months NN O O
per NN O O
person 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
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
average NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
payments NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
3148 NN O O
vs NN O O
$ NN O O
3277 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
social NN O O
work-oriented NN O O
case NN O O
management NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
high-risk NN O O
older NN O O
people NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
potentially NN O O
favorable NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
case NN O O
management NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
do NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
case NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10969304)

Physostigmine NN O I-INT
reverses NN O O
propofol-induced NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
and NN O O
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
transmission NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
produce NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
altering NN O O
central NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
transmission NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
physostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
propofol NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Propofol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
computer-controlled NN O O
infusion NN O O
pump NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
concentrations NN O O
until NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
resulted NN O O
( NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
verbal NN O O
commands NN O O
, NN O O
abolition NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
movement NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Auditory NN O I-OUT
Steady NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASSR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Bispectral NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
electrooculogram NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
continuous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
, NN O O
reversal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unconsciousness NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
physostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
28 NN O O
microgram/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
block NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
reversal NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
microgram/kg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Propofol NN O O
produced NN O O
unconsciousness NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
microgram/ml NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Unconsciousness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASSR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
microV NN O O
[ NN O O
awake NN O O
baseline NN O O
0.32 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.18 NN O O
microV 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
BIS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
55.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
awake NN O O
baseline NN O O
92.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.9 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

Physostigmine NN O O
restored NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASSR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.17 NN O O
microV 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
BIS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
75.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.3 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
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
scopolamine NN O O
blocked NN O O
the NN O O
physostigmine-induced NN O I-OUT
reversal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unconsciousness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ASSR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASSR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
propofol-induced NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
: NN O O
0.09 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
microV NN O O
and NN O O
58.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.5 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
ASSR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
physostigmine NN O O
administration NN O O
: NN O O
0.08 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
microV NN O O
and NN O O
56.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.7 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
unconsciousness NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
propofol NN O O
is NN O O
mediated NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
via NN O O
interruption NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
muscarinic NN O O
transmission NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10971307)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
asimadoline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
kappa-opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
tubular NN O O
water NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
vasopressin NN O I-PAR
secretion NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
asimadoline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
kappa-opioid NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
hormones NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
body NN O O
fluid NN O O
balance NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
its NN O O
tolerability NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
asimadoline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
hour NN O O
control NN O O
urine NN O O
collections NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
postdose NN O O
urine NN O O
collections NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
ml NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
another NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
urine NN O O
collection NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
hourly NN O O
. NN O O

Arginine-vasopressin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AVP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
alpha-hANP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cAMP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
r.i.a NN O O
. NN O O

or NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
GC-MS NN O O
measurements NN O O
revealed NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asimadoline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
18 NN O O
ng NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
91 NN O O
ng NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
214 NN O O
ng NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
1.1-1.4 NN O O
h. NN O O
Without NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
1-2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
asimadoline NN O O
from NN O O
3.3+/-1.3 NN O O
to NN O O
5.6+/-1.4 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
from NN O O
3.2 NN O O
+/-1.6 NN O O
to NN O O
5.5+/-2.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 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
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CH2O NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
from NN O O
0.2+/-1.5 NN O O
to NN O O
2.0+/-1.6 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
from NN O O
0.6+/-1.6 NN O O
to NN O O
3.0+/-1.6 NN O O
ml NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 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

Urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
AVP NN O O
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
from NN O O
46+/-23 NN O O
to NN O O
25+/-15 NN O O
fmol NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
410+/-206 NN O O
to NN O O
181+/-125 NN O O
fmol NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
stimulation NN O O
by NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
saline NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
AVP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
only NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
asimadoline NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
subjects NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
saline NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alpha-hANP NN O O
or NN O O
ET-1 NN O O
systems NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
asimadoline NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Asimadoline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
diuretic NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
probably NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
effect NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
tubular NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
AVP NN O O
secretion NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
asimadoline NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10971538)

Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
uvulopalatoplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
snoring NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
objective NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
objectively NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
snoring NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
uvulopalatopharyngoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UPPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
uvulopalatoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAUP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
snoring NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
investigation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
snoring NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
UPPP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
LAUP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
palatal NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
objective NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
snoring NN O I-OUT
loudness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
recording NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
Snore NN O O
Box NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
simple NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
operate NN O O
, NN O O
portable NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
built NN O O
in NN O O
microphone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
objective NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
automatically NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
38 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
technically NN O O
valid NN O O
recordings NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
underwent NN O O
LAUP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
16 NN O O
UPPP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Overall NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
Snore NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
SI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
78.2 NN O O
snores/h 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
LAUP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
UPPP NN O I-INT
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
objective NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
snoring NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (10973645)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stage-of-change NN O I-INT
oriented NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infertile NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
a NN O O
stage-of-change NN O I-INT
oriented NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
infertile NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Hamilton NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ontario NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
pre-natal NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
/= NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
cigarettes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
three NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
minute NN O I-INT
scripted NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
booklet NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
woman NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
stage-of-change NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
continuum NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exhaled NN O I-INT
carbon-monoxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
validate NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Delta NN O I-OUT
stage-of-change NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
post NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
infertile NN O O
women NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
stage-of-change NN O I-OUT
0.28 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
prenatal NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Maintained NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
stage-of-change NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
by NN O O
-0.62 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
For NN O O
infertile NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
basic NN O O
information NN O O
describing NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
on NN O O
fertility NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
exhaled NN O O
CO NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
pregnant NN O O
women NN O O
neither NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
beneficial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
post-partum NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10993031)

Sublingual NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
biochemical NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sublingual NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
mineral NN O I-PAR
density NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
biochemical NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metabolism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
hysterectomized NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intact NN O I-PAR
uteri NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
P4 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O I-INT
micronized NN O I-INT
P4 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mcg NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O I-INT
micronized NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
E2 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
E2+P4 NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
E2+T NN O I-INT
and NN O O
E2+P4+T NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hormones NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
sublingually NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
tablet NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anterior-posterior NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
left NN O O
hip NN O O
via NN O O
dual NN O O
energy NN O O
x-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
serum NN O O
bone-specific NN O O
alkaline NN O O
phosphatase NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
deoxypyridinoline NN O O
and NN O O
cross-linked NN O O
N-telopeptide NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
collagen NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
normalized NN O O
to NN O O
creatinine NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
alpha=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
64.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
157.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4.2 NN O I-PAR
lb NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
follicle-stimulating NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3.2 NN O I-PAR
mIU/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
E2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
pg/ml NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
P4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
ng/ml NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
ng/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bioavailable NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
ng/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
hormone NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Bone-specific NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
decreased 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
-14.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
-8.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Deoxypyridinoline NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
- NN O O
14.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-26.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
reductions 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
cross-linked NN O I-OUT
N-telopeptide NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
-24.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-39.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
+2.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
+ NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
+0.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased 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
HRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sublingual NN O O
micronized NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
favorably NN O O
decreases NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
prevents NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
spine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O O
to NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
added NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Longer NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
further NN O O
improved NN O O
these NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (10997806)

Paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
175 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
225 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Hellenic NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
HeCOG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
reasonable NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
easy NN O O
outpatient NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
present NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Since NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
198 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-operable NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
175 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
three-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
dosed NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
regimen NN O O
with NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
225 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
. NN O O

Eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
included NN O O
WHO NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
0-2 NN O O
, NN O O
documented NN O O
inoperable NN O O
stage NN O O
IIIA NN O O
and NN O O
IIIB NN O O
, NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
brain NN O O
metastasis NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
prior NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adequate NN O O
renal NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well-matched NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
disease NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
with NN O O
90 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
with NN O O
88 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.733 NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
paclitaxel NN O O
( NN O O
4.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 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
9.5 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
versus NN O O
11.4 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
one-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
one-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
0.94 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
leucopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Higher NN O O
dose NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
prolongs NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
but NN O O
causes NN O O
more NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O O
and NN O O
leucopenia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
better NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
one-year NN O O
survival NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
are NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1100179)

Analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
I. NN O O
Predisposition NN O O
to NN O O
methotrexate-induced NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
craniospinal NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Report NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
on NN O O
Leukaemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Childhood NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
drug-induced NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
UKALL NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
agent NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
methotrexate-induced NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
craniospinal NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
synergistic NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irradiation NN O I-OUT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
treatment NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
deaths NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
subsequently NN O O
relapsed NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
still NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O O
after NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
relapsed NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
any NN O O
less NN O O
aggressive NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11013280)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
New NN O O
effective NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Paclitaxel NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
new NN O O
useful NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
414 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
175 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3-hour NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin-only NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement 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 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P=.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.7 NN O O
and NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
v NN O O
8.1 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
P=.862 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
hematotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arthralgia/myalgia NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
produced NN O O
more NN O O
ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
overall NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
advanced NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
did NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
while NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
QOL NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11013281)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
metastases NN O O
of NN O O
small-cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
comparing NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
whole-brain NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Organization NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Lung NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Approximately NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
develop NN O O
brain NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

Whole-brain NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WBRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gives NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
brain NN O O
metastases NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
sign NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
becomes NN O O
questionable NN O O
whether NN O O
WBRT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
appropriate NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
SCLC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
WBRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Teniposide NN O I-INT
120 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

WBRT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
Gy NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
within NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Response NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
computed NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined-modality NN O O
arm 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
43 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
teniposide-alone NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined-modality NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
outside NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined-modality NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
3.2 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
teniposide-alone NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P=.087 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Adding NN O O
WBRT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
teniposide NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brain NN O O
metastases NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
metastases NN O O
than NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
poor NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11013775)

[ NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
periarticular NN O O
injections NN O O
after NN O O
shoulder NN O I-PAR
arthroscopy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptors NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
inflamed NN O O
synovia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intra-articularly NN O O
administered NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
knee NN O O
surgery NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
controversy NN O O
about NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intraarticular NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
shoulder NN O O
arthroscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impingement NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
subacromial NN O I-PAR
decompression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
periarticularly NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
mobilisation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
after NN O O
recovery NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1,2,4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
Numeric NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
piritramide NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
relevant NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morphine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Piritramide NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
19.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs. NN O O
19.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
periarticularly NN O O
administered NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
subacromial NN O O
decompression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
does NN O O
exert NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
is NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
either NN O O
subacromial NN O O
tissue NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
reagibility NN O O
as NN O O
synovia NN O O
or NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nearly NN O O
complete NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subacromial NN O O
bursa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11015817)

Cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
physicians'-choice NN O O
medications NN O O
among NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Connecticut NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
clozapine NN O O
's NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
lengthy NN O I-PAR
hospitalizations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Long-stay NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
begin NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
clozapine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
138 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
continue NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
interviewed NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
collected NN O O
continuous NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
prescribed NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
service NN O O
utilization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
both NN O O
parametric NN O O
and NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parametric NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
examine NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
used NN O O
bootstrap NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
estimate NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
create NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
incurred NN O O
similar NN O O
costs NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
clozapine NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
costly NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Clozapine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
on NN O O
many NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
favored NN O O
clozapine NN O O
( NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
disruptiveness NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
techniques NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
a NN O O
payer NN O O
is NN O O
unwilling NN O O
to NN O O
incur NN O O
any NN O O
additional NN O O
cost NN O O
for NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
that NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
0.80 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
as NN O O
evident NN O O
when NN O O
outcomes NN O O
where NN O O
clozapine NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
superior NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
psychotic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Clozapine NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
some NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11021553)

Beta NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
trabeculectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
trabeculectomy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
low-risk NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
antimetabolites NN O I-PAR
might NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
indicated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
65 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
designed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
750 NN O I-INT
rads NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intraoperative NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.7 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, 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
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
applications NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
beta NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11022066)

Outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
endovascular NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ruptured NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-OUT
aneurysms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
clipping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endovascular NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aneurysmal NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=57 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
endovascular NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=52 NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
MRI NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
scheduled NN O O
after NN O O
clipping NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
endovascular NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
43/41 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
surgical/endovascular NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
5/4 NN O O
had NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
vegetative NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
9/7 NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
clinical NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Symptomatic NN O I-OUT
vasospasm NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
2.47 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.45 NN O O
to NN O O
4.19 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
poorer NN O O
Hunt NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hess NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
2.50 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.31 NN O O
to NN O O
4.75 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
permanent NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
8.90 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.80 NN O O
to NN O O
44.15 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
larger NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
aneurysm NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

22 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.02 NN O O
to NN O O
1.45 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
worsened NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
superficial NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
retraction NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
territory NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ruptured NN O I-OUT
aneurysm NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Kaplan-Meier NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
follow-up NN O O
39+/-18 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
equal NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
rebleedings NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
One-year NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
seem NN O O
comparable NN O O
after NN O O
early NN O O
surgical NN O O
and NN O O
endovascular NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ruptured NN O O
intracranial NN O O
aneurysms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
endovascular NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
open NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11028492)

Short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
after NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
leg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
locoregional NN O O
or NN O O
systemic NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
acute NN O O
leg NN O O
DVT NN O O
or NN O O
even NN O O
whether NN O O
lysis NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
postthrombotic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
250 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
averaging NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
five NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
full NN O I-INT
heparinization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O I-INT
IU/h NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
locoregional NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
urokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100,000 NN O I-INT
IU/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3,000,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
urokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5,000,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

All NN O O
groups NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
year NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
criteria NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
closed NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
segments NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
postthrombotic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Systemic NN O I-INT
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
closed NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
segments NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postthrombotic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
systemically NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
versus NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

High-dose NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
recanalization NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
seven NN O O
days 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
locoregional NN O O
lysis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
thrombolysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
9 NN O O
systemic NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
local NN O O
) NN O O
suffered NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
developed NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
emboli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Systemic NN O I-INT
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
DVT NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
heparin/anticoagulation NN O O
therapy NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
expense NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
major NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
emboli NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
inherent NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
selectively NN O O
in NN O O
limb-threatening NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
situations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11029345)

Tromethamine NN O I-INT
buffer NN O I-INT
modifies NN O O
the NN O O
depressant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
contractility NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
airway NN O O
pressures NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
ventilator-induced NN O O
lung NN O O
damage NN O O
by NN O O
lowering NN O O
tidal NN O O
volumes NN O O
and NN O O
tolerating NN O O
higher NN O O
arterial NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
tension NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
impairs NN O O
myocardial NN O O
contractility NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
contractility NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
tromethamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
THAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
buffer NN O O
which NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
modify NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
Pa NN O O
( NN O O
CO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
respiratory NN O O
acidosis NN O O
corrected NN O O
by NN O O
THAM NN O I-INT
( NN O O
pH-corrected NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
corrected NN O O
( NN O O
pH-uncorrected NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
( NN O O
TEE NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
myocardial NN O O
contractility NN O O
. NN O O

Permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Myocardial NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pH-corrected NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pH-uncorrected NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
18 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

Mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pH-uncorrected NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
values NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
conditions NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
a NN O O
reversible NN O O
depression NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rapid NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
attenuated NN O O
by NN O O
buffering NN O O
with NN O O
THAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
applicability NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
permissive NN O O
hypercapnia NN O O
and NN O O
allow NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
decreased NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
realized NN O O
while NN O O
minimizing NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hypercapnic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11029568)

Epidural NN O I-INT
fentanyl-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
analgesia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Alpha-adrenergic NN O O
agonists NN O O
produce NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O O
independent NN O O
mechanism NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
alternatives NN O O
to NN O O
opioids NN O O
for NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetics NN O O
for NN O O
analgesia NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Epidural NN O O
block NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
75 NN O O
microg NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
50 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Maternal NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
five-point NN O O
scale 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
maternal NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FHR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia NN O I-OUT
lasted NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine-clonidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
139.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine-fentanyl NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
127.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
48 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
requirement NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
22.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs. NN O O
30.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.8 NN O O
mg 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

This NN O O
small NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
first-stage NN O O
labour NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
bupivacaine-fentanyl NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11034038)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
phytonadione NN O I-INT
for NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
anticoagulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
managing NN O O
excessive NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
omitting NN O O
warfarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
administering NN O O
oral NN O O
phytonadione NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
omitting NN O O
warfarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN 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

SETTING NN O O
Clinical NN O O
pharmacy NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
service NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
model NN O O
health NN O O
maintenance NN O O
organization NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
nonbleeding NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
normalized NN O I-PAR
ratios NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
INRs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
6.0-10.0 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
phytonadione NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
omitted NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
INR NN O I-INT
became NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
4.0 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
INR NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
4.0 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
phytonadione NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overcorrection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anticoagulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
phytonadione NN O O
. NN O O

Overt NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
reinitiating NN O O
warfarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
minor NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
phytonadione NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
an NN O O
INR NN O O
of NN O O
4.0 NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
omitting NN O O
warfarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
INRs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6.0-10.0 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Oral NN O O
phytonadione NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for 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
bleeding NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prompt NN O I-PAR
INR NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
would NN O I-PAR
outweigh NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thromboembolic NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
INR NN O I-OUT
overcorrection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11034934)

VLDL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apolipoproteins NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CIII NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
Recurrent NN O O
Events NN O O
( NN O O
CARE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Plasma NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
concentration NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
an NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
among NN O O
VLDL NN O O
particles NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
carriers NN O O
of NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
nested NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
Recurrent NN O O
Events NN O O
( NN O O
CARE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
4159 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
LDL NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
139 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
VLDL-apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
apo NN O O
) NN O O
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VLDL NN O I-OUT
particle NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VLDL NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apoE NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VLDL+LDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
death NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=418 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=370 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

VLDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VLDL-triglyceride NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VLDL-apoB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apoE NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VLDL+LDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apoE NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
interrelated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
univariate NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
coronary NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
were NN O O
VLDL-apoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
3.2 NN O O
for NN O O
highest NN O O
to NN O O
lowest NN O O
quintiles NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VLDL+LDL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
2.3 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
apoE NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
univariate NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
=0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VLDL+LDL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
LDL- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
VLDL NN O I-OUT
particles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apoCIII NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VLDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
more NN O O
specific NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
risk NN O O
than NN O O
plasma NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
perhaps NN O O
because NN O O
their NN O O
known NN O O
metabolic NN O O
properties NN O O
link NN O O
them NN O O
more NN O O
closely NN O O
to NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11045790)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fenretinide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
DNA NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Retinoids NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
retinoid NN O I-INT
fenretinide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
superficial NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
using NN O O
DNA NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
cytology NN O O
as NN O O
surrogate NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pTa NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pT1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
fenretinide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
p.o NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cystoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
bladder NN O O
washing NN O O
for NN O O
DNA NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
DNA NN O O
aneuploid NN O O
histograms NN O O
, NN O O
hyperdiploid NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
apoptotic NN O O
cells NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
cytological NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
aneuploid NN O I-OUT
histograms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
figure NN O O
was NN O O
48.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fenretinide NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
41.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.16 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.44-3.07 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
any NN O O
other NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
biomarker NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
any NN O O
biomarker NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
recurrence NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fenretinide NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
21 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fenretinide NN O O
arm NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
diminished NN O O
dark NN O I-OUT
adaptability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fenretinide NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
one NN O O
control NN O O
subject NN O O
had NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
dermatological NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
fenretinide NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
DNA NN O O
content NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
morphology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urothelial NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
serial NN O O
bladder NN O O
washings NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
hampered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
predictivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selected NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
fenretinide NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11053333)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
synthase NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O O
on NN O O
postexercise NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
acute NN O O
bout NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
lasts NN O O
several NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Animal NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
is NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
systemic NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
inhibition NN O O
[ NN O O
N NN O O
( NN O O
G NN O O
) NN O O
-monomethyl-L-arginine NN O O
( NN O O
L-NMMA NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
can NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-PAR
occurs NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
parallel NN O O
experiments NN O O
on NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experiments NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
sham NN O O
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
seated NN O I-INT
upright NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
upright NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
capacity NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

After NN O O
both NN O O
sham NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O O
alpha-adrenergic NN O O
blockade NN O O
( NN O O
phentolamine NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
L-NMMA NN O O
. NN O O

Phentolamine NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
isolate NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
to NN O O
postexercise NN O O
hypotension NN O O
by NN O O
preventing NN O O
reflex NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
that NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
systemic NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
inhibition NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
activity NN O O
after NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistances NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
lower NN O O
postexercise NN O O
vs. NN O O
postsham NN O O
despite NN O O
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
synthase NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
L-NMMA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
108.0+/-2.4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
postsham NN O O
vs. NN O O
102.1+/-3.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
postexercise NN O O
; 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
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
that NN O O
postexercise NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
increased NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11056245)

Depressive NN O O
mood NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ovarian NN O O
suppression NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ovarian NN O O
suppression NN O O
during NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
An NN O O
obstetrics/gynecological NN O O
office NN O O
specializing NN O O
in NN O O
infertility NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
academic NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Premenstrual NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
laparoscopically NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
premenstrual NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sertraline NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
21-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRSD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
instrument NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
Hotellings NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measure NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
across NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
HRSD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
13.3 NN O O
; NN O O
F NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
4.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
manifesting NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
mood NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ovarian NN O O
suppression NN O O
during NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11056317)

Update NN O O
on NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
prevent NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Italian NN O I-PAR
Tamoxifen NN O I-INT
Prevention NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11056593)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
polyneuropathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

rhNGF NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Investigator NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Nerve NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurotrophic NN O O
factor NN O O
that NN O O
promotes NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
fiber NN O O
sensory NN O O
neurons NN O O
and NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
neurons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhNGF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
peripheral NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
rhNGF NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
polyneuropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
from NN O O
July NN O O
1997 NN O O
through NN O O
May NN O O
1999 NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Eighty-four NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
throughout NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1019 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sensory NN O I-PAR
polyneuropathy NN O I-PAR
attributable NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
rhNGF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.1 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
504 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
515 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 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
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Neuropathy NN O I-OUT
Impairment NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Lower NN O O
Limbs NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
quantitative NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CASE NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Neuropathy NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
Benefit NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PBQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
conduction NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
also NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
rhNGF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
418 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
461 NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
rhNGF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
few NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
apart NN O O
from NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O I-OUT
pain/hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.25 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
rhNGF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exceptions NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
comparisons NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
PBQ NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
rhNGF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.05 NN O O
for NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
legs NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
=.003 NN O O
for NN O O
6-month NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
feet NN O O
and NN O O
legs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Unlike NN O O
previous NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rhNGF NN O O
on NN O O
diabetic NN O O
polyneuropathy NN O O
. NN O O

JAMA NN O O
. NN O O

2000 NN O O
; NN O O
284:2215-2221 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11060324)

Commentary NN O O
on NN O O
cytoreduction NN O I-INT
nephrectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
Southwest NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
8949 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11064610)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
total NN O O
intravenous NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
40-73 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
alfentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
t50 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
t80 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
to NN O O
awakening NN O O
and NN O O
tracheal NN O O
extubation NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
443 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
and NN O O
4.4 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
trachea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
extubated NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
average NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
later NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
later NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
t80 NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
t80 NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.51 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
t50 NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
these NN O O
opioids NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
anaesthetized NN O O
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
needed NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variation NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
most NN O O
predictable NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
most NN O O
variable NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
finding NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
step-down NN O O
unit NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11068835)

Magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
angiography NN O O
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
esophageal NN O O
varices NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Endoscopic NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EIS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
variceal NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EVL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
used NN O O
worldwide NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
esophageal NN O O
varices NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
portal NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
using NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
angiography NN O O
( NN O O
MRA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MRA NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
hepatofugal NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
selectively NN O O
for NN O O
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Those NN O O
who NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
MR NN O O
angiogram NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
sealed NN O O
envelope NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
underwent NN O O
either NN O O
EIS NN O I-INT
or NN O O
EVL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
angiogram NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
EVL NN O O
. NN O O

EIS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
embolize NN O O
esophageal NN O O
varices NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
feeders NN O O
by NN O O
intravariceal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
sclerosant NN O O
under NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O O
guidance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
positive NN O O
MR NN O O
angiogram NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hepatofugal NN O O
left NN O O
gastric NN O O
vein NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
MRA NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
angiograms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EIS-treated NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EVL NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
varices NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
gastric NN O O
vein NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O O
angiogram NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
only NN O O
underwent NN O O
EVL NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
varices NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reappear NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
MRA NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O O
portal NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
avoiding NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O O
varices NN O O
, NN O O
EIS NN O O
was NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
hepatofugal NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
varices NN O O
because NN O O
recurrence NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
embolization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
. NN O O

EVL NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
where NN O O
no NN O O
image NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hepatofugal NN O O
supply NN O O
vein NN O O
is NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
MRA NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11072681)

[ NN O I-INT
New NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
approaches NN O I-INT
in NN O O
irritable NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11073017)

Calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

European NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Organisation NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Some NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fibre NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

Available NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
firm NN O O
dietary NN O O
advice NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adenoma NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
665 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
colorectal NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
: NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
gluconolactate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
elemental NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
ispaghula NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
had NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
adenoma NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 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
45 NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
repeat NN O I-PAR
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
contraindications NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
the NN O O
552 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
stopped NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
adenoma NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
176 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
198 NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
fibre NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
178 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.66 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.38-1.17 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
1.67 NN O O
( NN O O
1.01-2.76 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
fibre NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fibre NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
dietary NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
intake NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
interaction NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
INTERPRETATION NN O O
Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
fibre NN O I-INT
as NN O O
ispaghula NN O O
husk NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Calcium NN O O
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11074150)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
regional NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
awake NN O I-PAR
resting NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eleven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
race NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tobacco NN O I-INT
abstinent NN O I-INT
overnight NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
positron NN O I-OUT
emission NN O I-OUT
tomographic NN O I-OUT
images NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
regional NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
18F NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
fluorodeoxyglucose NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
days NN O O
: NN O O
about NN O O
3min NN O O
after NN O O
approximately NN O I-INT
1-2mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oleoresin NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pepper NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Siemens/CTI NN O O
931/08-12 NN O O
scanner NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
capability NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
horizontal NN O O
brain NN O O
slices NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
further NN O O
converted NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
uniform NN O O
brain NN O O
format NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Images NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
in NN O O
stereotactic NN O O
coordinates NN O O
using NN O O
pixel-wise NN O O
t NN O O
statistics NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
smoothed NN O O
Gaussian NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
nicotine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
three-fold NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
0-30min NN O O
) NN O O
varied NN O O
seven-fold NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
overall NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
normalized NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
showed NN O O
relative NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cerebral NN O O
structures NN O O
specifically NN O O
activated NN O O
by NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
nicotine NN O O
minus NN O O
pepper NN O O
, NN O O
Z NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
4.0 NN O O
) NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
left NN O O
inferior NN O O
frontal NN O O
gyrus NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O O
posterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
gyrus NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
thalamus NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visual NN O O
cortex NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
cuneus NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
lateral NN O O
occipito-temporal NN O O
gyrus NN O O
fusiformis NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
regional NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Z NN O O
scores NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

6 NN O O
. NN O O

Structures NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pepper NN O I-OUT
minus NN O O
nicotine NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
insula NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
inferior NN O O
occipital NN O O
gyrus NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
Z NN O O
scores NN O O
> NN O O
3.5 NN O O
. NN O O

Especially NN O O
important NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
thalamus NN O O
is NN O O
activated NN O O
by NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
density NN O O
of NN O O
nicotinic NN O O
cholinoceptors NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
brain NN O O
region NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
nicotine NN O O
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
many NN O O
nicotinic NN O O
cholinoceptors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nicotine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11077389)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
penicillin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
irreversible NN O I-PAR
pulpitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irreversible NN O I-PAR
pulpitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
irreversible NN O I-PAR
pulpitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
7-day NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
penicillin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
endodontic NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
codeine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
7-day NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
record NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percussion NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percussion NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
irreversible NN O O
pulpitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
irreversible NN O O
pulpitis NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
required NN O O
analgesics NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
this NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Penicillin NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
prescribed NN O O
for NN O O
untreated NN O O
irreversible NN O O
pulpitis NN O O
because NN O O
penicillin NN O O
is NN O O
ineffective NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11085402)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
World NN O I-INT
Wide NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
directories NN O I-INT
for NN O O
tracing NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
epidemiologic NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
recent NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
World NN O O
Wide NN O O
Web-based NN O O
directories NN O O
has NN O O
opened NN O O
up NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
tracing NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
epidemiologic NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
completeness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
World NN O I-INT
Wide NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
directories NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Canada411 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
InfoSpace NN O I-INT
Canada NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
subject NN O O
tracing NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
346 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
respondents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
About NN O O
half NN O O
( NN O O
56.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
successfully NN O O
located NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
Canada411 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
InfoSpace NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
43.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
located NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
directory NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
( NN O O
73.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
female NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
clear NN O O
advantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
one NN O O
directory NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
Canada411 NN O O
could NN O O
find NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
InfoSpace NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
matches NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
by NN O O
Canada411 NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
meant NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
list NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
matches NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
examined NN O O
before NN O O
a NN O O
true NN O O
match NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
matches NN O O
per NN O O
true NN O O
match NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
search NN O O
by NN O O
InfoSpace NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
name NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
name NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
by NN O O
Canada411 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
name NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
name NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
finally NN O O
by NN O O
InfoSpace NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
name NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
initial NN O O
. NN O O

Internet-based NN O O
searches NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
useful NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
tracing NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
epidemiologic NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11098982)

Percutaneous NN O I-INT
tracheostomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
dilational NN O I-INT
tracheostomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Trauma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PDT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Ciaglia NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Ciaglia NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
introducer NN O I-INT
set NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Griggs NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Griggs NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
kit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
guidewire NN O I-INT
dilating NN O I-INT
forceps NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Surgical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0-2 NN O O
hrs NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
postprocedure NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4.4 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Griggs NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
kit NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
Ciaglia NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
kit NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
, NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
common NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.023 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
completed NN O O
without NN O O
expert NN O O
assistance NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tracheostomy NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
therapy NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
abnormal NN O O
clotting NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
identified NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
PDT NN O O
complications NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
Griggs NN O O
PDT NN O O
kit NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.027 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Acute NN O I-OUT
Physiology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APACHE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
the NN O O
APACHE NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.041 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
experienced NN O O
operator NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
female NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
PDT NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
Ciaglia NN O O
PDT NN O O
kit NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PDT NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
Griggs NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
kit NN O O
. NN O O

Ciaglia NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
tracheostomy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11100343)

Somatostatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-variceal NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND/AIMS 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
non-variceal NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODOLOGY NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Forrest NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Forrest NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
within NN O O
half NN O O
an NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
procedure NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
somatostatin-UCB NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mcg NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

bolus NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
for NN O O
72 NN O O
h. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

of NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
2.56 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.05 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.96 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
stop NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
3.24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.45 NN O O
vs. NN O O
11.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.63 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0383 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Somatostatin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
non-variceal NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Forrest NN O O
IB NN O O
bleeding NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Somatostatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
Forrest NN O O
II NN O O
bleeding NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11104595)

Perioperative NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
malnourished NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
on 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
in NN O O
malnourished NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
Malnourished NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
no NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
tube-feeding NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
tube-feeding NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
arginine-supplemented NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
tube-feeding NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
31 NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
a NN O O
disease-specific NN O O
( NN O O
EORTC NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
generic NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
COOP-WONCA NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
test NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
testing NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
scores NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
preoperatively NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
dimensions NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
with NN O O
significance NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.050,0.031,0.045 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
III NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O I-INT
pre-fed NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severely NN O O
malnourished NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
preceding NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11108177)

Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
peptidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
minocycline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
enzymatic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
localized NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
minocycline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ANIMALS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
Beagles NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PROCEDURE NN O O
After NN O O
tooth NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
planing NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
control NN O O
site NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
dog NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
periodontal NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
minocycline NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
sites NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
minocycline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
4 NN O O
times NN O O
at NN O O
weekly NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Peptidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
sites NN O O
for NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Bleeding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gums 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
pocket NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
site NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
weeks NN O O
9 NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O O
Peptidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
periodontal NN O O
pocket NN O O
decreased NN O O
noticeably NN O O
from NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
peptidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
on NN O O
week NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
sites NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
at NN O O
that NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
, NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
on NN O O
week NN O O
17 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Increased NN O I-OUT
peptidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
minocycline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
localized NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11132252)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviours NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O O
on NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
language NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
development NN O O
professionals NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Employing 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
design NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were 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
and NN O O
administered NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11134799)

A NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
simultaneous NN O I-PAR
pancreas-kidney NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pancreas NN O I-INT
allograft NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11136837)

Cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

National NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Breast NN O O
and NN O O
Bowel NN O O
Project NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
include NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
altering NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
estrogen-progestin NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
National NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Breast NN O O
and NN O O
Bowel NN O O
Project NN O O
Breast NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
BCPT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
provides NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
CHD NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BCPT NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
194 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1048 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fatal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
tabulated NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
: NN O O
49 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

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

RESULTS NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
women NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
pre-existing NN O O
CHD NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
CHD NN O O
( NN O O
6074 NN O O
on NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
versus NN O O
6072 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
ratios NN O O
( 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
for NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
users NN O O
were NN O O
1.75 NN O O
( NN O O
0.44 NN O O
to NN O O
8.13 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1.11 NN O O
( NN O O
0.55 NN O O
to NN O O
2.28 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
0.69 NN O O
( NN O O
0.29 NN O O
to NN O O
1.57 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.83 NN O O
( NN O O
0.32 NN O O
to NN O O
2.10 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
CHD NN O O
( NN O O
516 NN O O
on NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
versus NN O O
532 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
users NN O O
were NN O O
0.00 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
1.58 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1.25 NN O O
( NN O O
0.32 NN O O
to NN O O
5.18 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
2.26 NN O O
( NN O O
0.87 NN O O
to NN O O
6.55 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.39 NN O O
( NN O O
0.23 NN O O
to NN O O
9.47 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
beneficial NN O O
or NN O O
adverse NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11140546)

Do NN O O
heavier NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
estradiol NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
heavier NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
depot NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
estradiol NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
3.75 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
from NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
12-week NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
leiomyomata NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
estradiol 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
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
quartiles NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
kilograms NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
46- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
64- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
72- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
89-159 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pounds-102- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
140 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
140- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
159 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
159- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
196 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
196-350 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
estradiol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
or NN O O
within NN O O
weight NN O O
quartiles NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
estradiol NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
estradiol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
heavier NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
LA NN O O
3.75 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
; NN O O
LA NN O O
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
or NN O O
within NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O O
quartiles NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
suppressed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
menopausal NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Heavier NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
depot NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.75 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
estradiol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11143509)

[ NN O I-OUT
Complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
gastrectomy NN O O
and NN O O
pouch NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
with NN O O
Longmire NN O I-INT
interposition NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
Longmire-Interposition NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
pouch NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
after NN O O
gastrectomy NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complication NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
Longmire-Interposition NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
pouch NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Roux-en-Y-reconstruction NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
. NN O O

Complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Roux-en-Y NN O O
vs. NN O O
Longmire-Interposition NN O I-INT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
pouch NN O O
: NN O O
30.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
28.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
Longmire-Interposition NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
pouch NN O O
for NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
after NN O O
total NN O O
gastrectomy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
connected NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Roux-en-Y-reconstruction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11156811)

Sertraline NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
phobia NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
20-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sertraline NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
phobia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
phobia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=204 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
20-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
permitted NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
dosing NN O O
was NN O O
flexible NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
rated NN O O
much NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
phobia NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Marks NN O I-OUT
Fear NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Phobia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
endpoint NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
203 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
134 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
sertraline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=71 NN O O
[ NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=20 NN O O
[ NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
responders NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
phobia NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Marks NN O I-OUT
Fear NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Phobia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
32.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
34.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
10.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
18.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
showed NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
sertraline NN O I-INT
over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
all NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sertraline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
: NN O O
103 NN O O
( NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
135 NN O O
sertraline-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
69 NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sertraline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
phobia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11157143)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
interleukin-1 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
inflamed NN O O
synovial NN O O
membrane NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
interleukin-1 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
synovial NN O O
tissue NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
underwent NN O O
synovial NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Cellular NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
staining NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
notable NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intimal NN O I-OUT
layer NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subintimal NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
at NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
n=3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
variable NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
n=6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecule NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
down-regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
after NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
apparent NN O O
arrest NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
intimal NN O O
layer NN O O
macrophage NN O O
accumulation NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
RA NN O O
with NN O O
IL-1Ra NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cell NN O O
infiltration NN O O
of NN O O
synovial NN O O
membrane NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
biologically NN O O
relevant NN O O
IL-1ss-mediated NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11162323)

Counselor NN O O
and NN O O
stimulus NN O O
control NN O O
enhancements NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stage-matched NN O I-OUT
expert NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
smokers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
managed NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
provides NN O O
individualized NN O O
feedback NN O O
that NN O O
guides NN O O
participants NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O

Enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
expert NN O O
system NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
proactive NN O O
telephone NN O O
counseling NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
stimulus NN O O
control NN O O
computer NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
nicotine NN O O
fading NN O O
could NN O O
produce NN O O
preventive NN O O
programs NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
population NN O O
impacts NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Four NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
counselor NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
occasions NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
0,6,12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Smokers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
contacted NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
via NN O O
telephone NN O O
or NN O O
mail NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial NN O I-PAR
subject NN O I-PAR
pool NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
24,178 NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
company NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
for NN O O
19,236 NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
4,653 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
85.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
precontemplation NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
contemplation NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preparation NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
expert NN O O
system NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
23.2 NN O O
% NN O O
point NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
assessment NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
counselor NN O O
enhancement NN O O
produced NN O O
increased NN O O
cessation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stimulus NN O O
control NN O O
computer NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
worse NN O O
cessation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
only NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
enhanced NN O O
conditions NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
outperform NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
expert NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
to NN O O
produce NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
cessation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
assessment NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11167879)

Perioperative NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
allogeneic NN O I-INT
leucocytes NN O I-INT
, NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Perioperative NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
are NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Different NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
leucocytes NN O O
in NN O O
transfused NN O O
blood NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Packed NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
buffy NN O I-INT
coat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
filtered NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucoreduced NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LD NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
697 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
special NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
location NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
63.6 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
65.3 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LD NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
27.8 NN O O
and NN O O
27.9 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observational NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
transfused NN O O
and NN O O
non-transfused NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
59.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
72.9 NN O O
per NN O O
cent 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
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
transfused NN O O
and NN O O
non-transfused NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
29.8 NN O O
versus NN O O
24.3 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
transfused NN O O
than NN O O
non-transfused NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
7.6 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Leucocyte NN O O
depletion NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
transfused NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Perioperative NN O O
blood NN O O
transfusions NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
cancer NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
slight NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
transfused NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
complicated NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
rectal NN O O
, NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11191952)

[ NN O O
Diphtheria NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
booster NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
booster NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
diphtheria NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
diphtheria NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
ago NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
determining NN O O
diphtheria NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
vaccination NN O I-INT
and NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

102 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-INT
booster NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
83 NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
vaccinated NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
vaccination NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
diphtheria NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
0.01 NN O O
I.U./ml NN O O
; NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
booster NN O O
only NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
unprotected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
booster NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
unprotected NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
booster NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
elicited NN O O
an NN O O
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
I.U./ml NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
diphtheria NN O I-OUT
antitoxin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
0.01 NN O O
I.U./ml NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
serological NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
booster NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
one NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
neither NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
nor NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11194696)

Increasing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
reach NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-OUT
sponsorship NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sponsorship NN O I-INT
kit NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
promote NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Australia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
tobacco NN O O
tax NN O O
provides NN O O
funding NN O O
for NN O O
Healthway NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
Australian NN O O
Health NN O O
Promotion NN O O
Foundation NN O O
. NN O O

Healthway NN O O
provides NN O O
sponsorships NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
arts NN O O
and NN O O
racing NN O O
and NN O O
sporting NN O O
events NN O O
to NN O O
replace NN O O
funds NN O O
previously NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
tobacco NN O O
companies NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
sponsorships NN O O
provide NN O O
visibility NN O O
for NN O O
Healthway NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
health NN O O
messages NN O O
. NN O O

Normally NN O O
, NN O O
Healthway NN O O
staff NN O O
attends NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
promote NN O O
health NN O O
messages NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
reduce NN O O
Healthway NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
time NN O O
spent NN O O
helping NN O O
event NN O O
organizers NN O O
promote NN O O
health NN O O
messages NN O O
, NN O O
Healthway NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
sponsor NN O I-INT
kit NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
promotional NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
which NN O O
communicate NN O O
health NN O O
messages NN O O
without NN O O
requiring NN O O
Healthway NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
attend NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
messages NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
events NN O O
that NN O O
featured NN O O
Healthway NN O O
staff NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
sponsor NN O O
kits NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sponsorship NN O I-INT
kits NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
when NN O O
Healthway NN O O
staff NN O O
was NN O O
featured NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11196396)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
ejaculation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
ejaculation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
ejaculation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
libido NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urogenital NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
lives NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
consultation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Glombock NN O I-OUT
Rast NN O I-OUT
Sexual NN O I-OUT
Satisfactory NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GRISS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
accordance NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
ejaculation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
aged NN O O
21 NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
capsule NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
later NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
capsules NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
aged NN O O
19 NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
plus NN O O
local NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
partners NN O O
were NN O O
re-evaluated NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
unsuccessful NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
chi-square NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
30.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
42.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
7 NN O O
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
52.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
cured NN O O
, NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
failure NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
17.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
effects 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 I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
local NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
ejaculation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1119679)

The NN O O
injured NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O O
considerations NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Detroit NN O I-PAR
General NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
methods NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
165 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-INT
injuries NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reiable NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
of NN O O
management NN O O
when NN O O
rigid NN O O
criteria NN O O
are NN O O
incorporated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
technic NN O O
of NN O O
exteriorization NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
which NN O O
one NN O O
suture NN O O
line NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
twenty NN O O
minutes NN O O
will NN O O
not NN O O
compromise NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
injuries NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
not NN O O
fulfilling NN O O
these NN O O
criteria NN O O
should NN O O
have NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
colostomy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
principles NN O O
make NN O O
it NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
colostomy NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
ongoing NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11199239)

Is NN O O
hands-on NN O O
experience NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
didactic NN O O
workshops NN O O
in NN O O
postgraduate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
nurse NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
ethnic NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hospice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
one-day NN O I-INT
workshop NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
half-day NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
116 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
bedside-precepted NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oncology NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
specialization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
focus NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
discuss NN O I-INT
attitudinal NN O I-INT
issues NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighty-six NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
served NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Pre- NN O O
, NN O O
post- NN O O
and NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
for NN O O
workshop-only NN O O
and NN O O
enriched-model NN O O
nurses NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
postgraduate NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
daylong NN O O
cancer NN O O
pain NN O O
education NN O O
workshops NN O O
were NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
hands-on NN O O
experience NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changing NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
workshop-only NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
enriched-model NN O O
nurses NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
changed NN O O
attitudes NN O O
towards NN O O
optimal NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11205419)

Cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
serotonergic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ecstasy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RATIONALE NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
) NN O O
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MDMA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ecstasy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
damage NN O O
to NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
cerebral NN O O
neurons NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
neurotoxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
less NN O O
clear 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
functional NN O O
consequences NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
some NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
memory NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
widespread NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
our NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
knowledge NN O O
raises NN O O
concerns NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
past NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ecstasy NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
recreational NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MDMA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MDMA NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
were NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-PAR
subculture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Serotonergic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
neuro-endocrine NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
dexfenfluramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Ecstasy NN O O
users NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
clinically NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Heavy NN O O
users NN O O
were NN O O
affected NN O O
stronger NN O O
than NN O O
moderate NN O O
users NN O O
. NN O O

Release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
of NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
dexfenfluramine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
ecstasy NN O O
users NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
likely NN O O
confounding NN O O
variables NN O O
including NN O O
recent NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
ecstasy NN O O
, NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
profiles NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ecstasy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impairment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serotonergic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ecstasy NN O O
as NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11207836)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aging NN O O
on NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Norasept NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
As NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
older NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
rise NN O O
, NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
become NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
healthcare NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
aging NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aging NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
stress 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
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aging NN O O
on NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
aging NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
diminished NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
cytokine NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
sepsis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
limb NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
Sepsis NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NORASEPT NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
study NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
105 NN O O
hospitals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
and NN O O
Canada NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
) 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 I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-receptor-55 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R55 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-receptor-75 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R75 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
broken NN O I-PAR
down NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
demographic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
extracted NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
each NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
930 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
280 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
242 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
diagnoses NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R55 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R75 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oldest NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
five NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
28-day NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
75 NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
under NN O O
75 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
gender NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
expectations NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
aging NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11208371)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subtotal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
parathyroid NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
development NN O O
-- NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
strumectomy NN O O
is NN O O
hypoparathyroidism NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
gland NN O I-OUT
insufficiency NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subtotal NN O O
, NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
strumectomies NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Rothmund NN O O
's NN O O
suggestions NN O O
. NN O O

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-INT
trunk NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
thyroid NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
ligated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
consisting NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
branches NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
ligated NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Total NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hypoparathyroidism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
performed NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11210885)

Alternative NN O O
voice NN O O
after NN O O
laryngectomy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
sound-producing NN O I-INT
voice NN O I-INT
prosthesis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
laryngectomees NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
laryngectomees NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypotonic NN O I-PAR
pharyngoesophageal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-OUT
artificial NN O I-OUT
source NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
incorporated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
regular NN O I-OUT
tracheoesophageal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
valve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Experimental NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
new NN O O
sound NN O O
source NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
silicone NN O O
lip NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
performs NN O O
an NN O O
oscillatory NN O O
movement NN O O
driven NN O O
by NN O O
expired NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
air NN O O
flowing NN O O
along NN O O
the NN O O
outward-striking NN O O
lip NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
TE NN O O
shunt NN O O
valve NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prototype NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
sound NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
is NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
laryngectomees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
vivo NN O O
evaluation NN O O
includes NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
phonation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
read-aloud NN O I-OUT
prose NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
expert NN O I-OUT
listener NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
intelligibility NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
listeners NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
extensive NN O I-OUT
acoustical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aerodynamic NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
registrations NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O I-OUT
developed NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
prototype NN O O
seems NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
laryngectomees NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypotonic NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
only NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
them NN O O
the NN O O
sound-producing NN O I-INT
voice NN O I-INT
prosthesis NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
pitch NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O I-OUT
intelligibility NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
necessitating NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
regular NN O I-OUT
TE NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pitch NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
prosthetic NN O O
voice NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
mechanism NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
airflow NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
alaryngeal NN O O
voice NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
postlaryngectomy NN O O
voice NN O O
restoration NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
voice NN O O
suitably NN O O
pitched NN O O
for NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
laryngectomees NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
generated NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
melodic NN O O
and NN O O
dynamic NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sound NN O O
source NN O O
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
attainable NN O O
within NN O O
physiological NN O O
airflow NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11213870)

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
soy-based NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Consumption NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O O
protein NN O O
has NN O O
recently NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplement NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoflavones NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cotyledon NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Abalon NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
supplementation NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Abalon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
50 NN O O
g/day NN O O
] NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
isoflavones NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
minimum NN O O
165 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
cotyledon NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
20 NN O O
g/day NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
casein NN O O
[ NN O O
50 NN O O
g/day NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
cellulose NN O O
[ NN O O
20 NN O O
g/day NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
means NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
mean NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
Abalon NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
after NN O O
Abalon NN O I-INT
for NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 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
LDL/UHDL NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 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
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
apo NN O O
) NN O O
B100 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38 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
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 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
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21 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
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
significant NN O O
but NN O O
still NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 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

No NN O O
change NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apo NN O I-OUT
B100/apo NN O I-OUT
A1 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
Abalon NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
improvement NN O O
is NN O O
seen NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
near-normal NN O O
lipid NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11218508)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
splinting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reconstructive NN O I-INT
periodontal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
splinting NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
periodontal NN O I-INT
reconstructive NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
carbonate NN O O
bone NN O O
replacement NN O O
graft NN O O
( NN O O
BRG NN O O
) NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Natural NN O O
coral NN O O
calcium NN O O
BRG NN O O
was NN O O
utilised NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
33-patient NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
presplint NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
splinted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
rigid NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postsplint NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
splinted NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonsplint NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
splinted NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
surgical NN O O
debridement NN O O
( NN O O
DEBR NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
splinted NN O O
. NN O O

Periodontal NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
desmodontometry NN O O
( NN O O
DDM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
periotest NN O O
( NN O O
PTV NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
reproducible NN O O
methods NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
various NN O O
periods NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
afterwards NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DDM-horizontal NN O O
257 NN O O
microns NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
60 NN O O
microns NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CPAL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
BRG NN O O
in NN O O
presplint NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
PPD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
nonsplint NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

DEBR NN O O
alone NN O O
showed NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CPAL NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
presplint NN O O
teeth NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
BRG NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
less NN O O
favourable NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
periodontal NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
postsplint NN O O
or NN O O
nonsplint NN O O
teeth NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BRG NN O I-OUT
material NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
undisturbed NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
process NN O O
using NN O O
BRG NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
tooth NN O O
stability NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
to NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11219757)

Simplified NN O I-INT
subjective NN O I-INT
workload NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
SWAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
two NN O O
main NN O O
problems NN O O
: NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
very NN O O
sensitive NN O O
for NN O O
low NN O O
mental NN O O
workloads NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
requires NN O O
a NN O O
time-consuming NN O O
card NN O O
sorting NN O O
pretask NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
five NN O I-INT
variations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
SWAT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
overcome NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variants NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
SWAT NN O I-INT
subscales NN O I-INT
while NN O O
one NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
discrete NN O I-INT
SWAT NN O I-INT
subscale NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
SWAT NN O I-INT
scale NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pretask NN O O
procedure NN O O
completion NN O O
time NN O O
when NN O O
performing NN O O
arithmetic NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
variants NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-OUT
SWAT NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pairwise NN O O
comparison NN O O
procedure NN O O
takes NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
pretask NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O I-INT
SWAT NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
pretask NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
replaced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
unweighted NN O O
averaging NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11228756)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acarbose NN O I-INT
on NN O O
additional NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sulphonylurea NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acarbose NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
exogenous NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-INT
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
sulphonylurea NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single-centre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
late-term NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sulphonylurea NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
determine NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
impact NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acarbose NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
glycaemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
requirements NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
responders NN O O
being NN O O
predefined NN O O
as NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
parameters NN O O
assessed NN O O
included NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
responders NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acarbose-treated NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
20/24 NN O O
patients NN O O
vs. NN O O
10/19 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
16.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.1 NN O O
IU NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acarbose NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
22.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.2 NN O O
IU NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
s.d NN O O
. NN O O

; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postprandial NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acarbose-treated NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
2-h NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
almost NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acarbose NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
to NN O O
43 NN O O
+/- NN O O
29 NN O O
microU/ml NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
s.d 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
period NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
acarbose NN O I-INT
to NN O O
sulphonylurea/insulin NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in 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
Acarbose NN O I-INT
may NN O O
also NN O O
reduce NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperinsulinaemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11234566)

Phase-dependent NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rhythmical NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-OUT
swing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
soleus NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rhythmic NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
swing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
depression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
soleus NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
swung NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
ipsilateral NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
reciprocally NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
directly NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
swing NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conditioning-testing NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
600 NN O O
msec NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O I-INT
backward NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
swing NN O I-INT
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
forward NN O I-INT
swing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
partially NN O O
overlapped NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
soleus NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
during NN O O
walking NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
modulation NN O O
during NN O O
arm NN O O
swing NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
exactly NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
walking NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
swing NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
partially NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
soleus NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
swing NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
walking NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
soleus NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
walking NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11238483)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Amino NN O O
acids NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
ingested NN O O
protein NN O O
are NN O O
potential NN O O
substrates NN O O
for NN O O
gluconeogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
laboratories NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
protein NN O O
ingestion NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
has NN O O
remained NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
people NN O O
without NN O O
diabetes NN O O
it NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
glucose NN O O
being NN O O
produced NN O O
and NN O O
entering NN O O
the NN O O
circulation NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
calculated NN O O
theoretical NN O O
amount NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
were NN O O
interested NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
very NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
beef NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0800 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
studied NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
h. NN O I-INT
Protein NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nonesterified NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
modest NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
deaminated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
incorporated NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
approximately NN O O
20-23 NN O O
g. NN O O
The NN O O
net NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
produced NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
deaminated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
11-13 NN O O
g. NN O O
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
appearing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
g. NN O O
The NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
mM NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
protein NN O O
or NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
that NN O O
ingested NN O O
protein NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
net NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11246578)

Work-related NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
work-related NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
common NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
intima-media NN O O
thickness NN O O
and NN O O
focal NN O O
lesions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
bifurcation NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-seven NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
occupational NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
573 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B-mode NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
models NN O O
to NN O O
regress NN O O
lesion NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
intima-media NN O O
thickness NN O O
on NN O O
work-related NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
18-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
age-adjusted NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
men NN O O
scoring NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
stress NN O O
quintile NN O O
was NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quintile NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
quintile NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.025 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
work-related NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
protected NN O O
from NN O O
such NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
current NN O O
work-place NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
accurately NN O O
assess NN O O
stress NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11253439)

Sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
behaviors NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
beachgoers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
southeastern NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
avoidable NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
representative NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2,324 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
beachgoers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Southeastern NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
summer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
employing NN O O
adequate NN O O
sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
behaviors NN O I-INT
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
often NN O O
avoid NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sun NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
midday NN O I-INT
and NN O O
only NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
sunscreen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Important NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sun NN O O
protective NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
sun NN O O
protection NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
differences NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
sun NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
sun NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
were NN O O
each NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
underscore NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
interventions NN O O
targeting NN O O
high-risk NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
high-intensity NN O O
sun NN O O
exposures NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11267196)

A NN O O
single-center NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one-haplotype NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients-preliminary NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11284463)

Oral NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
versus NN O O
oral NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rizatriptan NN O O
030 NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Rizatriptan NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
, NN O O
5-HT1B/1D NN O O
agonist NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
than NN O O
oral NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
triple-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-groups NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
1268 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
treating NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Headache NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significance NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
active NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
through NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
imbalance NN O O
, NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
had NN O O
earlier NN O O
onset NN O O
than NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.032 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rizatriptan NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
on NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
after NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
and NN O O
relieves NN O O
headache NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
symptoms NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11292273)

Clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
cardiac NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
post-myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
home-based NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Montreal NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Attack NN O I-PAR
Readjustment NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
M-HART NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gender NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O I-INT
433 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
36.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
M-HART NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
achieving NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
distress NN O I-INT
score NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ie NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
General NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GHQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Short-term NN O O
GHQ NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
GHQ NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
successful NN O O
and NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
GHQ NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
mid-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
success NN O O
, NN O O
1-year NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
readmission NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
GHQ NN O O
success NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
mid-term NN O I-OUT
GHQ NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
marginally NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
die NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.087 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
die NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.043 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
readmitted NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
reason NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
cardiac NN O O
reasons NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
depression 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
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
1-year NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
GHQ NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
held NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
confounders NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
prevented NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
statistical NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Post-myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
reduce NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11292279)

Central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
serotonin NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
CNS NN O O
) NN O O
serotonin NN O O
function NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Lumbar NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obtain NN O O
cerebrospinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
CSF NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
5-hydroxyindoleacetic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
5HIAA NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Genotypes NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
functional NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O O
transporter NN O O
gene NN O O
promoter NN O O
region NN O O
( NN O O
5HTTLPR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
then NN O O
underwent NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
l NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
5HTTLPR NN O I-PAR
alleles NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
serotonin NN O O
metabolite NN O O
, NN O O
5HIAA NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
s/s NN O O
5HTTLPR NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Persons NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
l NN O O
alleles NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
CSF NN O I-OUT
5HIAA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
exhibited NN O O
greater NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
5HTTLPR NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
affects NN O O
CNS NN O O
serotonin NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
CNS NN O O
serotonin NN O O
function NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
potentially NN O O
health-damaging NN O O
biobehavioral NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
l NN O O
allele NN O O
could NN O O
contribute NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
its NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
to 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



-DOCSTART- (11295009)

Interferential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
interferential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O I-PAR
physiotherapy NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O O
random NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
self-referral NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
IFT NN O I-INT
painful NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
Back NN O I-INT
Book NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
IFT NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
Back NN O I-INT
Book NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
Back NN O I-INT
Book NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O O
IFT NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
: NN O O
carrier NN O O
frequency NN O O
3.85 NN O O
kHz NN O O
; NN O O
140 NN O O
Hz NN O O
constant NN O O
; NN O O
pulse NN O O
duration NN O O
130 NN O O
micros NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
' NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Roland-Morris NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMDQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EuroQol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
managed NN O O
by NN O O
IFT NN O O
spinal NN O O
nerve NN O O
and NN O O
The NN O O
Back NN O O
Book NN O O
displayed NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.030 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMDQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
management NN O O
via NN O O
IFT NN O O
painful NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
The NN O O
Back NN O O
Book NN O O
combined NN O O
or NN O O
The NN O O
Back NN O O
Book NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
IFT NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
LBP-specific NN O O
functional NN O O
disability NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
preliminary NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11297722)

Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
restricting- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
restricting-purging-type NN O I-PAR
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Anorexia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
often NN O O
chronic NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
people NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
weight NN O O
restoration NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
restoration NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
contributing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
administered NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
restricting-type NN O I-PAR
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anorexics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O O
inpatient NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
as NN O O
outpatients NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ten NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
remained NN O O
on NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
subjects NN O O
remaining NN O O
on NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
had NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
offers NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
preventing NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
weight NN O O
restoration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11300174)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stimulating NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Northern NN O I-PAR
Ireland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
The NN O O
school NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
in NN O O
existence NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
20th NN O O
century NN O O
yet NN O O
its NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
encouraging NN O O
attendance NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
school NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O O
class NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
stratified NN O O
, NN O O
blocked NN O O
randomisation NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
school NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
issued NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
stage NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
screened NN O I-INT
, NN O O
yet NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
assessing NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
2-month NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
from NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
result NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
screening NN O O
were NN O O
retained NN O O
for NN O O
analysis 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
2,321 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
980 NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O O
dmft NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
screening NN O O
positive NN O O
was NN O O
4.85 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
664 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
returned NN O O
, NN O O
giving NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
67.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
among NN O O
45.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=352 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
27.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=312 NN O O
) NN O O
claimed NN O O
attendance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significant NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
employed NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
unemployed NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
School NN O O
dental NN O O
screening NN O O
was NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
stimulating NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
strong NN O O
effect NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
socio-economic NN O O
group NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
school NN O O
dental NN O O
screening NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
inequalities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11302295)

Psychosocial NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
following NN O I-PAR
sudden NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
on NN O O
two-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
extend NN O O
to NN O O
out-of-hospital NN O O
sudden NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Describe NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
two-year NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sudden NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
out-of-hospital NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
asystole NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
electrocardiograms NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
registries NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
citywide NN O I-PAR
Medic NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
countywide NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
two NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
individual NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
implementing NN O O
three NN O O
components NN O O
: NN O O
physiologic NN O O
relaxation NN O O
with NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
training NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
altering NN O O
autonomic NN O O
tone NN O O
; NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
self-management NN O O
and NN O O
coping NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
anger NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
health NN O O
education 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
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
previous NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ectopic NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
little NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
estimated NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.13 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
eight NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Psychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sudden NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11315533)

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
conduct NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
dropout NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dropout NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
key NN O O
issues NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
process NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
conduct NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
treatment NN O O
design NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
conjoint NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
eclectic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Dropout NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dropout NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
mothers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
educated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinicians NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
meeting NN O O
, NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
organised NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
less NN O O
behavioural NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Again NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
defaulted NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
clinicians NN O O
as NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
dropout NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
organised NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
usually NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11318022)

Double NN O O
hearing NN O O
protection NN O O
and NN O O
speech NN O O
intelligibility-room NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Double NN O O
hearing NN O O
protection NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
air NN O O
forces NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
for NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
noisy NN O O
aircraft NN O O
environments NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
helicopters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
usual NN O O
combination NN O O
is NN O O
foam NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
under NN O O
headset NN O O
or NN O O
helmet NN O O
muffs NN O O
. NN O O

Much NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
that NN O O
spurred NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
foam NN O O
earplugs NN O O
indicated NN O O
little NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
speech NN O O
intelligibility NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
hearing NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
aircrew NN O O
often NN O O
complain NN O O
about NN O O
having NN O O
to NN O O
maximize NN O O
intercom NN O O
volume NN O O
for NN O O
speech NN O O
understanding NN O O
, NN O O
causing NN O O
a NN O O
situation NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
reserve NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
bad NN O O
sound NN O O
quality NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
developments NN O O
have NN O O
included NN O O
so-called NN O O
hi-fi NN O O
plugs NN O O
and NN O O
custom NN O O
made NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
claimed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
speech NN O O
communication 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
project NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
speech NN O O
intelligibility NN O O
in NN O O
helicopter NN O O
noise NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
normal-hearing NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
placed NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
helicopter NN O I-INT
noise NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
BO-105 NN O I-INT
helicopter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Speech NN O I-INT
audiometry NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
headset NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
ear NN O I-INT
plugs NN O I-INT
worn NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
headset NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fitting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ear NN O I-INT
plugs NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ear NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
throat NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ensure NN O I-INT
similar NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sequence NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
conditions NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Wearing NN O O
foam NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
headset NN O O
decreased NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
intelligibility NN O I-OUT
dramatically NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hi-fi NN O O
plug NN O O
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
foam NN O O
plugs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
custom NN O O
made NN O O
ear NN O O
plug NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
intelligibility NN O I-OUT
close NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
headset-only NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
coincided NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
In NN O O
helicopter NN O O
noise NN O O
, NN O O
custom NN O O
made NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
intelligibility NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
plugs NN O O
when NN O O
worn NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
headset NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
maintaining NN O O
improved NN O O
noise NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
headset-alone NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O

Custom NN O O
made NN O O
ear NN O O
plugs NN O O
might NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
noise NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
helicopters NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11319711)

Physiologic NN O O
modeling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
new NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
compartment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
minimal NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
Bergman NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Si NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Sg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
by NN O O
incorporating NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
intravenous NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
IVGTT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
estimates NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
physiologic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
glucose NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
whose NN O O
diabetes NN O O
was NN O O
relatively NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
minimal NN O O
disturbance NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
estimating NN O O
Si NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Sg NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
physiologic NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
IVGTT NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
insulin-requiring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
modelling NN O O
program NN O O
CONSAM NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
the NN O O
Bergman NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
unmodified NN O O
( NN O O
BMM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
incorporating NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
delay NN O O
element NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
remote NN O O
insulin NN O O
compartments NN O O
( NN O O
MMD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MMD NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IVGTT NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
improved NN O O
successful NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Si NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Sg NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
BMM NN O O
, NN O O
3-hour NN O O
IVGTT NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
MMD NN O O
, NN O O
5-hour NN O O
IVGTT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Si NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
1.86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.60 NN O O
v. NN O O
8.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.27 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
microU NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
mL NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
validated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
2-stage NN O O
euglycemic NN O O
clamp NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
Si NN O O
) NN O O
CLAMP NN O O
= NN O O
2.02 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.42 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
microU NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
mL NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sg NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
2.00 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.25 NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
v. NN O O
1.55 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.26 NN O O
normal NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
then NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
MMD NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
fit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
BMM NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
delay NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
abnormality NN O O
whereby NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
described NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
phase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
from NN O O
plasma NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
remote NN O O
compartment NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
physiologic NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
delayed NN O O
action NN O O
may NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
transcapillary NN O O
endothelial NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
process NN O O
limiting NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11322670)

A NN O O
pharmacy NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
pharmacy NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
plan NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTINGS NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
medicines NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
long-stay NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
plans NN O I-INT
which NN O O
gave NN O O
details NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
required NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
copy NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
relevant NN O O
professionals NN O O
and NN O O
carers NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
domiciliary NN O O
assessment NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
pharmacist 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
patients NN O O
were NN O O
discharged NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
that NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
discharge NN O O
letter NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
listing NN O O
current NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
re-admission NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
outpatient NN O I-OUT
clinics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
together NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
prescribed NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
362 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
181 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
point NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
interviewed NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
re-admitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months 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
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
co-ordinated NN O O
hospital NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O I-INT
pharmacy NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
plans NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
influence NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11323998)

Comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
hydroxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
eugenol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
radiographic NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Calcium NN O I-INT
hydroxide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
material NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
permanent NN O O
teeth NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
frequently NN O O
for NN O O
pulpectomy NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
hydroxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
eugenol NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11331049)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
economics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
realtime NN O I-OUT
teledermatology NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
perspective NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
realtime NN O I-OUT
teledermatology NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
dermatology NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
urban NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
rural NN O O
health NN O O
centre NN O O
were NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
regional NN O O
hospital NN O O
in NN O O
Northern NN O O
Ireland NN O O
by NN O O
ISDN NN O O
at NN O O
128 NN O O
kbit/s NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
274 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
dermatology NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
telemedicine NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
148 NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
by NN O O
telemedicine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
urban NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
conventionally NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
consultation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
almost NN O I-OUT
half NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
managed NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
consultation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dermatologist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
realtime NN O I-INT
teledermatology NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
52.85 NN O O
Pounds NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
urban NN O O
areas NN O O
and NN O O
59.93 NN O O
Pounds NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
from NN O O
rural NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
47.13 NN O O
Pounds NN O O
for NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
48.77 NN O O
Pounds NN O O
for NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
teledermatology NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
urban NN O O
and NN O O
rural NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
equipment NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O O
analysis NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
real-world NN O O
scenario NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
telemedicine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
consultations NN O I-INT
were NN O O
about NN O O
equal NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
average NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
telemedicine NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11331721)

Repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Anecdotal NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
raised NN O O
great NN O O
hopes NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
any NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intelligence NN O I-PAR
quotient NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
injection NN O O
using NN O O
several NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
formal NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subgroupings NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
regression NN O I-OUT
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
is NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
possible NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
biological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
skill NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11334068)

Comments NN O O
on NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-INT
proctocols NN O I-INT
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11343038)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
intravenous NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
measurable NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
socialization NN O O
and/or NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
2.0 NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
kilogram NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neurodevelopmental NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
before NN O O
injection NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Raters NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
marginally NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.051 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
or NN O O
language NN O O
skills NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Transient NN O O
, NN O O
marginally NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
may NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11350502)

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
microbial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
histatin-containing NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
gingivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
P-113 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
histatin-based NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O O
gingivitis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
periodontal NN O O
flora NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
159 NN O I-PAR
periodontally NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
abstained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
hygiene NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
0.005 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.01 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
P-113 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anti-plaque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-gingivitis NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
P-113 NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gingivitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.086 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
using NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
P-113 NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.05 NN O O
% NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
0.25 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
trends NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
sites NN O O
with NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
P-113 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
shifts NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
supragingival NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
P-113 NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingivitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
gingivitis NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11360574)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
research NN O O
of NN O O
Epimedium NN O I-INT
brevicornum NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O I-PAR
neuroendocrino-immunological NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
exogenous NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Epimedium NN O I-INT
brevicornum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal-thymus NN O O
( NN O O
HPAT NN O O
) NN O O
axis NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
exogenous NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
clinical NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
adrenocorticotrophin NN O O
( NN O O
ACTH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
proliferative NN O O
reaction NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
65 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
Fufang NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
experimental NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
HPAT NN O O
axis NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
corticosterone NN O O
( NN O O
CORT NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
EB NN O O
on NN O O
relevant NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
HPAT NN O O
axis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CORT NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
proliferative NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experimental NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
monoaminic NN O I-OUT
transmitters NN O I-OUT
activated NN O O
in NN O O
hypothalamus NN O O
; NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pituitary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adrenal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thymus NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
; NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRH NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
neurons NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hypothalamic NN O I-OUT
paraventricular NN O I-OUT
nucleus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CRH NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
neurofibrilin NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
eminence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
pituitary NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
secretory NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
; NN O O
adrenal NN O I-OUT
fasciculate NN O I-OUT
zone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thymus NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
atrophies NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
cytotoxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gamma-IFN NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
CORT-rats 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
were NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
Fufang NN O O
prednisone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
research NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
EB NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
experimental NN O O
research NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CORT NN O O
control 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
EB NN O O
could NN O O
relieve NN O O
neuroendocrino-immunological NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
exogenous NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11362397)

Thalidomide NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apthous NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
canker NN O I-PAR
sores NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11362629)

Confirmatory NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11369627)

Immune NN O O
reconstitution NN O O
after NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Allogeneic NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
grafts NN O O
contain NN O O
about NN O O
10 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
cells NN O O
than NN O O
marrow NN O O
grafts NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
these NN O O
cells NN O O
may NN O O
survive NN O O
in NN O O
transplant NN O O
recipients NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
immunocompromised NN O O
than NN O O
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immune NN O O
reconstitution NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
115 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
filgrastim-mobilized NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Between NN O O
day NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
365 NN O O
after NN O O
transplantation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
counts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
striking NN O O
for NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
about NN O O
4-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
counts NN O O
for NN O O
CD45RA NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
) NN O O
CD4 NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
about NN O O
2-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
counts NN O O
for NN O O
CD45RA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
low/- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
assessment NN O O
using NN O O
phytohemagglutinin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
herpesvirus NN O I-OUT
antigen-stimulated NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
appeared NN O I-OUT
equally NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
definite NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.7-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
marrow NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
inpatient NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
definite NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.4-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
marrow NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
definite NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greatest NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
fungal NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
bacterial NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
viral NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

Death NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
365 NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
transplantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
9 NN O O
marrow NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
lymphocyte-subset NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
this NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Blood NN O O
. NN O O

2001 NN O O
; NN O O
97:3380-3389 NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (11374137)

[ NN O O
Advantages NN O O
of NN O O
video NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
pneumothorax NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Spontaneous NN O I-PAR
pneumothorax NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
disabling NN O O
condition NN O O
mostly NN O O
affecting NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
thin NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
ruptured NN O O
pleural NN O O
blebs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
insertion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
but NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
great NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
video NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VATS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
treatment NN O O
possible NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
allows NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
ruptured NN O O
bleb NN O O
radically NN O O
avoiding NN O O
any NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
prove NN O O
it NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
five-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
SP NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
ICT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
VATS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
ICT NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
7.5 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
VATS NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
5.3 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ICT NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
required NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
76.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
VATS NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
38.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
ICT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
air NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VATS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
any NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VATS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
$ NN O O
850 NN O O
and NN O O
$ NN O O
1730 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
VATS NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
SP NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
treats NN O O
the NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
analgesic NN O O
drugs NN O O
post NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
decreases NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
back NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11377310)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluid NN O O
temperature NN O O
on NN O O
core NN O O
body NN O O
temperature NN O O
during NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluid NN O O
temperature NN O O
has NN O O
on NN O O
core NN O O
body NN O O
temperature NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
71.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
TURP NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
room NN O I-INT
temperature NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
throughout NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
2 NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
warmed NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
91.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
F NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluid NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
glycine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
final NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluid NN O O
used NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
27 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
room NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
55.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
72.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
warm NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
had NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
44.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
27.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
elevation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluid NN O O
temperature NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
altering NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
TURP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11378004)

Carvedilol NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11378833)

Dose NN O O
response NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cyclical NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cyclical NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
C21 NN O I-INT
progestogen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MPA NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
normotensive NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fixed NN O I-PAR
mid-range NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
oestrogen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
which NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
four NN O I-INT
randomised NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
phases NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
four NN O O
blinded NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
MPA NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
last NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CEE NN O O
0.625 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
as NN O O
open NN O O
labelled NN O O
tablets NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
weekly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
weeks NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
phase NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
progestogen NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
progestogen NN O O
treatments NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
mid-range NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
CEE NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cyclical NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
C21 NN O O
progestogen NN O O
spanning NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
clinical NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
progestogen NN O I-INT
has NN O O
either NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BPs NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
one NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11379334)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
eradication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
( NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
) NN O O
infection NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increasing NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
people NN O O
undergo NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

Unfortunately NN O O
, NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
troublesome NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
inefficacious NN O O
for NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODOLOGY NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ninety-three NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
193 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive 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
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
7-day NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
Eradication NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
13C-Urea NN O O
Breath NN O O
Test NN O O
6-8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Not-eradicated NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
with NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
regarding NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
193 NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
Twenty-two NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
193 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
successfully NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
and NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
quadruple NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
observed 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
triple NN O I-INT
rabeprazole-based NN O I-INT
eradicating NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
three-drug NN O O
regimens NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Quadruple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
appear NN O O
highly NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
line NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11384820)

Rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
combining NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
with NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
modification NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
counseling NN O O
on NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
resumption NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
post-percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n=49 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
n=50 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
time NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
post-PCI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
approximately NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
post-PCI NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
provided NN O O
more NN O O
advantageous NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
both NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
within-group NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( 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
) NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
returned NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
so NN O O
more NN O O
quickly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
improves NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
resumption NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11395821)

Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
open NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
26.4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
representing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
quintile NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
either NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Operating NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
full NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
overweight NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
weight NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
vs NN O O
35 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

In NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
and NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
had NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
their NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
counterparts NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
vs NN O O
40 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
125 NN O O
vs NN O O
100 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
weight NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
may NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
importance NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
are NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
0.26 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.09 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
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
operating NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
normal-weight NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
2.0 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
functional NN O O
index NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
any NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
normal-weight NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
full NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
vs NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
had NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
OA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
also NN O O
abolished NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
that NN O O
overweight NN O O
had NN O O
on NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
operating NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
both NN O O
overweight NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
BMI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11396751)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-operative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
genitourinary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
midazolam-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
post-operative NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
genitourinary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
genitourinary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
ml/kg NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
BM NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
caudal NN O O
route NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
whenever NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesics NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lowest NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
caudal NN O I-INT
bupivacaine 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

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
BM NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
7.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
hours 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

Fewer NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
26.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
required NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
supplements NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery 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
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in 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
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
no NN O O
untoward NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Caudal NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bupivacaine-midazolam NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
prolongs NN O O
post-operative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
without NN O O
causing NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11408369)

In NN O O
vivo NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
cytochrome NN O I-PAR
P450s NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
1A2 NN O O
, NN O O
2C9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2D6 NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
probes NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CYP1A2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
tolbutamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CYP2C9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dextromethorphan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CYP2D6 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
cocktail NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
administration NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
assayed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
compounds NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
metabolites NN O O
using NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CYP1A2 NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
l/h NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
l/h NN O O
after 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
6-h NN O I-OUT
paraxanthine NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.49 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
0.44 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
clarithromycin NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
the NN O O
tolbutamide NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.28 NN O O
l/h NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
0.72 NN O O
+/-0.24 NN O O
l/h NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
the NN O O
tolbutamide NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
779 NN O O
+/- NN O O
294 NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
681 NN O O
+/- NN O O
416 NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
CYP2C9 NN O O
were NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
CYP2D6 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dextromethorphan NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
dextrorphan NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
( NN O O
0.021 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
0.024 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O I-OUT
catalytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CYP1A2 NN O O
, NN O O
CYP2C9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CYP2D6 NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
individuals NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
caffeine NN O O
, NN O O
tolbutamide NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dextromethorphan NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11411192)

Treating NN O O
the NN O O
substance-abusing NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
substance-abusing NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
scarce NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
frequent NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
suicidal NN O O
behavior NN O O
among NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Indeed NN O O
, NN O O
suicidality NN O O
( NN O O
ideation NN O O
or NN O O
behavior NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
an NN O O
exclusion NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
substance-abusing NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
1990s NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-OUT
ideations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
suicide NN O I-PAR
attempt NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
open-label NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
within-group NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
suicidal NN O I-OUT
ideations NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
substantial NN O O
residual NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
no NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
utilized NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
apparent NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
from NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
included NN O O
substantial NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
suicidal NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suicide NN O I-PAR
attempt NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suicide NN O I-PAR
attempt NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
ideations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
eliminating NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
suicidal NN O I-OUT
ideations NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
comorbid NN O O
major NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorder NN O O
and NN O O
alcohol NN O O
dependence NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
displayed NN O O
suicidal NN O O
ideations NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
secondary NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
cigarette NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
totally NN O O
quit NN O O
smoking NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
treatment NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O O
secondary NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
marijuana NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
cannabis NN O O
abuse NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
robust NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
third NN O O
secondary NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
cocaine NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
acts NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
suicidality NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
persist NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
entering NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
involving NN O O
substantial NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
substance-abusing NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
confirm NN O O
or NN O O
refute NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
clearly NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
various NN O O
pharmacotherapeutic NN O O
agents NN O O
and NN O O
various NN O O
psychotherapies NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
substance-abusing NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11413274)

Gabapentin NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
vigabatrin 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
acquired NN O I-PAR
nystagmus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
How NN O O
valid NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
? NN O O
Acquired NN O O
nystagmus NN O O
occurs NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
the NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
illusory NN O O
motion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
environment NN O O
( NN O O
oscillopsia NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blurring NN O O
of NN O O
vision NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
on NN O O
acquired NN O O
pendular NN O O
nystagmus NN O O
( NN O O
APN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
mechanism NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
nystagmus NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
increasing NN O O
GABA NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CNS NN O O
are NN O O
critical NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nystagmus NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
drug NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
highly NN O O
successful NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
vigabatrin NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
pure NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
begin NN O O
with NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vigabatrin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Neuro-ophthalmological NN O O
and NN O O
electro-oculographic NN O O
( NN O O
EOG NN O O
) NN O O
evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
EOG NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nystagmus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
dropped NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
improved NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
pendular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
jerk NN O I-OUT
nystagmus NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
four NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
decided NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
continue NN O I-PAR
gabapentin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
vigabatrin NN O O
proved NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
additional NN O O
non-GABAergic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

Interaction NN O O
with NN O O
cerebral NN O O
glutamate NN O O
transmission NN O O
by NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
NMDA NN O O
receptor NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11414348)

Four-year NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
adolescent NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
for NN O O
alcohol NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
problems NN O O
among NN O O
adults NN O O
is NN O O
mounting NN O O
; NN O O
less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
youth NN O O
substance NN O O
involvement NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
five NN O O
waves NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
abuse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
162 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
adolescence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adulthood NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
patterns NN O O
and NN O O
elevated NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
life NN O O
problems NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
alcohol NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
admissions NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
San NN O I-PAR
Diego NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
abstinence NN O I-PAR
focused NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
12-step NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Alcohol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
greatest NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
stimulants NN O O
; NN O O
modest NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
alcohol NN O O
and NN O O
marijuana NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
substance NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
distinct NN O O
substance NN O O
involvement NN O O
trajectories NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Alcohol NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
patterns NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
highlight NN O O
both NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
diversity NN O O
in NN O O
substance NN O O
involvement NN O O
as NN O O
youth NN O O
make NN O O
the NN O O
transitions NN O O
from NN O O
middle NN O O
to NN O O
late NN O O
adolescence NN O O
and NN O O
into NN O O
young NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
identifying NN O O
transitional NN O O
periods NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
alternative NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
into NN O O
young NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11422660)

Nicotine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
acutely NN O O
impairs NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
subjects 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
examine NN O O
if NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
alters NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
degree NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
. NN O O

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
experimental NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O O
microg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
euglycaemic NN O O
hyperinsulinaemic NN O O
clamp NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
research NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
DM2 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
25.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
hypoglycaemic NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BMI-matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Ctr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
Insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
kg NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nicotine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
infusions NN O O
produced NN O O
similar NN O O
nicotine NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
DM2 NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
Ctr NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
LBM NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
further NN O O
aggravated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
nicotine NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
DM2 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
Ctr NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
LBM NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
minor NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
FFA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
this NN O O
low NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
aggravated NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DM2 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
Ctr NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
( NN O O
dysmetabolic NN O O
) NN O O
diabetic NN O O
state NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
environmental NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
genetic NN O O
predisposition NN O O
for NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
diabetic NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
particularly NN O O
susceptible NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11429349)

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
adding NN O O
EDTA NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
would NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
magnesium NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
received NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
33 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ionized NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Propofol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
infusion 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
but NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
generally NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
EDTA NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
EDTA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
EDTA NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
EDTA NN O O
, NN O O
propofol NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11439748)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
case NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
use NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O O
observations NN O O
regarding NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
practical NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
medication NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11443835)

Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gastroenterological NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
374 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
374 NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hernias NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
identify NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
poorer NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
by NN O O
medical NN O O
teams NN O O
. NN O O

SUMMARY NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
Malnutrition NN O O
is NN O O
prevalent NN O O
among NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
surgical NN O O
complication NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
major NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
socio-economic NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
its NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
, NN O O
medical NN O O
teams NN O O
often NN O O
overlook NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
screening NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
routine NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
utmost NN O O
importance NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
related NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
374 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
1996 NN O O
. NN O O

Nutritional NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Subjective NN O I-INT
Global NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Malnutrition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
severely NN O O
malnourished NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
over NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
upper NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
all NN O O
negatively NN O O
influenced NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
malnutrition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
teams NN O O
only NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Malnutrition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
above NN O O
presented NN O O
should NN O O
routinely NN O O
undergo NN O O
nutritional NN O O
screening NN O O
and/or NN O O
assessment NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
diagnose NN O O
or NN O O
prevent NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
correlated NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11453509)

Ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rhinorrhea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laryngectomized NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
laryngectomy NN O O
complain NN O O
of NN O O
unrelenting NN O O
rhinorrhea NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
very NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
anticholinergic NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
rhinorrhea NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as 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 I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
laryngectomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
complained NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rhinorrhea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
rate NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
each NN O O
day NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
from NN O O
zero NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
initially NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
either NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
sprays NN O O
of NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O O
micrograms/spray NN O O
( NN O O
0.06 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
intranasally NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
another NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Those NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
IB NN O O
recorded NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
signed-rank NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
ipratropium NN O O
bromide NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
laryngectomized NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
ipratropium NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
chronic NN O O
rhinorrhea NN O O
in NN O O
laryngectomized NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
improving NN O O
their NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11454840)

Uncomplicated NN O O
moderate NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
dissections NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
: NN O O
good NN O O
outcome NN O O
without NN O O
stenting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
moderate NN O O
coronary NN O O
dissections NN O O
, NN O O
coronary NN O O
flow NN O O
velocity NN O O
reserve NN O O
( NN O O
CFVR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
523 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
sequential NN O I-PAR
intracoronary NN O I-PAR
Doppler NN O I-PAR
measurements NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DEBATE NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Doppler NN O O
endpoints NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
trial NN O O
Europe NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
stenting NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dissections NN O O
were NN O O
graded NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
observers NN O O
and NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
categories NN O O
: NN O O
none NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
A-B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
( NN O O
types NN O O
D NN O O
to NN O O
F NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
dissections NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
128 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
reference NN O I-PAR
vessel NN O I-PAR
CFVR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
139 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
remaining NN O I-PAR
256 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
45 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
211 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
dissection NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Following NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty 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
CFVR NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
overall NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
receiving NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
stenting NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
6.603 NN O O
v NN O O
1.197 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
CFVR NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
2.5 NN O O
or NN O O
> NN O O
/= NN O O
2.5 NN O O
after NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Moderate NN O O
dissections NN O O
left NN O O
untreated NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
stenting NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11459079)

Famotidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
research NN O O
using NN O O
single NN O O
subject NN O O
research NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
single NN O O
subject NN O O
research NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
pilot NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3.8-8.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
famotidine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
single-subject NN O O
research NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
children NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
kept NN O O
by NN O O
primary NN O O
caregivers NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
affection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reciting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklists NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Aman NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
marked NN O I-PAR
stereotypy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
meaningless NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
repetitive NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
respond NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
prominent NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
protocol NN O O
; NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
exclude NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
our NN O O
subjects NN O O
improved NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
warrants NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11465651)

Valsartan NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
diuretic NN O O
or NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitor NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
relation NN O O
to NN O O
salt NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
salt NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
that NN O O
block NN O O
the NN O O
renin NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
entity NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
therapies NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
diuretics NN O O
or NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
160 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
on 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
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mEq NN O I-INT
Na+/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mEq NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
this NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
continuing NN O O
the NN O O
Na+ NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
320 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Valsartan NN O O
( NN O O
160 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
lowered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
low NN O O
salt NN O O
( NN O O
-6.4/-4.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
salt NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
-4.9/-3.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
salt NN O O
diet NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O O
( NN O O
1.6/1.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
regimens NN O O
while NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Na+ NN O O
supplement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
valsartan NN O O
160 NN O O
mg/HCTZ NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
-10.5/-6.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
valsartan NN O O
160 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Doubling NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O O
to NN O O
320 NN O O
mg NN O O
incrementally NN O O
lowered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
-3.8/-3.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
least NN O O
effective NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
adding NN O O
benazepril NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
to NN O O
valsartan NN O O
160 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
incremental NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
1.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
by NN O O
supplemented NN O O
salt NN O O
diet NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
adding NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
HCTZ NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
doubling NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
or NN O O
adding NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11476129)

Clomipramine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Clomipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
than NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
prove NN O O
superior NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
stereotypy NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10-36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Latin NN O I-PAR
square NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
7-week NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clomipramine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
128.4 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
100-150 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1.3 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1-1.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
taken NN O O
together NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
favored NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
individuals NN O O
receiving NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
69.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
reasons NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
perhaps NN O O
more NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
specific NN O O
measures NN O O
for NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clomipramine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
stereotypy NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
it NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11485124)

Sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
acute NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
complications NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pelvic NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Radiation-induced NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
concern NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
modality NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eicosanoids NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
radicals NN O O
are NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
synthesis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTlVE NN O O
: NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
radiation-induced NN O O
acute NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
two NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
500-mg NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
irradiation NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
graded NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Late NN O I-OUT
Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Normal NN O I-OUT
Tissue-Subjective NN O I-OUT
Objective NN O I-OUT
Management NN O I-OUT
Analytic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LENT-SOMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
table NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
pelvic NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
week NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
graded NN O O
endoscopically NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
biopsies NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
rectum NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
histopathologically NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
differ NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3/15 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
10/16 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) 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
in NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
and NN O O
histopathologic NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sulfasalazine NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
clinically NN O O
acute NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicities NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
net NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11488317)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
terbutaline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
beta2-adrenergic NN O I-INT
agonist NN O O
therapy NN O O
on 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
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
frequency NN O O
domain NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
HRV NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Any NN O O
diseases NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
physical NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
medical NN O O
history NN O O
that NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
inhaled NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
500 NN O O
microg NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
terbutaline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HRV NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
5-min NN O O
segment NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
inhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TP NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.40 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-frequency NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
0.15-0.40 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-frequency NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LF NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
0.04-0.15 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
LF/HF NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LF/HF NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
TP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
terbutaline NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O O
, NN O O
HF NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
terbutaline NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
terbutaline NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
produce NN O O
similar NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increase NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
autonomic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11500608)

Does NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
cause NN O O
rebound NN O O
aggravation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Rebound NN O O
acid NN O O
hypersecretion NN O O
might NN O O
occur NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
looks NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
rebound NN O O
aggravation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
after NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32-77 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heartburn NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
regurgitation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
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-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
5-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
9-day NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Reflux NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antacid NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
scores NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
first NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O O
first NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
rebound NN O O
aggravation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
given NN O O
lansoprazole NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
first NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
reflux NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
21.5 NN O O
and NN O O
17.6 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
11.2 NN O O
and NN O O
10.3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
antacid NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
8.2 NN O O
and NN O O
7.2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
rebound NN O O
aggravation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
5-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lansoprazole NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11501687)

Olanzapine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
open NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Conventional NN O O
neuroleptics NN O I-INT
ameliorate NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
dyskinesias NN O O
. NN O O

Atypical NN O I-INT
neuroleptics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
olanzapine NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
dyskinesia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
open-label NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
comparator NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
7.8+/-2.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O O
final NN O O
dosages NN O O
were NN O O
7.9+/-2.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1.4+/-0.7 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O O
item NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CPRS NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F1,9 NN O O
= NN O O
24.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
included NN O O
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11508634)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
neighborhood-based NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
organizing NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Seattle NN O I-PAR
Minority NN O I-PAR
Youth NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Project NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O I-INT
mobilization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
youth NN O I-INT
development NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
violence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
risky NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DATA NN O O
SOURCES/STUDY NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Primary NN O O
surveys NN O O
of NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
key NN O I-PAR
neighborhood NN O I-PAR
leaders NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
1994 NN O O
) 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
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
1997 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
neighborhoods NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Seattle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
neighborhood NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
the NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
paid NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
organizer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
neighborhood NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
recruited NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
residents NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
serve NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
action NN O I-INT
board NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Key NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neighborhood NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
youth NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
key NN O O
neighborhood NN O O
leaders NN O O
. NN O O

DATA NN O O
COLLECTION/EXTRACTION NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Youth NN O O
surveys NN O O
were NN O O
self-administered NN O O
during NN O O
school NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Parent NN O O
and NN O O
neighborhood NN O O
leader NN O O
surveys NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
phone NN O O
by NN O O
trained NN O O
interviewers NN O O
. NN O O

PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Survey NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
mobilization NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
degree NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
neighborhoods NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
did NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mobilization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
neighborhood NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
measurable NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O I-INT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
or NN O O
problems NN O O
detecting NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
using NN O O
individual-level NN O O
closed-end NN O O
surveys NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11517983)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
thiopentone/guaifenesin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ketamine/guaifenesin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketamine/midazolam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
horses NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
anaesthetised NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isoflurane NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
premedication NN O O
with NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
acepromazine NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
xylazine NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
thiopentone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
500 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
guaifenesin NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
TG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
guaifenesin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
KG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
0.06 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
KM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sd NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
isoflurane NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
cent NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
needed NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
light NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
plane NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
KM NN O O
( NN O O
0.91 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.03 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
TG NN O O
( NN O O
1.11 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.03 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
KG NN O O
( NN O O
1.14 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.03 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sd NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mmHg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
KG NN O O
( NN O O
67.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.07 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
TC NN O O
( NN O O
75.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.23 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
KM NN O O
( NN O O
81.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.16 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
logarithm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
induction NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
pronounced NN O O
ataxia NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
horses NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
KM NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
after NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
lasting NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
75 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11535502)

Relationships NN O O
between NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Council NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
698 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Council NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
presenting NN O O
features NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
single NN O O
cutoff NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
intermediate NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
cytogenetics 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
they NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
translocations NN O I-OUT
involving NN O I-OUT
chromosome NN O I-OUT
11q23 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
French-American-British NN O O
( NN O O
FAB NN O O
) NN O O
types NN O O
also NN O O
varied NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
; NN O O
FAB NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
M5 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
M7 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
FAB NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
M0 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
M1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
M2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
M3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Involvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
youngest NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Younger NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
worse NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
important NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
resistant NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
partially NN O O
balanced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.06 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11536065)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
anterior NN O I-INT
rhinomanometry NN O I-INT
and NN O O
impulse-oscillometric NN O I-INT
rhinometry NN O I-INT
found NN O O
within NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
allergen NN O I-OUT
provocation NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Besides NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O I-INT
rhinomanometry NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
impulse-oscillometric NN O I-INT
rhinometry NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aR NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
procedure NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cooperation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
IOS NN O O
is NN O O
measured NN O O
regardless NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
breathing NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
weather NN O O
the NN O O
resistance-measurement NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
IOS NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
aR NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
suitable NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
provocation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anamnestic NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
rhinokonjunktivitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
f NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pricktest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-INT
provocation NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
allergen NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
provoked NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
complete NN O O
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
nose NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
aR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IOS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
neither NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
measurement NN O O
( NN O O
aR NN O O
0,38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,14 NN O O
kPa/l/s NN O O
; NN O O
IOS NN O O
0,38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,11 NN O O
kPa/l/s NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
solution NN O O
( NN O O
aR NN O O
0,38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,14 NN O O
; NN O O
IOS NN O O
0,39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,14 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
allergenic NN O O
solution NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
aR NN O O
0,69 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,27 NN O O
; NN O O
IOS NN O O
0,77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,42 NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
aR NN O O
0,65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,29 NN O O
; NN O O
IOS NN O O
0,6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0,38 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IOS NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
allergenic NN O O
solution NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0,63 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0,01 NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0,67 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0,01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
measurement NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aR NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
unspecific NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
hyperreactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
correspondence NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
aR NN O I-PAR
between NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
aR NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
positive NN O O
then NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
criteria NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IOS NN O O
without NN O O
announcing NN O O
the NN O O
symptomscore NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
relevant NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
while NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
IOS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
nasal NN O O
provocation NN O O
testing NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
results NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
aR NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
aR NN O O
IOS NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
cooperation NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
higher NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
the NN O O
valid NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aR NN O O
at NN O O
provocation NN O O
testings NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
IOS NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
a NN O O
false NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11545671)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
studies NN O O
have NN O O
tested NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
completed NN O O
for NN O O
panic NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PD NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
embedded NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
framework NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
or NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
CC NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
57 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
videotapes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pamphlets NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
paroxetine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
psychiatrist NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
between NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Usual NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
58 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
physician NN O O
. NN O O

Telephone NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
panic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Adequacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
algorithm NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
CC NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
adhere NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Random NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
CC NN O O
patients NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
, NN O O
CC NN O O
interventions NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
both NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
greatest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11547366)

Matched-pair NN O O
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O O
all-polyethylene NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
metal-backed NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritic NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
round-on-round NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Apollo NN O I-PAR
Knee NN O I-PAR
System NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
between NN O O
all-polyethylene NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metal-backed NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
deformities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
salvage NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sacrifice NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
technique NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
38.4 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
component NN O O
required NN O O
revision NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
revisions NN O O
were NN O O
pending NN O O
. NN O O

Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
would NN O O
project NN O O
into NN O O
better NN O O
long-term NN O O
success NN O O
for NN O O
all-polyethylene NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
wear NN O O
and NN O O
osteolysis NN O O
with NN O O
current NN O O
modular NN O O
metal-backed NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
advocate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
all-polyethylene NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
need NN O O
the NN O O
versatility NN O O
of NN O O
exchange NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modular NN O O
polyethylene NN O O
insert NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
wear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11549300)

Dipyridamole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Oral NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
induces NN O O
accumulation NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
adenosine NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hypoxic NN O O
milieu NN O O
exerts NN O O
experimentally NN O O
an NN O O
angiogenic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
collateral NN O O
circulation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
published NN O O
between NN O O
1960 NN O O
and NN O O
1992 NN O O
showed NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Aim NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dipyridamole NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized 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

METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
treadmill NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

p.o. NN O O
, NN O O
n=198 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
corresponding NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=202 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
add-on NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
antianginal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
additional NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
-- NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
after NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
beta-blockers NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
nitrates NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
198 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
134 NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
add-on NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
12 NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
202 NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
162 NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
add-on NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
12 NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
dipyridamole NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
6.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.52 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increase NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
treadmill NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameters NN O O
: NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
treadmill NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
anginal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
-13 NN O O
s NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.040 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mVolt NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
+21 NN O O
s NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
dipyridamole NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.024 NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
latter NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
totally NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
-- NN O O
Bruce NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
antianginal NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Antianginal NN O O
and NN O O
antiischaemic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
exercise NN O O
testing NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
totally NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11549539)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ozone-induced NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
antioxidants NN O I-INT
can NN O O
influence NN O O
human NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
ozone NN O O
( NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
placed NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
ascorbate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
filtered NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
exercising NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
L/min/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
bronchoalveolar NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
oz NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
cocktail NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
exposed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
ppm NN O I-INT
O NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
BAL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
supplemented NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ascorbate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tocopherols NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carotenoids NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
testing NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
smaller NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
inhalation NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BAL NN O O
fluid NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
exposure NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
antioxidants NN O I-INT
protect NN O O
against NN O O
O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
decrements NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11550726)

Is NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
more NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
therapists NN O I-PAR
disclose NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
themselves NN O O
? NN O O
Theorists NN O O
have NN O O
long NN O O
debated NN O O
the NN O O
wisdom NN O O
of NN O O
therapists NN O I-PAR
disclosing NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Some NN O O
observers NN O O
have NN O O
argued NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
therapist NN O O
self-disclosure NN O O
impedes NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
others NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
test NN O O
these NN O O
competing NN O O
positions NN O O
, NN O O
therapists NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
counseling NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self-disclosures NN O I-INT
they NN O O
made NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
client NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
refrain NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
making NN O I-INT
self-disclosures NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
another NN O I-PAR
client NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
clients NN O O
receiving NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
heightened NN O O
therapist NN O I-INT
disclosure NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
also NN O O
liked NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
therapist NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Such NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
self-disclosure NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
therapist NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11554235)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
granisetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tropisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
granisetron NN O I-INT
are NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT3 NN O O
) NN O O
antagonists NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
emetogenic NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
7.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4.8 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
133 NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
66 NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
intravenously NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
67 NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
micrograms/kg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
intravenously NN O O
before NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
days NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
response NN O O
per NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
complete NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O O
( NN O O
1-4 NN O O
events NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and/or NN O O
nausea NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
events NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and/or NN O O
nausea NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
acute NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
worst NN O O
day NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
patients 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
complete NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
therapy NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
emetogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
cycles NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
increased NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O O
in NN O O
highly NN O O
( NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
emetogenic NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
cycles NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas 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
very NN O O
highly NN O O
emetogenic NN O O
cycles NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
heavier NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
few NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
modalities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
tropisetron NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
emetogenic NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ganisetron NN O I-INT
might NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
maximal NN O O
dose NN O O
differences NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11570022)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
ongoing NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mammography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O I-INT
intended NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
regular NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
recommended NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
outreach NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mail NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
scheduling NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
publicity NN O I-INT
campaign NN O I-INT
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
continued NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mammography NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
1908 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
continuously NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
group-model NN O I-PAR
HMO NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
mammogram NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
quarter NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
mammogram NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
next NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
health NN O O
plan NN O O
administrative NN O O
data NN O O
files NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
medical NN O O
chart NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
mail NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
publicity NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
mammography NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
mammogram NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
mammogram NN O I-OUT
date NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Bivariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
participation NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
contacted NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
than NN O O
through NN O O
routine NN O O
publicity NN O O
. NN O O

Mail NN O O
reminders NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
publicity NN O I-INT
campaign NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
care NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
gynecologist NN O O
visits NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
mammogram NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
by NN O O
regular NN O O
health NN O O
plan NN O O
staff NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
successful NN O O
than NN O O
publicity NN O O
in NN O O
encouraging NN O O
continued NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mammography NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group-model NN O O
managed NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
plan NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
mailings NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
mammography NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
health NN O O
plans NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
cautious NN O O
about NN O O
investing NN O O
in NN O O
member NN O O
mailings NN O O
without NN O O
first NN O O
evaluating NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
existing NN O O
outreach NN O O
efforts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11570966)

Benefit NN O O
of NN O O
FSH NN O I-INT
priming NN O I-INT
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
maturation NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
oocyte NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cleavage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
implantation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
low-dose NN O O
priming NN O O
with NN O O
FSH NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
before NN O O
retrieval NN O O
of NN O O
immature NN O O
oocytes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
sequentially NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
cycles NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
cycles NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
150 NN O O
iu NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
initiated NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
after NN O O
menstruation NN O O
. NN O O

Aspiration NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
transvaginally NN O O
between NN O O
day NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
17 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
unstimulated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
day NN O O
9 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FSH-primed NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
FSH NN O O
deprivation NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
cumulus-enclosed NN O O
oocytes NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O O
appearance NN O O
were NN O O
matured NN O O
in NN O O
culture NN O O
medium NN O O
( NN O O
TCM-199 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
for NN O O
28-36 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
intracytoplasmic NN O O
sperm NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
ICSI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
oocyte NN O O
retrieval NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
progesterone NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Suitable NN O O
embryos NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
two NN O O
embryos NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
transferred NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
after NN O O
ICSI NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
reaching NN O I-OUT
metaphase NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher 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
FSH-primed NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
92/156 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-primed NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
36/81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oocyte NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cleavage NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0/12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
seven NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
7/24 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
37 NN O O
embryo NN O O
transfers NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
implantations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
healthy NN O I-OUT
singleton NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
born NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
term NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
ended NN O O
with NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
abortions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
priming NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O O
FSH NN O O
before NN O O
harvesting NN O O
of NN O O
immature NN O O
oocytes NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
maturational NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cleaved NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11579299)

Induction NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
noninduction NN O I-INT
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus-based NN O I-PAR
immunosuppression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
antithymocyte NN O I-INT
globulins NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
immediate NN O O
tacrolimus NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
12-month NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Belgium NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
309 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=151 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=158 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
daily NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
was NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Steroid NN O I-INT
boluses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
tapered NN O O
thereafter NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Azathioprine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
1-2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
biopsy-confirmed NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
induction NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
noninduction NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steroid-sensitive NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
induction NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
noninduction NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Steroid-resistant NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
induction NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
noninduction NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
97.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
96.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
91.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
32.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
noninduction NN O O
, NN O O
19.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
37.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
herpes NN O I-OUT
simplex NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
mellitus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
induction NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
noninduction NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Low NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ATG NN O I-INT
has NN O O
the NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
rejection NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
significantly NN O O
increases NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11595000)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
PNU-142633 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
5-HT1D NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
50-mg NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5-HT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PNU-142633 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
34 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
stratifying NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
headache NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
post-dose NN O O
, NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PNU-142633 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
40.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
experienced NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PNU-142633 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
PNU-142633 NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
included NN O O
chest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
QTc NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
anti-migraine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
mediated NN O O
solely NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receptor NN O O
subtype NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
receptor NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
5-HT NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
medications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11683484)

Caffeine NN O I-INT
eliminates NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
sleep NN O O
inertia NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
inertia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
ubiquitous NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
impairment NN O O
, NN O O
grogginess NN O O
and NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
sleep NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
awakening NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
administered NN O O
sustained NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
66 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
88-hour NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
extended NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
seven NN O O
2-hour NN O O
naps NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
polysomnographical NN O O
recordings NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

Every NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
abrupt NN O O
awakening NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
naps NN O O
, NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
N/A NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
N/A NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
N/A NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
inertia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
manifested NN O O
as NN O O
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
upon NN O O
awakening NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
naps NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
impairment NN O O
was NN O O
absent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
caffeine NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Caffeine NN O O
had NN O O
only NN O O
modest NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
nap NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Caffeine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
overcoming NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
inertia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
popularity NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine-containing NN O O
beverages NN O O
after NN O O
awakening NN O O
. NN O O

Caffeine NN O O
's NN O O
main NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
antagonism NN O O
of NN O O
adenosine NN O O
receptors NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
adenosine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
upon NN O O
awakening NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
inertia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11691528)

Carotid NN O O
sinus NN O O
syndrome NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
modifiable NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
nonaccidental NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
SAFE NN O O
PACE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardioinhibitory NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
hypersensitivity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Cardioinhibitory NN O O
carotid NN O O
sinus NN O O
syndrome NN O O
causes NN O O
syncope NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
is NN O O
circumstantial NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
of NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
accident NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
facility NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
non-accidental NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
dual-chamber NN O I-INT
pacemaker NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paced NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-five NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pacemaker NN O I-INT
87 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-INT
88 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Falls NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
: NN O O
controls NN O O
reported NN O O
669 NN O O
falls NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
9.3 NN O O
; NN O O
range NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
89 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
paced NN O O
patients NN O O
216 NN O O
falls NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
4.1 NN O O
; NN O O
range NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
paced NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.42 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
0.23 NN O O
, NN O O
0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Syncopal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
fewer NN O O
syncopal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
falls-28 NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
paced NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Injurious NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
202 NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
61 NN O O
in NN O O
paced NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
non-accidental NN O I-OUT
falls NN O O
and NN O O
cardioinhibitory NN O O
CSH NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
patients NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
usually NN O O
be NN O O
referred NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Carotid NN O O
sinus NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
non-accidental NN O I-PAR
falls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11699803)

Multisite NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
intravenous NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
substance NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
pertinent NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
ADOS NN O I-OUT
social-communication NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
week NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
; NN O O
t54 NN O O
= NN O O
0.346 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.73 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
secretin NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11700823)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbs NN O I-INT
( NN O O
clear NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11701101)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
radiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
( NN O O
unblinded NN O O
) NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
radiography NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reassurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
belief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
radiography NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Lumbar NN O I-INT
spine NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
management NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
medication NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
care NN O O
services NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
therapies NN O O
and NN O O
complementary NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Participants NN O O
choosing NN O O
their NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

radiography NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
Lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
radiography NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
without NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
radiography NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
unblinded NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Nottingham NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Nottinghamshire NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Southern NN O I-PAR
Derbyshire NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Lincolnshire NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Leicestershire NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
Randomised NN O O
arm NN O O
: NN O O
421 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O O
preference NN O O
arm NN O O
: NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Lumbar NN O I-INT
spine NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Roland NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Sickness NN O I-OUT
Impact NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EuroQol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complementary NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reassurance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
belief NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiography NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
post-randomisation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
X-ray NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
1.56 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
1.02 NN O O
to NN O O
2.40 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
overall NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
score NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
consulted NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
practitioner NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
X-ray NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.72 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.80 NN O O
to NN O O
4.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
pathology NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
commonest NN O O
X-ray NN O O
reports NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
discovertebral NN O I-OUT
degeneration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Many NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
perceive NN O O
their NN O O
information NN O O
needs NN O O
were NN O O
met NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
consultation NN O O
. NN O O

Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
care NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
radiography NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
X-ray NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
less NN O O
worried NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
reassured NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
serious NN O O
disease NN O O
causing NN O O
their NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Satisfaction NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
meeting NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
information NN O O
needs NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
belief NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
necessity NN O O
for NN O O
investigations NN O O
for NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
X-rays NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
would NN O O
choose NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
X-ray NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
preference NN O O
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
marginally NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
radiography NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
net NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
radiography NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
duration NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
GP NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
receiving NN O O
X-rays NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
less NN O O
worried NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
reassured NN O O
about NN O O
serious NN O O
disease NN O O
causing NN O O
their NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
- NN O O
RECOMMENDATIONS NN O O
FOR NN O O
FURTHER NN O O
RESEARCH NN O O
: NN O O
Further NN O O
work NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O O
package NN O O
that NN O O
educates NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
GPs NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
radiography NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
and NN O O
meeting NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
GPs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reassured NN O O
about NN O O
missing NN O O
serious NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Guidelines NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
consistent NN O O
about NN O O
not NN O O
recommending NN O O
lumbar NN O I-INT
spine NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
red NN O O
flags NN O O
for NN O O
serious NN O O
spinal NN O O
pathology NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
has NN O O
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11705818)

Acute NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
1A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Arginine NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
through NN O O
its NN O O
actions NN O O
on NN O O
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Inhibiting NN O O
the NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
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
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
142 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
1a NN O O
) NN O O
/V NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vasopressin NN O I-INT
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
conivaptan NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
capillary NN O I-OUT
wedge NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.6+/-0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
-5.4+/-0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-4.6+/-0.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.0+/-0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
-3.7+/-0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-3.5+/-0.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
3- NN O O
to NN O O
6-hour NN O O
interval NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Conivaptan NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
( NN O O
-11+/-17 NN O O
, NN O O
68+/-17 NN O O
, NN O O
152+/-19 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
176+/-18 NN O O
mL/hour NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance 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
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonism NN O O
with NN O O
conivaptan NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
favorable NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
is NN O O
functionally NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
further NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
conivaptan NN O O
on NN O O
symptom NN O O
relief NN O O
and NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11706697)

Does NN O O
temporary NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
drains NN O I-INT
following NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
reduce NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
opening NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
drains NN O I-INT
opened NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drained NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
clamping NN O I-INT
drains NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
faced NN O O
with NN O O
immediate NN O O
brisk NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
drains NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
clamped NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
excess NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11708589)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
teach NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
recognize NN O O
and NN O O
predict NN O O
emotions NN O O
in NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
looked NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
better NN O O
recognize NN O O
and NN O O
predict NN O O
emotional NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
12-18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
half-hour NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Within-program NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
errors NN O O
made NN O O
from NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
last NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Students NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
using NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
photographs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cartoons NN O I-OUT
depicting NN O I-OUT
emotion-laden NN O I-OUT
situations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-literal NN O I-OUT
stories NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
or NN O O
verbal NN O O
ability NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
gains NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Gains NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
could NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
gains NN O O
generalized NN O O
into NN O O
real NN O O
life NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11709366)

Pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
amprenavir NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
steady-state NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
coadministration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
indinavir NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nelfinavir NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saquinavir NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
saquinavir NN O I-INT
soft NN O O
gel NN O O
capsule NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
ss NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
, NN O O
ss NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
indinavir NN O I-INT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
ss NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nelfinavir NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
189 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-INT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nelfinavir NN O I-INT
and NN O O
saquinavir NN O I-INT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
by NN O O
coadministration NN O O
with NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
historical NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
indinavir NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coadministered NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
amprenavir NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
single-dose NN O O
and NN O O
steady-state NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-INT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
amprenavir NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
consistent NN O O
among NN O O
protease NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
potential NN O O
interactions NN O O
in NN O O
CYP3A4 NN O O
metabolism NN O O
or NN O O
P-glycoprotein NN O O
transport NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
protease NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combinations NN O O
studied NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11714591)

Social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
opiates NN O O
and NN O O
cocaine NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
helping NN O O
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
these NN O O
benefits NN O O
may NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
experienced NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
observational NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
general NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
abstinence-specific NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
structural NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
, NN O O
predicted NN O O
opiate NN O O
and NN O O
cocaine NN O O
abstinence NN O O
in NN O O
128 NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
LAAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
new NN O O
multidimensional NN O O
self-report NN O O
instrument NN O O
assessing NN O O
abstinence-specific NN O I-INT
functional NN O O
support NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Previously NN O O
validated NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
baseline NN O O
abstinence NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
statistically NN O O
important NN O O
covariates NN O O
adjusted NN O O
, NN O O
hierarchical NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
study NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
biochemically NN O O
confirmed NN O O
abstinence NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
varied NN O O
by NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
abstinence-specific NN O I-OUT
structural NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
operationalized NN O O
as NN O O
fewer NN O O
drug NN O O
users NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
network NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
abstinence-specific NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Complaints NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
Drug NN O I-OUT
Use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Drug NN O I-OUT
Exposure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Demoralization NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
opiate NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whether NN O O
structural NN O O
or NN O O
functional NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Interventions NN O O
that NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
modifying NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
abstinence-specific NN O I-INT
support NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11718681)

Relationship NN O O
between NN O O
endogenous NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
and NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
cholesteryl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
transfer NN O O
protein NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
CETP NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
HDL NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
transport NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
estrogen NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration 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
CETP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follicle-stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CETP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
196 NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
52 NN O I-INT
premenopausal NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ages NN O I-INT
ranging NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
57 NN O I-INT
perimenopausal NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
41 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
87 NN O I-INT
postmenopausal NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
61 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
CETP NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
perimenopausal NN O O
and NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
1.39+/-1.06 NN O O
, NN O O
2.36+/-1.50 NN O O
and NN O O
2.31+/-1.25 NN O O
mg/l NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
around NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
menopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
CETP NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopause NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
premenopause NN O O
( NN O O
1.93+/-1.33 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.42+/-1.35 NN O O
mg/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

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
CETP NN O O
concentration NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
r=0.243 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
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
CETP NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
r=-0.273 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Estrogen NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CETP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11741555)

Prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dobutamine NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
idiopathic NN O I-OUT
dilated NN O I-OUT
cardiomyopathy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dobutamine NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
echo NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
potentially NN O O
useful NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
idiopathic NN O I-INT
dilated NN O I-INT
cardiomyopathy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
IDC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
186 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IDC NN O I-PAR
, 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 I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
micro/kg/min NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
dobutamine NN O I-INT
echo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
quality NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
echo NN O I-PAR
reading NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
score NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
WMSI NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
normal NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
= NN O O
dyskinetic NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
16- NN O O
segment NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
echo NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O O
dobutamine NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
eighty-four NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
29 NN O O
cardiac NN O O
deaths NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O O
prediction NN O O
at NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
are NN O O
: NN O O
DeltaWMSI NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
20.1 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
( NN O O
NYHA NN O O
) NN O O
class NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
17.57 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rest NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
10.41 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
8.23 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0041 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypertension NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
8.08 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O O
stepwise NN O O
analysis NN O O
only NN O O
DeltaWMSI NN O O
and NN O O
NYHA NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
DeltaWMSI NN O O
= NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0000 NN O O
; NN O O
NYHA NN O O
class NN O O
= NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
3.83 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Kaplan-Meier NN O O
survival NN O O
estimates NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DeltaWMSI NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
cutoff NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
receiver-operating NN O O
characteristic NN O O
curves NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
myocardial NN O O
inotropic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
dobutamine NN O O
( NN O O
93.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
69.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.00033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IDC NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
an NN O O
extensive NN O O
contractile NN O O
reserve NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
high-dose NN O O
dobutamine NN O O
stress NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11743411)

Capsular NN O O
contracture NN O O
around NN O O
saline-filled NN O I-INT
fine NN O I-INT
textured NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
smooth NN O I-INT
mammary NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
7.5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patient NN O O
textured NN O O
and NN O O
smooth NN O O
saline-filled NN O I-INT
mammary NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Biocell NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
large NN O O
pore NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
300 NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
microm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
saw NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
capsular NN O O
contracture NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
capsular NN O O
contracture NN O O
around NN O O
smooth NN O O
and NN O O
textured NN O O
saline-filled NN O I-INT
prostheses NN O I-INT
with NN O O
pores NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
hardness NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
, 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
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
augmentation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
surgeons NN O O
performed NN O O
all NN O O
operations NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
way NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
subglandularly NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Siltex NN O I-INT
textured NN O I-INT
saline-filled NN O I-INT
prosthesis NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
pore NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
microm NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
breast NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
smooth NN O I-INT
saline-filled NN O I-INT
prosthesis NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
hardness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
breasts NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7.5 NN O O
years NN O O
using NN O O
Baker NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
applanation NN O I-OUT
tonometry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
1-year NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7.5-year NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
breasts NN O O
with NN O O
smooth NN O O
prostheses NN O O
were NN O O
contracted NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
Baker NN O O
III NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
smooth NN O O
prostheses NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
textured NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
had NN O O
capsular NN O I-OUT
contracture NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
and NN O O
one-half NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
patents NN O O
with NN O O
smooth NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
with NN O O
textured NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
had NN O O
contracture NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
smooth NN O O
prostheses NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
textured NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
capsule NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
hardened NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
7.5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
breasts NN O O
with NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
textured NN O I-OUT
implants NN O I-OUT
contracted NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
textured NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
softened.The NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
augmentation NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
smooth NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
preferred NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
textured NN O O
prosthesis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
found NN O O
both NN O O
breasts NN O O
equal NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
contracture NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
smooth NN O O
versus NN O O
fine NN O O
textured NN O O
implants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
smooth NN O I-OUT
implants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
augmentation NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
extremely NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11748974)

Fibrin NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
lymphocysts NN O O
after NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
glue NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocysts NN O O
after NN O O
systematic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
or NN O O
pelvic NN O O
and NN O O
paraaortic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-three NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
paraaortic NN O I-PAR
lymphadenectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fibrin NN O I-INT
glue NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serial NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CT NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
smooth NN O O
and NN O O
thin-walled NN O O
cavity NN O O
filled NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
water-equivalent NN O O
fluid NN O O
, NN O O
sharply NN O O
demarcated NN O O
from NN O O
its NN O O
surroundings NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
infiltration NN O O
were NN O O
interpreted NN O O
as NN O O
lymphocysts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
glue NN O I-INT
and NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
93 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
; NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fibrin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
also NN O O
underwent NN O O
paraaortic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
fibrin NN O I-OUT
glue NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
fibrin NN O O
glue NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
lymphocysts NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
any NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
parameter NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Its NN O O
use NN O O
seems NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
indicated NN O O
in NN O O
systematic NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
or NN O O
pelvic NN O O
and NN O O
paraaortic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11751780)

Once-daily NN O O
versus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
infections NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
( NN O O
od NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
( NN O O
bd NN O O
) NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
bacteriological NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
nephrotoxic NN O O
agents NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
two NN O O
audiograms NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
receiving NN O O
ototoxic NN O O
agents NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
63 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
favourable NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
47/51 NN O O
( NN O O
92.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
49/52 NN O O
( NN O O
94.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
od NN O O
and NN O O
bd NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
34 NN O O
patients NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifteen NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
83.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
evaluated NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
od NN O O
and NN O O
12/16 NN O O
( NN O O
75.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
evaluated NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bd NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
favourable NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
od NN O O
and NN O O
bd NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
developed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
4/37 NN O O
( NN O O
10.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3/39 NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Hearing NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
1/31 NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5/32 NN O O
( NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Phlebitis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7/51 NN O O
( NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12/52 NN O O
( NN O O
23.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Red NN O I-OUT
man NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7/51 NN O O
( NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5/52 NN O O
( NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
od NN O O
and NN O O
bd NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
od NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
customary NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
convenient NN O O
, NN O O
bd NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11752031)

Controlled NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cytotoxics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
multiple-referral NN O O
source NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
lasted NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
yr. NN O O
Renal NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
analysis NN O O
annually NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
preservation NN O O
of NN O O
function NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
yr NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
68 NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Rate NN O O
of NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
objectively NN O O
by NN O O
least-squares NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reciprocal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
reduced-and NN O O
in NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
arrested-during NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Proteinuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
from NN O O
12 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
pretreatment NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
erythrocyturia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

Histologic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronicity NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
biopsies NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
trial NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
mesangial NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
progressive NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
morphologic NN O I-OUT
variable NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
thus NN O O
no NN O O
explanation NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
improved NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Morbidity NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
audit NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
outweighed NN O O
expected NN O O
or NN O O
minor NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
end-stage NN O O
renal NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nephritic NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
explaining NN O O
improved NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
acceptably NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11778352)

Physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
in NN O O
first-degree NN O I-PAR
relatives NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
regular NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
relates NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
regularly NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
affect NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
leisure NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Older NN O O
, NN O O
married NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
employed NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
household/occupational NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
perceived NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
educated NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
perceived NN O O
risk NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
leisure NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
married NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
provide NN O O
variables NN O O
upon NN O O
which NN O O
interventions NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11779598)

Metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
ovulatory NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hyperandrogenism NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
, NN O O
cervical NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
ovulation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Infertility NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
850 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cycle NN O O
days NN O O
3-7 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DHEAS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist-to-hip NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clomiphene-induced NN O O
cycles NN O O
after NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LH/FSH NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
waist-to-hip NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DHEAS NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Clomiphene NN O O
citrate NN O O
induction NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thicker NN O I-OUT
endometrium NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Metformin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
decreases NN O O
hyperandrogenism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
also NN O O
improves NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11781402)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
MRI NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
anti-herpes NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
antiherpes NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
on NN O O
MRI-evident NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
postulated NN O O
from NN O O
virologic NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
herpesvirus NN O O
infection NN O O
could NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
MS. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
relapses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Expanded NN O I-PAR
Disability NN O I-PAR
Status NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5.5 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
gram NN O O
of NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 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
34 NN O O
) NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
MRI NN O O
every NN O O
fourth NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
32 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
twice NN O O
during NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Scoring NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period 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
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
MRI-evident NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
during NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
was NN O O
11.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.6 NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
14.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21.4 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
protocol-planned NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
stratified NN O O
patients NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
fewer NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
scan NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
number NN O O
( NN O O
Q NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Q NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.0 NN O O
( NN O O
1.38 NN O O
, NN O O
3.96 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
valacyclovir NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6.5 NN O O
( NN O O
2.63 NN O O
, NN O O
9.0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Valacyclovir NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
relapses NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
active NN O O
MRI-evident NN O O
lesion NN O O
during NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
MRI-evident NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
scans NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exploratory NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
antiherpes NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MRI-evident NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11783270)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
retarding NN O I-OUT
aging NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tongbu NN O O
recipe NN O O
to NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medicine NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
Tongbu NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TB1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
reinforcing NN O I-INT
Kidney NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Spleen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clearing NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
viscera NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
send NN O I-INT
Turbid NN O I-INT
downward NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
regulating NN O I-INT
Qi NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-OUT
retarding NN O I-OUT
aging NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
indexes NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
56 NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
TB1 NN O O
( NN O O
containing NN O O
ginseng NN O O
leaf NN O O
, NN O O
cistanche NN O O
, NN O O
fleeceflower NN O O
root NN O O
, NN O O
immature NN O O
bitter NN O O
orange NN O O
, NN O O
rhubarb NN O O
, NN O O
etc NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
various NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aging NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
regulating NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endocrinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scavenging NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radicals NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adjusting NN O I-OUT
coli NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
TB1 NN O O
and NN O O
TB2 NN O O
( NN O O
containing NN O O
ginseng NN O O
leaf NN O O
, NN O O
cistanche NN O O
and NN O O
fleeceflower NN O O
root NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
different NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TB1 NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
retarding NN O I-OUT
aging NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11786587)

Dronabinol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cancer-associated NN O O
anorexia NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
North NN O O
Central NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
dronabinol NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
single-agent NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
palliating NN O O
cancer-associated NN O O
anorexia NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-nine NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
liquid NN O I-INT
suspension NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
dronabinol NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
acknowledged NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
appetite NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
problem NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
pounds NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
calories/kg NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
tumor NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
greater NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dronabinol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
75 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
appetite NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
baseline NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Functional NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Anorexia/Cachexia NN O O
Therapy NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
emphasizes NN O O
anorexia-related NN O O
questions NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an 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
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate-treated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
combination-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
single-item NN O O
Uniscale NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
instrument NN O O
, NN O O
found NN O O
comparable NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
comparable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
impotence NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
schedules NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
superior NN O O
anorexia NN O O
palliation NN O O
among NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dronabinol NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11788219)

Quantitative NN O O
angiographic NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
appropriate NN O O
end-point NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
edge-effect NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
prediction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
gamma NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
clinical NN O O
restenosis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
angiographic NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recurrent NN O O
restenotic NN O O
lesion NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
in-stent NN O I-PAR
restenosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
vascular NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Washington NN O I-PAR
Radiation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
In-Stent NN O I-PAR
Restenosis NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WRIST NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Intracoronary NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
in-stent NN O O
restenosis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
objective NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
WRIST NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
WRIST NN O O
study NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
double-blinded NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iridium-192 NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
192 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Ir NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
interventional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diffuse NN O I-INT
in-stent NN O I-INT
restenosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
vessel NN O O
segments NN O O
were NN O O
individually NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
quantitative NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiography NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
stent NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
radiation NN O O
ribbon NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
ribbon+margin NN O O
segment NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
injured NN O O
or NN O O
radiation-ribbon NN O O
segment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Receiver NN O O
operator NN O O
curves NN O O
( NN O O
ROC NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
percent NN O O
diameter NN O O
stenosis NN O O
( NN O O
DS NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
analyzed NN O O
segments NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
target NN O O
vessel NN O O
revascularization NN O O
( NN O O
TVR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
192 NN O O
) NN O O
Ir NN O O
reduced NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
60.7 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
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8.99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.34 NN O O
mm NN O O
vs. NN O O
17.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.48 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Isolated NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
edge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ribbon NN O I-OUT
edge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
restenoses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
infrequent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
angiographic NN O O
surrogate NN O O
of NN O O
TVR NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
follow-up NN O O
DS NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ribbon+margin NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
ROC NN O O
area NN O O
0.806 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
WRIST NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O I-INT
192 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Ir NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
restenosis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
failures NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
edge NN O O
proliferation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
restenosis NN O O
rate NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
vessel NN O O
segment NN O O
inclusive NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
fall-off NN O O
zones NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
correlate NN O O
of NN O O
TVR NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
analysis NN O O
site NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
vascular NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11791023)

1999 NN O O
WHO/ISH NN O O
Guidelines NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
1999 NN O I-PAR
MONICA NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Treating NN O O
hypertension NN O O
with NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
this NN O O
important NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CVD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
absolute NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
estimate NN O O
indication NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

WHO/ISH NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
Guidelines NN O O
from NN O O
1999 NN O O
propose NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
for NN O O
estimating NN O O
absolute NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
CVD NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
target NN O O
organ NN O O
damage NN O O
( NN O O
TOD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CVD NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
applying NN O O
the NN O O
recent NN O O
WHO/ISH NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
stratification NN O I-INT
scheme NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
MONICA NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6000 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
geographically NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
risk-classified NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
WHO/ISH NN O O
scheme NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
on NN O O
TOD NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
917 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
drug-treated NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three-quarters NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
737 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
inadequately NN O O
treated NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
or NN O O
above NN O O
140 NN O O
or NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

1773 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
5997 NN O O
) NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
of NN O O
140/90 NN O O
or NN O O
above NN O O
; NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low- NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medium- NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high- NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
very-high-risk NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
risk-group NN O O
pattern NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
inadequately NN O O
treated NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
737 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
5.5 NN O O
, NN O O
48.3 NN O O
, NN O O
11.1 NN O O
and NN O O
35.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
we NN O O
shifted NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
from NN O O
below NN O O
140/90 NN O O
to NN O O
below NN O O
130/85 NN O O
for NN O O
drug-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
under NN O O
60 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
278 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inadequately NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
278 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
14 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-risk NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medium-risk NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
five NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high- NN O O
or NN O O
very-high-risk NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Only NN O O
one-fifth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug-treated NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
newly NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
younger NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
45-54 NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
had NN O O
already NN O O
risen NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
medium NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Changing NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
to NN O O
below NN O O
130/85 NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
recommended NN O O
by NN O O
WHO/ISH NN O O
, NN O O
affects NN O O
predominantly NN O O
low- NN O O
and NN O O
medium-risk NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11812696)

Small-dose NN O O
selective NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
short-duration NN O O
outpatient NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
: NN O O
recovery NN O O
characteristics NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
SSA NN O I-INT
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
DES NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
O. NN O I-INT
Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postanesthesia NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
SSA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
awake NN O O
and NN O O
oriented 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
whereas NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DES NN O I-INT
group NN O O
required NN O O
7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
extubation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SSA NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
straight NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
raising NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
ambulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
DES NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

SSA NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
DES NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
SSA NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
DES NN O I-INT
for NN O O
outpatient NN O O
gynecological NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
general NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
small-dose NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
in NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
gynecological NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
walk NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
table NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
stretcher NN O O
on NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11815321)

Marginal NN O O
biotin NN O O
deficiency NN O O
during NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Biotin NN O O
deficiency NN O O
is NN O O
teratogenic NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O I-PAR
mammalian NN O I-PAR
species NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
an NN O O
abnormally NN O O
increased NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
3-hydroxyisovaleric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
probably NN O O
reflects NN O O
decreased NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biotin-dependent NN O O
enzyme NN O O
methylcrotonyl-CoA NN O O
carboxylase NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
3-HIA NN O O
excretion NN O O
could NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O O
handling NN O O
of NN O O
organic NN O O
acids NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
biotin NN O O
supplementation NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreases NN O O
3-HIA NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormally NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
3-HIA NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
3-HIA NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
10 NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
early NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
6-17 NN O O
wk NN O O
gestation NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
women NN O O
during NN O O
late NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
21-37 NN O O
wk NN O O
gestation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
14 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
300 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-INT
micromol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
biotin/d NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
early-pregnancy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
11.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
biotin NN O O
supplements NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
late-pregnancy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
7.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
biotin NN O O
supplements NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
3-HIA NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
reflects NN O O
reduced NN O O
biotin NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
conclusion NN O O
that NN O O
marginal NN O O
biotin NN O O
deficiency NN O O
occurs NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
further NN O O
raises NN O O
concern NN O O
about NN O O
potential NN O O
human NN O O
teratogenicity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11816482)

[ NN O O
Intravesical NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chemoprophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
-- NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Japanese NN O O
Urological NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
for NN O O
Adriamycin/Farumorubicin NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
465 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
Ta NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
T1 NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
by NN O O
17 NN O O
times NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
transurethral NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopic NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
every NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
became NN O O
evident NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
instillation NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O O
instillation NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
about NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
instillation NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11824175)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
A NN O O
recent NN O O
patient NN O O
series NN O O
reported NN O O
the NN O O
incidental NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
peptide NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
are NN O O
seeking NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
despite NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
empirical NN O O
investigations NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
amelioration NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
symptomology NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
precisely NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
improvements NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
retrospective NN O O
report NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11832869)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
selected NN O O
fitness NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
snowshoe NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
popularity NN O O
and NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sport NN O O
of NN O O
snowshoeing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
While NN O O
the NN O O
sport NN O O
has NN O O
gained NN O O
considerable NN O O
recognition NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
scientific NN O O
research NN O O
regarding NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
snowshoeing NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
snowshoe NN O O
training NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
fitness NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
further NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
responses NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
snowshoe NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
similarly NN O O
designed NN O O
run NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Vermont NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
surrounding NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
running NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exhaustion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RTE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
snowshoers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
runners NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
six NN O O
week NN O O
conditioning NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
exercised NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
at NN O O
75-85 NN O O
% NN O O
age NN O O
predicted NN O O
maximum NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
3-4 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
running NN O O
and NN O O
snowshoeing NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
6.3 NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Run NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exhaustion NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
23.3 NN O O
and NN O O
33.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
anthropometry NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
RTE NN O I-OUT
, 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
groups NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
measurements NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
snowshoeing NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
or NN O O
maintain NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11835021)

The NN O O
Low NN O I-INT
Energy NN O I-INT
Safety NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LESS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
rationale NN O O
, NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
device NN O O
utilization NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
10-J NN O O
energy NN O O
safety NN O O
margin NN O O
has NN O O
traditionally NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
programming NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter NN O I-INT
defibrillators NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
Low NN O I-INT
Energy NN O I-INT
Safety NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LESS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tests NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
programming NN O O
shocks NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
energy NN O O
margins NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
ICD NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
defibrillation NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ICD NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reconfirmation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lowest NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
energy NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DFT++ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
shocks NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
fibrillation NN O I-INT
conversion NN O I-INT
programmed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
steps NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
DFT++ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
typically NN O I-INT
4-6 NN O I-INT
J NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
J NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O I-INT
shocks NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
has NN O O
all NN O I-INT
shocks NN O I-INT
programmed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
are NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
shock NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
energy NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
steps NN O O
above NN O O
implant NN O O
DFT++ NN O I-INT
for NN O O
conversion NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
induced NN O O
ventricular NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
episodes NN O O
at NN O O
prehospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
implant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Enrollment NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
702 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
follow-up NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
pending NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
indications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O O
enrollment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dual-chamber NN O I-OUT
ICDs NN O I-OUT
implanted NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
implanted NN O O
ICDs NN O O
being NN O O
dual-chamber NN O O
devices NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enrollment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
LESS NN O I-INT
should NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
algorithms NN O O
for NN O O
programming NN O O
ICD NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11837240)

Pacifier NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11837468)

Glibenclamide NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
gliclazide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
noninsulin NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Parameters NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
quantitated NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
after NN O O
control NN O O
using NN O O
oral NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
gliclazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
estimates NN O O
were NN O O
further NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
, NN O O
noncrossover NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
capsule NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
while NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
capsule NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
gliclazide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
parameters NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O O
Superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
malonyl-dialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
at NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
FBS NN O O
-- NN O O
165 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.7 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
PP NN O O
-- NN O O
240 NN O O
+/- NN O O
30.1 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
and NN O O
HbA1 NN O O
-- NN O O
10.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
FBS NN O O
-- NN O O
150 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.8 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
PP NN O O
-- NN O O
246 NN O O
+/- NN O O
29.1 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
HbA1 NN O O
10.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
controlled NN O O
stage NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
FBS NN O O
-- NN O O
120 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
PP NN O O
-- NN O O
180 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.1 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
and NN O O
HbA1 NN O O
-- NN O O
8.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.29 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
FBS NN O O
-- NN O O
118 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.6 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
PP NN O O
-- NN O O
176 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.1 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
and NN O O
HbA1 NN O O
-- NN O O
8.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.39 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
significantly NN O O
raised NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
indicated NN O O
free NN O O
radical NN O O
stress NN O O
induced NN O O
lipid NN O O
peroxidation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
control NN O O
revealed NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
on NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
normalized NN O O
and NN O O
stayed NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
intergroup NN O O
comparison NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
with NN O O
gliclazide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
diabetes NN O O
is NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
with NN O O
gliclazide NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
higher NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
gliclazide NN O O
. NN O O

Normalization NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
combating NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
achieving NN O O
acceptable NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11838820)

Methodological NN O O
issues NN O O
in NN O O
designing NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
trial 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
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
methodological NN O O
challenges NN O O
and NN O O
decisions NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study 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
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Review NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
considerations NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
design NN O O
considerations NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
matching NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
evaluating NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
ethical NN O O
and NN O O
scientific NN O O
issues NN O O
concern NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
short-term 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
This NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
open-label NN O O
maintenance NN O O
on NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
remains NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
appropriate NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
testing NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
discontinuation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11839712)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
glucagon-like NN O I-INT
peptide-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
7-36 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
amide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
stomach NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Glucagon-like NN O I-INT
peptide-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
7-36 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
amide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GLP-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
retards NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduces NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inhibits NN O I-OUT
antroduodenal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stimulates NN O I-OUT
pyloric NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
GLP-1 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fundus NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
waves NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
distension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SUBJECTS NN O O
Eleven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Background NN O O
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
GLP-1 NN O I-INT
at NN O O
0.3 NN O O
or NN O O
0.9 NN O O
pmol/ NN O O
kg/min NN O O
on NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Interdigestive NN O I-OUT
fundus NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
barostat NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
intragastric NN O O
bag NN O O
1200 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
basal NN O O
and NN O O
peptide NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Thereafter NN O O
stepwise NN O O
isobaric NN O O
distensions NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
ongoing NN O O
peptide NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
loads NN O O
of NN O O
GLP-1 NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supraphysiological NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

GLP-1 NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
dependently NN O O
diminished NN O O
fundus NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
162.9 NN O O
( NN O O
15.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
259.5 NN O O
( NN O O
17.2 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
121.1 NN O O
( NN O O
6.0 NN O O
) NN O O
ml NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduced NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
waves NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
displaced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
isobaric NN O O
distension NN O O
rose NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
manner NN O O
( NN O O
42.6 NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
63.6 NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
27.0 NN O O
( NN O O
3.5 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
half NN O O
maximum NN O O
bag NN O O
volume NN O O
( NN O O
6.4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5.5 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
7.2 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GLP-1 NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
isobaric NN O I-OUT
distension NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
corresponding NN O O
bag NN O O
volume NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
GLP-1 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
candidate NN O O
physiological NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
regulator NN O O
of NN O O
fundus NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
allows NN O O
the NN O O
stomach NN O O
to NN O O
afford NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
volume NN O O
without NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11840031)

Immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
soy-based NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
added NN O I-INT
nucleotides NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
part NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
immune NN O O
cell NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
isolate-based NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
have NN O O
immunization NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
breast-fed NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
immunologic NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
soy-fed NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
extensively NN O O
. NN O O

Nucleotides NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
milk-based NN O O
formula NN O O
benefit NN O O
infant NN O O
immune NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adding NN O O
nucleotides NN O I-INT
to NN O O
soy-based NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
are NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
isolate NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
added NN O I-PAR
nucleotides NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Newborn NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
masked NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O I-PAR
feeding NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
nucleotides NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
94 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
92 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
nonrandomized NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-INT
milk/formula-fed NN O I-INT
cohort NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
concurrently NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-two NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
characterized NN O O
using NN O O
three-color NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
. NN O O

Cellular NN O O
markers NN O O
were NN O O
chosen NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
pediatric NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emphasizing NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
cell NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
percentages NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
age-related NN O O
normal NN O O
ranges NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-INT
milk/formula-fed NN O I-INT
infants NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD57 NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
human NN O O
milk/formula NN O O
> NN O O
soy NN O O
formula NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
at NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
between NN O O
human NN O O
milk/formula-fed NN O O
and NN O O
nucleotide-supplemented NN O I-INT
soy NN O O
formula-fed NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
populations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
helper NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
naive NN O I-OUT
helper NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
memory/effector NN O I-OUT
helper NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD57 NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD11b NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
between NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
soy NN O I-PAR
formula NN O I-PAR
versus NN O O
soy NN O O
plus NN O O
nucleotides NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
commercial NN O I-PAR
soy NN O I-PAR
formula NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
milk/formula-fed NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
nucleotides NN O I-INT
to NN O O
soy NN O O
formula NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
specific NN O O
individual NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11849797)

Prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
radiochemotherapy-induced NN O O
mucositis NN O O
and NN O O
xerostomia NN O O
in NN O O
head-and-neck NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
against NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
toxicities NN O O
from NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head-and-neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-Gy NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60-74 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
depending NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
localization NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
TNM NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
once NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Amifostine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
15-30 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
RT NN O O
for NN O O
6-7.5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
grading NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
nonhematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
xerostomia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine-treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
treatment NN O O
interruptions NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine-treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
Week NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
Grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine-treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
Week NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
52.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
Grade NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine-treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
Grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
xerostomia NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
73.9 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
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
xerostomia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
30.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
respective NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cytoprotection NN O I-INT
with NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
90.9 NN O O
% NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine-treated NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
78.3 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
0.414 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Amifostine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
mucositis NN O O
and NN O O
dysphagia NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head-and-neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
xerostomia NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RT NN O O
with NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

Amifostine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11860915)

[ NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
plasma-derived NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
immunization NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
immunization NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
provide NN O O
scientific NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
revaccination NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
strictly NN O O
designed NN O O
with NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinding NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
method NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
still NN O O
kept NN O O
well NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
immunization NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
HBV NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
73.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

But 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
HBV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
vaccine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
7.89 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
nine NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
immunization NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
still NN O O
existed NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
11 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
immunization NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
weaker NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
immunization NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
begun NN O O
to NN O O
drop NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
immunization NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
further NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
conclusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11863211)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxolamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11867842)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
on NN O O
iron NN O I-OUT
stores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
anemic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cord NN O O
clamping NN O O
on NN O O
iron NN O O
stores NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
anemic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Infants NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemoglobin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Hb NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
g/L NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
at NN O O
delivery NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
( NN O O
early NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
cord NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
till NN O I-INT
descent NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placenta NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
vagina NN O I-INT
( NN O O
delayed NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
infant NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
43 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
delayed NN O O
cord NN O O
clamping NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
59 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
maternal NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
parity NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
supplemental NN O O
iron NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
infant NN O O
s NN O O
birth NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
gestation NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
118.4 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
g/L NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
g/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
g/L NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
co-variates NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
-1.09 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-1.58 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.62 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
odds NN O O
for NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
100 NN O O
g/L NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
7.7 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.84-34.9 NN O O
) NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Iron NN O I-OUT
stores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infancy NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
anemic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
delaying NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
at NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11876712)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
quadruple NN O O
, NN O O
tetracycline- NN O I-INT
or NN O O
clarithromycin-containing NN O I-INT
, NN O O
second-line NN O O
, NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
guidelines NN O O
on NN O O
second-line NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
failures NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole-clarithromycin-amoxicillin NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
second-line NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
persistent NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Over NN O O
a NN O O
6-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
omeprazole-clarithromycin-amoxicillin NN O I-INT
eradication 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
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
with NN O O
biopsies NN O O
for NN O O
histology NN O O
, NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
histology NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
93 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
Age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
ulcer/non-ulcer NN O O
dyspepsia NN O O
ratio NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
resistance NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
70.4-92.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
46 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
43.3-73.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tetracycline- NN O O
and NN O O
clarithromycin-containing NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
metronidazole NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
likelihood NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
5.2 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
quadruple NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
likelihood NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
4.4 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tetracycline-containing NN O I-OUT
quadruple NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
failures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
omeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11876893)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
irradiated NN O O
drug-containing NN O I-INT
porcine-cornea NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
transplanted NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
irradiated NN O I-INT
drug-containing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acetyl NN O I-INT
cysteine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
glutathione NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
porcine-cornea NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
39 NN O O
eyes NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-two NN O O
eyes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
rescued NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
65.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
only NN O O
17 NN O O
eyes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
saved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
43.59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Irradiated NN O O
drug-containing NN O O
porcine-cornea NN O I-INT
might NN O O
well NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
ideal NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
material NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11877686)

Benefits NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
extremity NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
nonmasked NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
831 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
WASA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
target NN O O
international NN O O
normalized NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
2.8 NN O O
; NN O O
325 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
325 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
bypass NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
133 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
WASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
31.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
23.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.41 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.09 NN O O
to NN O O
1.84 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
WASA NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
; NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
prosthetic NN O O
bypass NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
patency NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
8-mm NN O O
bypass NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, 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
patency NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
6-mm NN O O
bypass NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
femoral-popliteal NN O O
; NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
57.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
vein NN O O
bypass NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
patency NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
( NN O O
75.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WASA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
74.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASA NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
long-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
selected NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
bypass NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11881749)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
comfort NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
bed NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
bed NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
a NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
left-heart NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6-hour NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
4-hour NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
study NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
complications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
4-hour NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
comfort NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
postcatheterization NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
possibly NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outpatient NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11888754)

Amiodarone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postcoronary NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
at NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postcoronary NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
241 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P.O NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
2x0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operating NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
P.O.+metoprolol NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
P.O NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
until NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=72 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
totally NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenous/24 NN O O
h NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
which NN O O
the NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
- NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose/1 NN O O
h NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
finished NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
day NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
450 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
P.O NN O O
. NN O O

were NN O O
given NN O O
until NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=92 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
with NN O O
no NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
operative NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
16.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
33.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postcoronary NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11888774)

Mediastinal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
nodal NN O I-PAR
micrometastases NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
So NN O O
far NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
systematic NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
explanation NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
spread NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
has NN O O
occurred NN O O
which NN O O
might NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
curable NN O O
by NN O O
surgical NN O O
means NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
lymph NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
or NN O O
systematic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
screened NN O O
for NN O O
micrometastatic NN O O
spread NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
nodal NN O O
micrometastases NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=94 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
lymph NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n=41 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
systematic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n=53 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
screened NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
for NN O O
disseminated NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
antibody NN O O
Ber-Ep4 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O O
94 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Standard NN O O
histopathological NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pN0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
61 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
pN1 NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
pN2 NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
LA NN O O
and NN O O
LS NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
T-stage NN O O
, NN O O
N-stage NN O O
or NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
sex NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
a NN O O
minimal NN O O
nodal NN O I-OUT
spread NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
94 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
LS NN O O
, NN O O
n=10 NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
LA NN O O
, NN O O
n=11 NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
nodal NN O O
micrometastases NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.27 NN O O
and NN O O
P=0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
analysis NN O O
systematic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
provide NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
systematic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
locoregional NN O I-OUT
spread NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
should NN O O
undergo NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11916791)

The NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
consciousness NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Clonidine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
opioids NN O O
and NN O O
volatile NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O I-INT
also NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
blood NN O O
concentrations NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
consciousness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
administered NN O O
target NN O O
effect-site NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
computer-assisted NN O O
target-controlled NN O O
infusion NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
Clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
Clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nothing NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
or NN O O
5.0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Clonidine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
equilibration NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
effect-site NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
verbal NN O O
command NN O O
to NN O O
open NN O O
their NN O O
eyes NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
verbal NN O O
commands NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Measured NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
propofol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
equilibrium NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
effect-site NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
verbal NN O O
commands NN O O
( NN O O
EC50 NN O O
for NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
consciousness NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
EC50 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
Clonidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
Clonidine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
2.67 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
1.31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
EC50 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
2.5 NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
clonidine NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller 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 NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
surface NN O O
modeling NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
measured NN O O
arterial NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
propofol NN O O
and NN O O
clonidine NN O O
act NN O O
additively NN O O
for NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
consciousness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
premedication NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
consciousness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11918753)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
eprosartan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
vascular NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Experimental NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
and NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
system NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
vasculature NN O O
are NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
. NN O O

Enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
eprosartan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
their NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
143 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11/95 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
fourfold NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
eprosartan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
each NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
two-week NN O O
washout NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
phase NN O O
the NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RPF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
vasculature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
RPF NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
with NN O O
NG-monomethyl-L-arginine NN O O
( NN O O
L-NMMA NN O O
; NN O O
4.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
casual NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2/3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
enalapril NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2/1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
eprosartan NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1/0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
clear-cut NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
casual NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
RPF NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
123 NN O O
+/- NN O O
36 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
+59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
46 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
+113 NN O O
+/- NN O O
51 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
clear-cut NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
RPF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O O
of NN O O
RPF NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
L-NMMA NN O O
induced NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
RPF NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.70 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
eprosartan NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Renal NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
prominent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

GFR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
substance NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
with NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
prominent NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
eprosartan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
RPF NN O O
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
vasculature NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11920488)

The NN O O
specific NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
isoflavones NN O I-INT
on NN O O
estrogen NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
dietary NN O O
factors NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
target NN O O
tissues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
specific NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
supplementing NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplement NN O O
of NN O O
isoflavones NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
producing NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
steroid NN O O
hormones NN O O
and NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
length NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
omnivorous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
races NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ethnicities NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
genistein NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
consumed NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nutritional NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
early NN O O
follicular NN O O
phase NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Serum-free NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estrone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
moderately NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
41.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Free NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
53.85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Estrone NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
55.56 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
42.86 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
consuming NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
had NN O O
their NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
menstrual NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
3.52 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
0.06 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
women 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
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
taking NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
had NN O O
their NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
1.46 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
0.14 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
taking NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
isoflavone NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
affects NN O O
estrogen NN O O
metabolism NN O O
by NN O O
altering NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
length NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11922398)

Parenteral NN O O
troxerutin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carbazochrome NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
post-hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
IV NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Flavonoids NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
troxerutin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
agents NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O O
between NN O O
troxerutin NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
carbazochrome NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
Fleboside NN O O
ampoules NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
previously NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
non-surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
post-hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
troxerutin NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carbazochrome NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
ml NN O O
ampoules NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
; NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
hemorrhoidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
if NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
restore NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
defecation NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
four-point NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
0 NN O O
= NN O O
absent NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
mild NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
moderate NN O O
; NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
camera NN O I-OUT
pictures NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
T1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
T3 NN O O
and NN O O
T4 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
T3 NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
T4 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
combination NN O O
nor NN O O
placebo NN O O
affected NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
tests NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
troxerutin NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
carbazochrome NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
hemorrhoidal NN O O
and NN O O
post-surgical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11932879)

Step-down NN O O
approach NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
step-down NN O O
approach NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
following NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
nonerosive NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonerosive NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
first NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
stepped NN O O
down NN O O
to NN O O
single-agent NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
being NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
84.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Rheumatology NN O O
( NN O O
ACR NN O O
) NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
60.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
46.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
month NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27 NN O O
to NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
by NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mainly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
4 NN O O
taking NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
month NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
0.273 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
for NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.852 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
for NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
CSA NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
ACR NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
ACR NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
23 NN O O
completers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
91.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
43.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
ACR NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Radiography NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
damage NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eroded NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Stepping NN O O
down NN O O
to NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
following NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early NN O O
RA NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
successful NN O O
with NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Because NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
prevent NN O O
some NN O O
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
other NN O O
approaches NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
step-up NN O O
approach NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
appropriate NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11932900)

Detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
nasopharyngeal NN O I-OUT
carcinomas NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
technetium-99m NN O I-INT
methoxyisobutylisonitrile NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose NN O I-INT
positron NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
technetium-99m NN O I-INT
methoxyisobutylisonitrile NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tc-MIBI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
for NN O O
differentiating NN O O
recurrent NN O O
or NN O O
residual NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
benign NN O O
lesions NN O O
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
positron NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FDG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Tc-MIBI NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
FDG-PET NN O I-INT
four NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
differentiate NN O O
recurrent NN O O
or NN O O
residual NN O O
NPC NN O O
from NN O O
benign NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

Histopathologic NN O O
examinations NN O O
of NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
foci NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
biopsy NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
differentiating NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
residual NN O O
NPC NN O O
from NN O O
benign NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Tc-MIBI NN O I-OUT
SPECT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FDG-PET NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
Tc-MIBI NN O O
SPECT NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
NPC NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
congruent NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
same 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
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
FDG-PET NN O I-INT
for NN O O
differentiating NN O O
recurrent NN O O
or NN O O
residual NN O O
NPC NN O O
from NN O O
benign NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
incongruent NN O O
results NN O O
between NN O O
CT NN O O
and NN O O
Tc-MIBI NN O O
SPECT NN O O
, NN O O
FDG-PET NN O O
correctly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
two NN O O
benign NN O O
lesions NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
recurrent NN O O
or NN O O
residual NN O O
NPCs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
detecting NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
NPC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
FDG-PET NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Tc-MIBI NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
can NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
FDG-PET NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (11943119)

A NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
error NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
technical NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
many NN O O
instances NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
basic NN O O
surgical NN O O
skill NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
several NN O O
errors NN O O
that NN O O
occurred NN O O
frequently NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
errors NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
instruction NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skill NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
For NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rater NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
videotapes NN O I-INT
were NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
involved NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
examples NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
errors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
skill NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
correctly NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
correct NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
testing NN O O
videotape NN O O
was NN O O
created NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
performances NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skill NN O O
that NN O O
ranged NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
error NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
on NN O O
skill NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
senior NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
none NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
correct NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
error+correct NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
videotaped NN O O
performing NN O O
the NN O O
skill NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
experts NN O O
evaluated NN O O
these NN O O
performances NN O I-OUT
independently NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
7-point NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
error NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
skill NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
novice NN O O
and NN O O
expert NN O O
raters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
senior NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
novice NN O I-PAR
raters NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
performances NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
testing NN O I-INT
videotape NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interrater NN O I-INT
reliability NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Surgical NN O O
faculty NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
expert NN O O
raters NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
error NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
subject NN O O
viewed NN O O
the NN O O
testing NN O O
videotape NN O O
, NN O O
rating NN O O
the NN O O
performances NN O O
and NN O O
giving NN O O
feedback NN O O
commentary NN O O
. NN O O

Interrater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
precision NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
feedback NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
posttest NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
error+correct NN O I-INT
training NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Interrater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
and NN O O
error NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
training NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
student NN O O
and NN O O
faculty NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Faculty NN O O
raters NN O O
receiving NN O O
error NN O O
training NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
comments NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
training 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Instruction NN O O
about NN O O
common NN O I-INT
errors NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
instruction NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O O
performance NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
acquisition NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
surgical NN O O
skill NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
technical NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
no NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
error NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
skill NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11948051)

Regional NN O I-INT
ischemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
performance NN O O
in NN O O
off-pump NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
ischemic NN O O
preconditioning NN O O
( NN O O
IP NN O O
) NN O O
enhances NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
performance NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
off-pump NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
descending NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
two-vessel NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
LAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
off-pump NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
IP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
IP NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
occluding NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
LAD NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
2-min NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
3-min NN O I-INT
LAD NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
vessel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Registration NN O O
included NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
troponin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTnI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
isoenzyme NN O I-OUT
MB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CK-MB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IP NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
SVI NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IP NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CTnI NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
IP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IP NN O O
patients NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
CK-MB NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ICU NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
IP NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
regional NN O O
2-min NN O O
IP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LAD NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
, NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
applicable NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
off-pump NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
revascularization NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
release NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
prohibited NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
SVI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (11957440)

[ NN O O
One-year NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
on NN O O
life NN O O
style NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
counselling NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
willingness NN O O
and NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
life-style NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
CHD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
computer NN O I-PAR
company NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
over NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
subgroups NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
health NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
counselled NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-nine NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
dropouts NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
advised NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
up NN O O
aerobics NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times/week NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
saturated NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
smokers NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O O
were NN O O
recommended NN O O
one NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
and NN O O
eight NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
need NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O O
were NN O O
willing NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
behavioural NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fitness NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
increased 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
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Individual NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
promotes NN O O
regular NN O O
exercise NN O O
with NN O O
subsequent NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
CHD NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
were NN O O
less NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11961446)

Short-term NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
hematogenous NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
hematogenous NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
joint NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
infection NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
after NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
detailed NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
eradicate NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
blood-borne NN O I-PAR
musculoskeletal NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
choosing NN O O
the NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11978262)

Oat NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
systolic NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
soluble NN O I-INT
fiber-rich NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
oat NN O I-INT
cereals NN O I-INT
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
American NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
an NN O O
oat NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5.52 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
beta-glucan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low-fiber NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
POPULATION NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
U/mL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OUTCOMES NN O O
MEASURED NN O O
Primary NN O O
study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
oat NN O O
cereal NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
7.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
& NN O O
lt.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
5.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
& NN O O
lt.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
virtually NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
SBP NN O O
or NN O O
DBP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
oat NN O O
cereal NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
glucose NN O O
load NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
improved NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
estimates NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Bergman NN O O
Minimal NN O O
Model NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oats NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
oat NN O I-INT
cereals NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
diet NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
both NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Soluble NN O I-INT
fiber-rich NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
oats NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
dietary NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
adjunct NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11978277)

Prolonged NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
add-back NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
endometriosis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-INT
add-back NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
52-week NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
monthly NN O I-PAR
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
A-daily NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
B-daily NN O O
norethindrone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
C-daily NN O I-INT
norethindrone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
0.625 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
D-daily NN O O
norethindrone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Of NN O O
201 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
280 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Physical NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pelvic NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
below NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
endometriosis NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
on NN O O
screening NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
add-back NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
mean NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
during NN O O
therapy NN O O
reversed NN O O
slowly NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
and NN O O
norethindrone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
to NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
provides NN O O
extended NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
preservation NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (11981066)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
cerivastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
podocytes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
glomerulonephritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
urinary NN O O
podocytes NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
glomerular NN O O
injury 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
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
cerivastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
, NN O O
potent NN O O
synthetic NN O O
statin NN O O
, NN O O
affects NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
podocyte NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
glomerulonephritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CGN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CGN NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
cerivastatin NN O I-INT
0.15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40.8+/-14.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
non-IgA NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
glomerulonephritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
podocytes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 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

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides 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
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cerivastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
1.8+/-0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
0.8+/-0.4 NN O O
g/day NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
podocyte NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
1.6+/-0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
0.9+/-0.4 NN O O
cells/ml NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
podocyte NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
cerivastatin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
podocytes 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
Statins NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cerivastatin NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
injured NN O O
podocytes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CGN NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11981150)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
( NN O O
PONV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
among NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
coinduction NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
premedicated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
midazolam NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
coinduction NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
standardized NN O O
( NN O I-INT
laryngeal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
requirements NN O O
for NN O O
propofol NN O O
, NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
ketobemidone NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PONV-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
respect NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
propofol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ketobemidone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
PONV-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
was NN O O
3.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
16.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
negative NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Coinduction NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
PONV-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (11994052)

Metformin NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
ovulation NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
has NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
day-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
metformin/placebo NN O I-INT
together NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
clomiphene NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50-100 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
in NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
restoration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
menses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
clomiphene NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
biochemical NN O O
parameters NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
androgens NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Spontaneous NN O I-OUT
menstruation NN O I-OUT
resumed NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.63 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
women NN O O
given NN O O
metformin NN O O
spontaneously NN O I-OUT
ovulated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
did NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.30 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clomiphene NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.63 NN O O
. NN O O

Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
given NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
P=0.59 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Metformin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
always NN O O
beneficial NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12005275)

Rizatriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
migraineurs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS 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

Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
149 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
147 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
headache NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
recurrences NN O O
. NN O O

Headache NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
4-hour NN O I-OUT
postdose NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
postdose NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Rizatriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
with NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
were NN O O
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
asthenia/fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
versus NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P=.474 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
predose NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
none NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=.079 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Placebo NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
typically NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rizatriptan NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
rizatriptan NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
their NN O O
migraine NN O O
attacks NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
weekends NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.046 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
weekdays NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.365 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
weekend NN O O
placebo NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Rizatriptan NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
some NN O O
measures NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12006271)

N-butyl NN O O
cyanoacrylate NN O O
embolization NN O O
of NN O O
cerebral NN O O
arteriovenous NN O O
malformations NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Liquid NN O O
N-butyl NN O O
cyanoacrylate NN O O
( NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
) NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
arteriovenous NN O O
malformations NN O O
( NN O O
AVM NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
's NN O O
approval NN O O
of NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
for NN O O
intravascular NN O O
use 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
verify NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
n-BCA/Tantalum NN O O
Powder/Ethiodized NN O O
Oil NN O O
mixture NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
Trufill NN O O
polyvinyl NN O O
alcohol NN O O
[ NN O O
PVA NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
preoperative NN O O
embolization NN O O
of NN O O
cerebral NN O O
AVM NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
embolization NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
n-BCA/Tantalum NN O I-INT
Powder/Ethiodol NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Trufill NN O I-INT
PVA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pre-embolization NN O O
therapy NN O O
goals NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
pedicles NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
embolized NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
nidus NN O O
reduction NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

Embolization NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
evaluation NN O O
data NN O O
included NN O O
recording NN O O
device NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intracranial NN O I-OUT
events/overall NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
either NN O O
device-related NN O O
, NN O O
procedure-related NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
AVM NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
79.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
86.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PVA NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
embolized NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PVA NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Coils NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
with NN O O
PVA NN O O
embolization NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
embolization NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
resection NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
experienced NN O O
post-resection NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
resection NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PVA 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
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
n-BCA NN O O
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
PVA NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
preoperative NN O O
embolic NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cerebral NN O I-PAR
AVM NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
nidus NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
feeding NN O O
pedicles NN O O
embolized NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12017793)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-INT
intermediate NN O I-INT
layer NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
on NN O O
microleakage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
marginal NN O O
sealing NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
intermediate NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
before NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
condensable NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
preparations NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
made NN O O
with NN O O
gingival NN O O
margins NN O O
placed NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
apical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cementoenamel NN O O
junction NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
restoration NN O O
, NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
thermocycled NN O O
, NN O O
soaked NN O O
in NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
basic NN O O
fuchsin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
sectioned NN O O
longitudinally NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
resin-modified NN O I-INT
glass NN O I-INT
ionomer NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
microleakage NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dentin NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
flowable NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
, NN O O
flowable NN O O
compomer NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
autoploymerizing NN O O
composite NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
Dunn NN O O
's NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glass NN O I-INT
ionomer NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
sandwich NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
deep NN O I-PAR
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
direct NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12020338)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
summarize NN O O
and NN O O
integrate NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Complications NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DCCT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
succeeding NN O O
observational NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DCCT NN O O
cohort NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Epidemiology NN O O
of NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Interventions NN O O
and NN O O
Complications NN O O
( NN O O
EDIC NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
DCCT NN O O
proved NN O O
that NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
preceding NN O O
each NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
begun NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
detectable NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
risk NN O O
reductions NN O O
, NN O O
achieved NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
difference NN O O
of NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
vs NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
maintained NN O O
through NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
EDIC NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
former NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
narrow NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
became NN O O
statistically NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
further NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
their NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DCCT NN O O
remains NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
6.5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
extend NN O O
well NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
most NN O O
intensive NN O O
implementation NN O O
. NN O O

Intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
started NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
is NN O O
safely NN O O
possible NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
aiming NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
practicable NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12021824)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
awareness NN O O
on NN O O
stimulant NN O O
drug NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RATIONALE NN O O
Critics NN O O
have NN O O
called NN O O
into NN O O
question NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
because NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
given NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
instructions NN O O
informing NN O O
them NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assertion NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
instructions NN O O
bias NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
has NN O O
undergone NN O O
surprisingly NN O O
little NN O O
empirical NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES 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
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
instructions NN O O
informing NN O O
subjects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
saliva NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
stimulant NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
caffeine NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
instructions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
placebo-informed NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-INT
informed NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
analogous NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
placebo-uninformed NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-INT
informed NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
stimulant NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
most NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
steadiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
instructions NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
caffeine NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Instructions NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
saliva NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
uninformed NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vigor NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
with NN O O
125 NN O O
mg NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
hand NN O I-OUT
steadiness NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vigor NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
with NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
overall NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
bias NN O O
is NN O O
introduced NN O O
by NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
any NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
condition NN O O
dramatically NN O O
influences NN O O
conclusions NN O O
drawn NN O O
about NN O O
drug NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12021946)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
low-affinity NN O O
, NN O O
use-dependent NN O O
NMDA NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
low-affinity NN O O
, NN O O
use-dependent NN O O
N-Methyl-D-Aspartate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NMDA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
has NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
properties NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O I-PAR
models NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
enable NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
over NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
infusion NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
over NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
further NN O O
maintenance NN O O
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
also NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Barthel NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
NIH NN O I-OUT
Stroke NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NIHSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4-7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
103 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
70 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AR-R15896AR 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
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
agitation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hallucinations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
favourable NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BI NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
NIHSS NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AR-R15896AR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
stroke NN O O
receiving NN O O
AR-R15896AR NN O I-INT
the NN O O
intended NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reached NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
produced NN O O
more NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
indicating NN O O
safety NN O O
concerns NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
issues NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
stroke NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12031927)

Thiabendazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
strongyloidiasis NN O O
in NN O O
immunosuppressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematological NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12033348)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
generator NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atrial NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Atrial NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
implantable NN O O
cardioverter NN O O
defibrillator NN O O
leads NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
atrial NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
devices NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
ventricular NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
shocking NN O O
pathway NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduces NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
( NN O O
DFTs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atrial NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
paired NN O O
comparison NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
configurations NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
DFTs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
lead NN O O
system NN O O
evaluated NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
dual-coil NN O I-INT
transvenous NN O I-INT
defibrillation NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
generator NN O I-INT
emulator NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Shocks NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
either NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
proximal NN O I-INT
atrial NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
atrial NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
active NN O O
can NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Delivered NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
DFT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.1 NN O O
J NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lead NN O O
configuration NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
J NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
configuration NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
current NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
can 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
whereas NN O O
shock NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lead NN O O
configuration NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
configuration 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
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O O
DFT NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
atrial NN O O
DFTs NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
transvenous NN O O
ventricular NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
lead NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
for NN O O
atrial NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
, NN O O
programmable NN O O
shock NN O O
vectors NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
dual-chamber NN O O
implantable NN O O
cardioverter NN O O
defibrillators NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12036809)

Do NN O O
colonic NN O O
short-chain NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
consuming NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high-fiber NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
recently NN O O
obtained NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
intakes NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
intakes NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
short-chain NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCFAs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
62 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
approximately NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
low-fiber NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LF NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high-fiber NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
monounsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MUFA NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LF NN O O
and NN O O
HF NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MUFA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
fiber NN O O
was NN O O
consumed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
HF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
LF NN O O
or NN O O
MUFA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
23 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
SCFAs NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
69 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
100 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
to NN O O
107 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MUFA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
butyrate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LF NN O O
or NN O O
MUFA NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
2.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
mo NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
were NN O O
positively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
fasting NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.016 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerols NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
SCFAs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
many NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12037693)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockade NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
endogenous NN O I-PAR
fibrinolysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dietary NN O I-INT
Approaches NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Stop NN O I-INT
Hypertension NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
lower NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Some NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ARBs NN O O
could NN O O
increase NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
is NN O O
conflicting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O O
diet NN O O
on NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
white 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
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
diets NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
sodium NN O O
content NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
3 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
each NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
DASH NN O O
diet NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
. NN O O

Losartan NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
t-PA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
t-PA NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
whites NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
-4.1 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
African-Americans NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P-interaction NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
materially NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
basline NN O O
values NN O O
or NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
losartan NN O O
reduces NN O O
t-PA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DASH NN O O
diet NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
whites NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
African-Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12042231)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Little NN O O
evidence NN O O
exists NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
whether NN O O
community NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
nurses NN O O
can NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
expert NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapists NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
representative NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
involving NN O O
422 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
brief NN O I-PAR
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
against NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=257 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.015 NN O O
; NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treat NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
NNT NN O O
] NN O O
=13 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
insight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
NNT=10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
; NN O O
NNT=9 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=165 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Insight NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
clinically NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio=1.15 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.01-1.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
suicidal NN O I-OUT
ideation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Community NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
nurses NN O O
can NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
deliver NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
carers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12044624)

A NN O O
single NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allodynia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hyperalgesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperpathia NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
regular NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
opioids NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ketamine NN O O
group NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
medication NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
immediately NN O O
pre-infusion NN O O
to NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post-infusion NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
post NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
rose NN O O
from NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
pre-infusion NN O O
to NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
relief NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
t-test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
Rank NN O I-OUT
Sum NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ketamine NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
their NN O O
general NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
combining NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
ketamine NN O O
with NN O O
regular NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
can NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12045163)

Prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
sudden NN O O
cardiac NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Sudden NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
even NN O O
among NN O O
apparently NN O O
healthy NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
SCD NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
is NN O O
poor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
specific NN O O
markers NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
and NN O O
contrast NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
long-term NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
SCD NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
nested NN O O
, NN O O
case-control NN O O
analysis NN O O
involving NN O O
97 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
apparently NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Physician NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
plasma NN O O
markers NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
baseline NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
SCD NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
ensuing NN O O
17 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
trend=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
primarily NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
quartile NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
2.78-fold NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
SCD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.35 NN O O
to NN O O
5.72 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quartile NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
analyses NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
matching NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
status NN O O
) NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
highest NN O O
versus NN O O
lowest NN O O
quartile NN O O
2.65 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.79 NN O O
to NN O O
8.83 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
trend=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
neither NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
nor NN O O
lipid NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
SCD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
prospective NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
CRP NN O O
levels NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
identifying NN O O
apparently NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SCD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12049860)

Postoperative NN O I-INT
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
hip-replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Elective NN O O
hip-replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
carries NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
pentasaccharide NN O I-INT
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
drug NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
antithrombotic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
this NN O O
risk NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
available NN O O
treatments 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
we NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
2275 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
hip-replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-PAR
injections NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
safety NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
in NN O O
1584 NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
2275 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
, NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolisms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
787 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
66 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
797 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
relative NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
26.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-10.8 NN O O
to NN O O
52.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.099 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
elective NN O O
hip-replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
recorded NN O O
with NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
than NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12050494)

Clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSES NN O O
Fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
enables NN O O
more NN O O
thorough NN O O
transurethral NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
white NN O O
light NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
institution NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
fluorescence NN O I-INT
diagnosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
301 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
diagnosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
patient NN O O
followup NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
urine NN O I-INT
cytology NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
via NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
multivariable NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis 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
191 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O O
light NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
followup NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O O
light NN O O
arm NN O O
in NN O O
103 NN O O
cases NN O O
was NN O O
21.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
20.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
88 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
89.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
73.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
65.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O O
light NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
superiority NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fluorescence NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
transurethral NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.33 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.16 NN O O
to NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
white NN O O
light NN O O
transurethral NN O O
resection NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
imply NN O O
that NN O O
fluorescence NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12057986)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
platelet NN O O
glycoprotein NN O O
IIb/IIIa NN O O
receptor NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
among NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
: NN O O
Do NN O O
Tirofiban NN O O
and NN O O
ReoPro NN O O
Give NN O O
Similar NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
TARGET NN O O
) NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
platelet NN O O
glycoprotein NN O O
IIb/IIIa NN O O
receptor NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
abciximab NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
small-molecule NN O O
agents NN O O
confer NN O O
similar NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4809 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
abciximab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
enrollment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
diabetes NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
n=1117 NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
30-day NN O O
ischemic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.056 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
tirofiban NN O O
( NN O O
n=560 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence 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
MI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urgent NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
6.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
abciximab NN O O
( NN O O
n=557 NN O O
) NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
1.16 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.540 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
tirofiban NN O O
and NN O O
abciximab NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.93 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.610 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
TVR NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.84 NN O O
; NN O O
P= NN O O
0.366 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tirofiban NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
abciximab NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.74 NN O O
; NN O O
P= NN O O
0.436 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Among NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
tirofiban NN O O
and NN O O
abciximab NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
similar NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
6-month NN O O
TVR NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
non-glycoprotein NN O O
IIb/IIIa NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
abciximab NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
translate NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
discernible NN O O
long-term NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
among NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12058842)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The 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
imitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
contingently NN O I-INT
responsive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
interaction NN O O
group NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
stratification NN O O
table NN O O
for NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
and NN O O
chronological NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sessions NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
lasting NN O O
3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
walked NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
room NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
furnished NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sofa NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
table NN O O
, NN O O
chairs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
identical NN O O
toys NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
adult NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
room NN O O
sitting NN O O
very NN O O
still NN O O
like NN O O
a NN O O
statue NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
still-face NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
either NN O O
imitated NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
or NN O O
was NN O O
contingently NN O I-INT
responsive NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
sat NN O O
still NN O O
again NN O O
( NN O O
second NN O O
still-face NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
still-face NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
spent NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gross NN O O
motor NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
touching NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adult NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
if NN O O
attempting NN O O
to NN O O
initiate NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
contingency NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
way NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
a NN O O
distal NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
imitative NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
way NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
a NN O O
proximal NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
touching NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12059064)

Can NN O O
sedation NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stress NN O O
during NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
automated NN O O
cardiac NN O O
flow NN O O
measurement NN O O
by NN O O
color NN O O
Doppler NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UGIE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
cause NN O O
some NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
on NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
during NN O O
UGIE NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
fully NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore 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
clarify NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
sedation NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stress NN O O
dufing NN O O
UGIE NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
UGIE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
endoscopies NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
volunteer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
monitored NN O I-INT
throughout NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
SpO2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
automated NN O I-INT
cardiac NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
color NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dopamine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sedated NN O O
and NN O O
non-sedated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

SpO2 NN O I-OUT
hardly NN O O
changed NN O O
during NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-sedated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
slightly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sedated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.075 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
all NN O O
serum NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
concentration NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
normal NN O O
limits NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
only NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sedated NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-sedated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Conscious NN O O
sedation NN O O
with NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stress NN O O
during NN O O
UGIE NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12065558)

Superior NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anthracycline-pretreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Docetaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
tumor-activated NN O O
oral NN O O
fluoropyrimidine NN O O
, NN O O
show NN O O
high NN O O
single-agent NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
MBC NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
synergy NN O O
in NN O O
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
international NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
capecitabine/docetaxel NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
single-agent NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anthracycline-pretreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
21-day NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
1,250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
plus NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
255 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
256 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Capecitabine/docetaxel NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.652 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.545 NN O O
to NN O O
0.780 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
6.1 NN O O
v NN O O
4.2 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.775 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.634 NN O O
to NN O O
0.947 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.0126 NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
14.5 NN O O
v NN O O
11.5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.006 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hand-foot NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
myalgia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arthralgia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
neutropenic NN O I-OUT
fever/sepsis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
single-agent NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
More NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
TTP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
manageable NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
clear NN O O
benefits NN O O
over NN O O
single-agent NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Docetaxel/capecitabine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anthracycline-pretreated NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12067044)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
emotional NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
low-fat NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Women NN O O
's NN O O
Health NN O O
Initiative NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
on NN O O
adherance NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
low-fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
attending NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
self-monitoring NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
Baron NN O O
and NN O O
Kenny NN O O
mediator NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
predicted NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
, NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
predicted NN O O
dietary NN O O
adherence NN O O
, NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
factors NN O O
predicted NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
ultimately NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
on NN O O
dietary NN O O
adherence NN O O
were NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS/SETTING NN O O
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
13,277 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
low-fat NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Initiative NN O I-PAR
Dietary NN O I-PAR
Modification NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
nutrition NN O O
goals NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
low-fat NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
were NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
consume NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
fruit/vegetable NN O I-INT
servings NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
grain NN O I-INT
servings NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Year NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attending NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
submitting NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
low-fat NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
eight NN O O
SF-36 NN O O
Health NN O O
Survey NN O O
subscales NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
mediated NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
poorer NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
findings NN O O
included NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
session NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
percent NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Program NN O O
participation NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
session NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

APPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Understanding NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
instruments NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
population NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
dietetic NN O O
professionals NN O O
promote NN O O
healthful NN O O
dietary NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12073766)

Heparan NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O O
arterial NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
PAD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
by NN O O
far NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
disease NN O O
can NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
individual NN O O
's NN O O
walking NN O O
capacity NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
seriously NN O O
affect NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
doubleblind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IIa NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIb NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fontaine NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
PAD NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
heparan NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
initial NN O O
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
standardized NN O O
treadmill NN O O
test NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
initial NN O O
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
integrated NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
heparan NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
306 NN O O
+/- NN O O
494 NN O O
vs. NN O O
250 NN O O
+/- NN O O
510 NN O O
meters NN O O
x NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
worsened NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
decreased NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
19.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
severely NN O O
affected NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
stage NN O O
IIb NN O O
of NN O O
Fontaine NN O O
's NN O O
classification NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
clearly NN O O
detected NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
treated NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
absolute NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
ICD NN O O
: NN O O
70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
113 NN O O
vs. NN O O
58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
172 NN O O
meters NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
; NN O O
integrated NN O O
increase NN O O
: NN O O
304 NN O O
+/- NN O O
422 NN O O
vs. NN O O
208 NN O O
+/- NN O O
503 NN O O
meters NN O O
x NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heparan NN O O
sulfate NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12080735)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
valociclovir NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
herpes NN O I-OUT
zoster NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12084138)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
needle NN O I-PAR
exchangers NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
BRAINE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
needle NN O I-PAR
exchange NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Needle NN O O
exchange NN O O
program-Providence NN O O
, NN O O
Rhode NN O I-PAR
Island NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
2/98 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10/99 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
187 NN O I-PAR
AUDIT-positive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O I-INT
1-hour NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
apart NN O O
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
HIV NN O O
risk-taking NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MI NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
identical NN O O
research NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
study NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
time-line NN O O
follow-back NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Study NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
96.8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
reported NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
12.0 NN O O
drinking NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
drinking NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
x NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tests NN O O
for NN O O
simple NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
above NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
below NN O O
median NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Comparisons NN O O
on NN O O
dichotomous NN O O
outcomes NN O O
provided NN O O
supporting NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
those NN O O
in NN O O
MI NN O O
were NN O O
over NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
direct NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
active NN O O
injection NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heavier NN O O
drinkers NN O O
seem NN O O
best NN O O
suited NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
which NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
are NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
deserve NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12088604)

Improving NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
involvement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
views NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
GPs NN O O
and NN O O
specialists NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
guidebook NN O O
for NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
shared NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
decision-making NN O O
are NN O O
recognised NN O O
as NN O O
beneficial NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
, NN O O
opinions NN O O
of NN O O
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
doctors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
sought NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
guidebook NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mediate NN O I-INT
doctor/patient NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
during NN O O
consultations NN O O
. NN O O

Semi-structured NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
specialists NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
GPs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
views NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
written NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
postal NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
136 NN O I-PAR
replies NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
lay NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
clarification NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
decision NN O O
processes NN O O
increased NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
through NN O O
increased NN O O
identification NN O O
and NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
self-management NN O O
experiences NN O O
. NN O O

Doctors NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
compliance NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
guidebook NN O O
was NN O O
seldom NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
intended NN O O
during NN O O
consultations NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
felt NN O O
constrained NN O O
by NN O O
time NN O O
limits NN O O
and NN O O
consultants NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
actively NN O O
encourage NN O O
guidebook NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
suggest NN O O
an NN O O
approach NN O O
utilising NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
guidebook NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12090782)

Onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
following NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O O
and NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
pMDI NN O O
in NN O O
reversible NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Short-acting NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-agonists NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
symptom NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
asthma NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
has NN O O
as NN O O
fast NN O O
an NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
as NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
longer-lasting NN O O
bronchodilation NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
are NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
duration NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
pronounced NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
short-acting NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-agonists NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reversible NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intrinsic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
formoterol NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
following NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.704 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.270 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.340 NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.559 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.526 NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.818 NN O O
) NN O O
post NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Formoterol NN O I-INT
Turbuhaler NN O O
has NN O O
as NN O O
rapid NN O O
an NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
as NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
pMDI NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12093332)

Bovine NN O I-INT
pericardium NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
dacron NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patch NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
endarterectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Bovine NN O I-INT
pericardium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
demonstrates NN O O
improved NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
and NN O O
equivalent NN O O
perioperative NN O O
morbidity NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Dacron NN O I-INT
when NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
patch NN O O
material NN O O
for NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
following NN O O
carotid NN O I-INT
endarterectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compare NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Dacron NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
after NN O O
carotid NN O O
endarterectomy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ninety-five NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
endarterectomies NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
fashion NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
44 NN O O
using NN O O
Dacron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intraoperative NN O O
suture NN O O
line NN O O
bleeding NN O O
was NN O O
subjectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
observing NN O O
bleeding NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
minutes NN O O
following NN O O
carotid NN O I-INT
cross-clamp NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
objectively NN O O
weighing NN O O
the NN O O
sponge NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
tamponade NN O O
bleeding NN O O
during NN O O
these NN O O
time NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Perioperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
chi NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
as NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Suture NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Dacron 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

Suture NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Dacron NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Net NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SEM NN O I-OUT
sponge NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
suture NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.55 NN O O
g NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
16.34 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.85 NN O O
g NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Dacron 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

Total NN O I-OUT
suture NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
activated NN O O
clotting NN O O
time NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
with NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
activated NN O O
clotting NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Bovine NN O I-INT
pericardium NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
suture NN O O
line NN O O
bleeding NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Dacron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Handling NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
surgeons NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
believe NN O O
BP NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
Dacron NN O I-INT
when NN O O
performing NN O O
patch NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
after NN O O
endarterectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12093460)

A NN O O
pilot 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
supplemental NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV/AIDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
collected NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
natural NN O O
killer NN O O
cell NN O O
cytotoxicity NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
academic NN O O
medical NN O O
center-based NN O O
infectious NN O O
disease NN O O
clinic NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
000 NN O I-PAR
copies/mL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
19.6 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
arginine/d NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
d. NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neuropsychologic NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
natural NN O O
killer NN O O
cell NN O O
cytotoxicity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
experienced NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
neuropsychologic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
necessitated NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
arginine-supplemented NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
cytotoxicity NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
of NN O O
18.9 NN O O
lytic NN O O
units NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
lytic NN O O
units NN O O
. 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
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Short-term NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV/AIDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additional NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
samples NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
periods NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
arginine NN O O
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
intercurrent NN O O
illnesses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12094254)

Overexpression NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
cellular NN O O
receptor NN O O
KDR NN O O
( NN O O
VEGFR-2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
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
Vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
cellular NN O O
receptor NN O O
VEGFR-2 NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
endothelial NN O O
pathway NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
tumor NN O O
neovascularization NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VEGF/VEGFR-2 NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
hematologic NN O O
malignancies NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
AML NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
VEGF NN O O
and NN O O
VEGFR-2 NN O O
expression NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( 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
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
VEGFR-1 NN O O
staining NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
range NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VEGFR-2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
microvessel NN O O
density NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
degree NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
=0.024 NN O O
; NN O O
VEGFR-2 NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
=0.040 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
microvessel NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
=0.566 NN O O
and NN O O
0.609 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
VEGFR-2 NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
VEGF/VEGFR-2 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leukemic NN O I-OUT
blasts NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
of NN O O
AML NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
VEGF/VEGFR-2 NN O O
might NN O O
constitute NN O O
promising NN O O
targets NN O O
for NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
antileukemic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12096292)

Pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES NN O O
Through NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
who NN O I-PAR
report NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
reported NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
comprehensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Interviews NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
18-week NN O O
, NN O O
10-contact NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
utilizing NN O I-INT
problem-solving NN O I-INT
approaches NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
improving NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
. NN O O

SAMPLE NN O O
The NN O O
sample NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
53 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
VARIABLES NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social-functioning NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Study NN O O
36 NN O O
Short NN O O
Form NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
reported NN O O
both NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Behavioral NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
targeted NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
value-added NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
FOR NN O O
NURSING NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
value-added NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptom NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12105288)

Combining NN O O
weight-loss NN O O
counseling NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O O
watchers NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
effective NN O O
weight-loss NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
because NN O O
obesity NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O O
approach NN O O
toward NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
individualized NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
either NN O O
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
commercial NN O I-INT
Weight NN O I-INT
Watchers NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
44 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
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
0.85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
-2.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Weight NN O I-INT
Watchers NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
-8.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
individualized NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-9.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.6 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Weight NN O I-INT
Watchers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
individualized NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
and NN O O
Weight NN O O
Watchers-only NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
attendance NN O O
at NN O O
Weight NN O O
Watchers NN O O
meetings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
attendance NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
counseling NN O O
approach NN O O
combined NN O O
both NN O O
Weight NN O O
Watchers NN O O
and NN O O
individualized NN O O
contacts NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individualized NN O O
contacts NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12110494)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
cytotoxicity-effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
acting NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
eventual NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin-5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
as NN O O
first-line NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
recruited NN O O
successive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
N3 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
T4 NN O I-PAR
N2C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
irradiated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
gave NN O O
their NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
joint NN O O
ear NN O O
, NN O O
nose NN O O
and NN O O
throat NN O O
( NN O O
ENT NN O O
) NN O O
oncological NN O O
committee NN O O
performed NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
preceding NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/24 NN O O
h NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
bolus NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
and NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/24 NN O O
h NN O O
5-FU NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
4-h NN O O
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
schedule NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
irradiation+/-surgery NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
if NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
feasible NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
: NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
84 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
RESPONSE NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
40 NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
11 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
progressive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
48/74 NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
54-75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
The NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
intent-to-treat NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
47-67 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
50 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
granulocytopenia NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
316 NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Arm NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
86 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
RESPONSE NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
7 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PR NN O I-OUT
29 NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O I-OUT
10 NN O O
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PD NN O I-OUT
34 NN O O
( NN O O
42.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
36/80 NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
35-56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
The NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
intent-to-treat NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
32-52 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
14 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
granulocytopenia NN O O
grade NN O O
IV NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
febrile NN O O
neutropenias NN O O
per NN O O
324 NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
power NN O O
( NN O O
one-sided NN O O
) NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
subset NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
making NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
feasible NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.00015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
2+3 NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
Log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.58 NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
0.28 NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B. NN O O
Grade NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
granulocytopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
haematological NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
might NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
ideal NN O O
drug NN O O
to NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
cytotoxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
modulators NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
activity NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12113323)

Multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Dramatic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
repeated NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
hormone NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
referred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
case NN O O
reports NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
curative NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
disabling NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
information NN O O
has NN O O
created NN O O
new NN O O
hope NN O O
among NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
mainly NN O O
one NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
documented NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
still NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
each NN O O
child NN O O
was NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
3.4 NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
units NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4th NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
occasions NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
measurement NN O O
instruments NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
aberrant NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
for NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
lacked NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
impression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
inspection NN O O
of NN O O
graphs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
secretin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
any NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12116339)

Monitoring NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
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 I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Flow NN O I-INT
cytometry NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
enumerate NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
from NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
magnetic NN O O
bead NN O O
selection NN O O
to NN O O
isolate NN O O
and NN O O
identify NN O O
these NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ICE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
filgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Fresh NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
throughout NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Aliquots NN O O
were NN O O
stained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
tumour-specific NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
epithelial NN O O
tissue NN O O
( NN O O
Ber NN O O
EP4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
verified NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
SCLC NN O O
cells NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
. NN O O

Matched NN O O
samples NN O O
labelled NN O O
with NN O O
Ber NN O O
EP4 NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
magnetically NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
bead-antibody NN O O
conjugate NN O O
for NN O O
confirmation NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
cell NN O O
identity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Circulating NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
and NN O O
monitored NN O O
throughout NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
set NN O O
by NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
accelerated NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
and NN O O
magnetic NN O O
bead NN O O
isolation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
SCLC NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Absence NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
favourable NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
would NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
intense NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12117831)

Relation NN O O
between NN O O
early NN O O
mitral NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
thrombus NN O O
formation NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GISSI-3 NN O O
echo NN O O
substudy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
mitral NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
thrombus NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
757 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
GISSI-3 NN O I-PAR
echo NN O I-PAR
substudy NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarct NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
echocardiography NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
24-48 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
symptom NN O I-INT
onset NN O I-INT
( NN O O
S1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
( NN O O
S2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
S3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
S4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
echo NN O O
dense NN O O
mass NN O O
with NN O O
defined NN O O
margins NN O O
visible NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cycle NN O O
in NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
two NN O O
orthogonal NN O O
views NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
64 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
693 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
older NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
age NN O O
: NN O O
64.6 NN O O
( NN O O
13.0 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
59.8 NN O O
( NN O O
11.7 NN O O
) NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
larger NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
asynergy NN O O
: NN O O
40.9 NN O O
( NN O O
11.5 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
24.9 NN O O
( NN O O
14 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
greater NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
S1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43.3 NN O O
( NN O O
6.9 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
48.1 NN O O
( NN O O
6.8 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
and NN O O
greater NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
S1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
end NN O O
diastolic NN O O
volume NN O O
: NN O O
87 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
78 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
end NN O O
systolic NN O O
volume NN O O
: NN O O
50 NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
colour NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
S1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
10.2 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
4.2 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

On NN O O
stepwise NN O O
multiple NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
asynergy NN O O
and NN O O
anterior NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
even NN O O
be NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
early NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
mitral NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
independent NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
akinetic-dyskinetic NN O O
area NN O O
detected NN O O
on NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
between NN O O
24-48 NN O O
hours NN O O
from NN O O
symptom NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12120773)

A NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
caries NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopy NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
topography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
carious NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
caries NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
technique NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Carious NN O O
tissue NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
by NN O O
hand NN O I-OUT
excavation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bur NN O I-OUT
excavation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
air-abrasion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
ablation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chemomechanical NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sono-abrasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
remaining NN O O
dentin NN O O
surfaces NN O O
were NN O O
replicated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gold-coated NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
surfaces NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
SEM NN O O
and NN O O
distinct NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
appearance NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
specimens NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
caries NN O O
removal NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
hand-excavated NN O O
, NN O O
bur-excavated NN O O
and NN O O
air-abraded NN O O
carious NN O O
dentin NN O O
surfaces NN O O
were NN O O
covered NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
layer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
sono-abrasion NN O O
with NN O O
patent NN O O
dentinal NN O O
tubules NN O O
completely NN O O
removed NN O O
the NN O O
smear NN O O
layer NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
few NN O O
patent NN O I-OUT
orifices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dentinal NN O I-OUT
tubules NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
dentin NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
laser NN O O
ablation NN O O
and NN O O
chemo-mechanical NN O O
caries NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12121427)

Walking NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effect NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
vs NN O O
two NN O O
daily NN O O
bouts NN O O
on NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
bouts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-four NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
walked NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
d/week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
65 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
expending NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
kcal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1255 NN O I-INT
kJ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
S1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
S2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
calculated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
percentage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
estimated NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
skinfold NN O I-INT
measurements NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
net NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
min/kg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
3.5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S1 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
min/kg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
3.5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-1.2 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-1.9 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S1 NN O O
and NN O O
-1.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-2.7 NN O O
, NN O O
-1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S1 NN O O
and NN O O
-1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-2.3 NN O O
, NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
S2 NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
aerobic NN O O
power NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
equally NN O O
when NN O O
walking NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
daily NN O O
bouts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12123333)

Intramuscular NN O O
depot NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
oral NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
especially NN O O
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
. NN O O

Estrogen NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

Progestins NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
in 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
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
improving NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
oral NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
depot NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
( NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O O
flashes NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal 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
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
recorded NN O O
daily NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
progestins NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
75 NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
MPA NN O O
or NN O O
megestrol NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Responders NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
without NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

MPA NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
responders NN O O
still NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

depot NN O O
MPA NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
offering NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
estrogen NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
or NN O O
prolonged NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12131309)

Is NN O O
periprostatic NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
transrectal NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
guided NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Periprostatic NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsy NN O O
requires NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
extra NN O O
needle NN O O
punctures NN O O
and NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
highly NN O O
colonized NN O O
rectum NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sterile NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
cultures NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
transrectal NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
periprostatic NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
signs NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
infection NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slight NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
37.8C NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
rehospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Bacteriuria NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
post-biopsy NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
periprostatic NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
urethral NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
presumably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
decreased NN O O
patient NN O O
discomfort NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
bacteriuria NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
infectious NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
seem NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
biopsy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
periprostatic NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12135593)

Limited NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
micronutrient NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysmectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Tissue NN O O
injury NN O O
following NN O O
ischemia-reperfusion NN O O
is NN O O
mediated NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
by NN O O
free NN O O
oxygen NN O O
radicals NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
perioperative NN O O
micronutrient NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
would NN O O
augment NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
defenses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
minimize NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minimize NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
abdominal NN O O
aortic NN O O
aneurysmectomy NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
university-affiliated NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamins NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
2-3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
POPULATION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
aneurysmectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=18 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PRINCIPAL NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Handgrip NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Handgrip NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
supplemented NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Self-rated NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Perioperative NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
micronutrients NN O I-INT
with NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
properties NN O O
has NN O O
limited NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
major NN O O
elective NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12148711)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacy NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
direct NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
had NN O O
better NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacy NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
performing NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
reviews NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
emphasis NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
preventing NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
resolving NN O I-INT
medication-related NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quarterly NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
post-study NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
quarters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
137.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
168.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
( NN O O
135.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
164.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
( NN O O
145.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
175.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
33.9 NN O O
) NN O O
quarters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
76.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
84.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
( NN O O
77.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
91.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.0 NN O O
) NN O O
quarters 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
Direct NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
services NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
routine NN O O
clinical NN O O
services NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
team NN O O
that NN O O
includes NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12160584)

Prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
castration NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
anandron NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
final NN O O
update NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Different NN O O
outcome NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
in NN O O
trials NN O O
comparing NN O O
maximal NN O O
androgen NN O O
blockade NN O O
( NN O O
MAB NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
chemical NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
castration NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
conflicting NN O O
results NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Anandron NN O O
European NN O O
Study NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
those NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
399 NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
457 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognostic NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
depending NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognostic NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hydronephrosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
alkaline NN O I-PAR
phosphatase NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
ULN NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Anandron NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
absolute NN O O
terms NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
good NN O O
prognostic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
castration NN O I-INT
MAB NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
Anandron NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
improves NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
poor NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12183788)

[ NN O I-PAR
Local NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
periarthropathies NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT3-receptor-antagonist NN O I-INT
tropisetron NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

All NN O O
substances NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
periarthropathies NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O O
possess NN O O
certain NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
. NN O O

Finding NN O O
alternatives NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
therefore NN O O
seems NN O O
desirable NN O O
. NN O O

Comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
proved NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
5-HT3 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
antagonist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tropisetron NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Navoban NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
periarthropathies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
localizations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
depot NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
tropisetron NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
mg NN O I-OUT
tropisetron NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
corticosteriods NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
corroborated NN O O
by NN O O
additional NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12185154)

Home NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Home NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
popular NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
hospital NN O O
care NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
uncertainty NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
hospital NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
201 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
2:1 NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
133 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
with NN O O
validated NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
survey NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
National NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Service NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
follow NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
cost NN O O
minimisation NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
based NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
favouring NN O O
home NN O O
based NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
dimensions-general NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bodily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
role-emotional NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
home NN O O
based NN O O
care NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
822 NN O O
euros/patient/year NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
hospital NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
admissions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Comprehensive NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
implemented NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
interdisciplinary NN O O
team NN O O
and NN O O
designed NN O O
specifically NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
approach NN O O
to NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12185505)

Combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
mediastinal NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O O
versus NN O O
escalated NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
mediastinal NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PMBCL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
started NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
versus NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mediastinum NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mantle NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
PMBCL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
candidates NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CEOP-Bleo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
750 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mega NN O I-INT
CEOP-Bleo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mediastinum NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mantle NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
35-45 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
58 NN O O
percent NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
percent NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
conventional NN O O
arm NN O O
vs NN O O
81 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
77-86 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
failure-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
51 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
44-59 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
65-76 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OS NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
54 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
48-57 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
70 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
65-76 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
therapy-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
7.3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
second NN O O
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
international NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
clinical NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
selected NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
pleural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pericardial NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
FFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
feel NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PMBCL NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
myeloablative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
pleural NN O O
or NN O O
pericardial NN O O
effusion NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
failure NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
programs NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
experimental NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12193353)

Local NN O O
warming NN O O
and NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
venous NN O O
cannulas NN O O
: NN O O
single NN O O
blinded NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
single NN O O
blinded NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
local NN O O
warming NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
hand NN O O
facilitates NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
cannulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Single NN O O
blinded NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
single NN O O
blinded NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
haematology NN O I-PAR
ward NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Neurosurgical NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
hands NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
forearms NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
covered NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
heating NN O I-INT
mitt NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O I-INT
warming NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
52 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
insulation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
heater NN O O
not NN O O
activated NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
warming NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
warming NN O O
or NN O O
passive NN O O
insulation NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
given NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
PRIMARY NN O O
: NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
gauge NN O I-OUT
cannula NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SECONDARY NN O O
: NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
cannulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
took NN O O
36 NN O O
seconds NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
31 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
seconds NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
insert NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
cannula NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
warming NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
to NN O O
74 NN O O
) NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
passive NN O O
insulation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
first NN O O
attempts NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
warming NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
passive NN O O
insulation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
insertion NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
seconds NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
32 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O O
warming NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
attempt NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
warming NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
passive NN O O
insulation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Local NN O O
warming NN O O
facilitates NN O O
the NN O O
insertion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
cannulas NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
both NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
staff NN O O
spend NN O O
inserting NN O I-OUT
cannulas NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduce NN O O
supply NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12197822)

Should NN O O
we NN O O
debrief NN O O
and NN O O
counsel NN O O
people NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
psychological NN O O
shock NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (12198659)

Endoscopic NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
varices NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extrahepatic NN O I-PAR
portal NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Endoscopic NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
varices NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Endoscopic NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
varices NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
ligation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extrahepatic NN O I-PAR
portal NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
band NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
ligation NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
arresting NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
achieving NN O I-OUT
variceal NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.61 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Band NN O O
ligation NN O O
eradicated NN O O
varices NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 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

The NN O O
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.049 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
eradication NN O O
, NN O O
esophageal NN O I-OUT
variceal NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
ligation NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
17.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
variceal NN O I-INT
band NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
technique NN O O
that NN O O
achieves NN O O
variceal NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
quickly NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12202662)

Randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
tegafur/uracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
dihydropyrimidine NN O I-INT
dehydrogenase NN O I-INT
inhibitory NN O I-INT
fluoropyrimidine NN O I-INT
composed NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
tegafur NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
uracil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
1:4 NN O O
molar NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
UFT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5-FU NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
LV NN O I-INT
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
380 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
UFT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LV NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
35 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
425 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LV NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
IV NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
35 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
TTP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
320 NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
TTP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.4 NN O O
months 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
2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
UFT/LV NN O O
and NN O O
3.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.7 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
5-FU/LV NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.591 NN O O
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Substantial NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
UFT/LV NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
stomatitis/mucositis 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
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia 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
less NN O O
documented NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Concomitant NN O O
medication NN O O
usage NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
on NN O O
5-FU/LV NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
after NN O O
correcting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
imbalances 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
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
oral NN O O
UFT/LV NN O O
regimen NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
improved NN O O
TTP NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
significant NN O O
safety NN O O
improvements NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
bolus NN O O
IV NN O O
5-FU/LV NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O O
CRC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12204666)

Quality NN O O
assurance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
22921 NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
resectable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
case NN O O
review NN O O
procedure 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
assess NN O O
any NN O O
inconsistency NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
among NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
framework NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
phase-III NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Organization NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EORTC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
invited NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
individual NN O O
case NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

Participating NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
send NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
charts NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
reports NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
charts NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
planning NN O I-PAR
calculations NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
computed NN O I-PAR
tomography NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
portal NN O I-PAR
images NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
charts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
Data NN O O
Center NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
12 NN O O
departments NN O O
participated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
three-field NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
lateral NN O O
opposed NN O O
wedge NN O O
fields NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
posterior NN O O
field NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
a NN O O
four-field NN O O
pelvic NN O O
box NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
used NN O O
linear NN O O
accelerators NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
MeV NN O O
photon-beam NN O O
energy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
, NN O O
documentation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
fair NN O O
to NN O O
good NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
systematic NN O O
major NN O O
protocol NN O O
deviations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
44.7+/-a NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
( NN O O
S.D NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
of NN O O
4.6 NN O O
Gy NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
variation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fraction NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
institutions NN O O
complied NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
specifying NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
dose NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
ICRU NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
drawn NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
scan NN O O
was NN O O
narrow NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
eventually NN O O
the NN O O
actually NN O O
treated NN O O
volumes NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
planned NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correct NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
institutions NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
CTV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
correctly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fields NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
narrow NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
cranio-caudal NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Variations NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
encountered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
case NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
providing NN O O
recommendations NN O O
early NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
expect NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
inter-institutional NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
quality NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participating NN O O
institutions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12233894)

14 NN O O
day NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Bisphosphonates NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
mucosal NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
ulcers NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pyridinyl NN O I-INT
bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
alendronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
318 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
317 NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
evaluator-blind NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophageal NN O O
, NN O O
gastric NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
duodenal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and 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

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
mm NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
( NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
297 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alendronate NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.133 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
Days NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
Days NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
negative NN O O
than NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
positive NN O O
subjects NN O O
at NN O O
Days NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
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

Upper NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Symptoms NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
mucosal NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Risedronate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
ulcers NN O O
than NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
bisphosphonate NN O O
related NN O O
gastric NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
14 NN O O
day NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
volunteers NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
bisphosphonates NN O O
may NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
upper NN O O
GI NN O O
mucosal NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12233987)

Multimodal NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
destructive NN O O
behavior NN O O
: NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
impressions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
atypical NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
popular NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
destructive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
that NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
destructive NN O O
behavior NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
combined NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
with NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
destructive NN O O
behavior NN O O
across NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
destructive NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
weekly NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hourly NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
monthly NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
impressions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O O
does NN O O
decrease NN O O
destructive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
measures NN O O
yielded NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12233993)

Examining NN O O
possible NN O O
gender NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
cocaine-dependent NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Potential NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sociodemographics NN O O
, NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
among NN O O
137 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
cocaine-dependent NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
More NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
unemployed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
assistance NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
reported NN O O
fewer NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O O
cocaine NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
spending NN O O
less NN O O
money NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
on NN O O
cocaine NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
abuse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
at NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
women NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
sedatives NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tested NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
sedatives NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
women NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
met NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
cannabis NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
experienced NN O O
comparable NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12236273)

Boosting NN O O
uptake NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
influenza NN O O
immunisation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
appointing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Immunisation NN O O
against NN O O
influenza NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
serologically NN O O
confirmed NN O O
cases NN O O
by NN O O
between NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Almost NN O O
all NN O O
influenza NN O O
immunisation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
done NN O O
within NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Current NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
reminders NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
immunisation NN O O
programmes NN O O
is NN O O
largely NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
North NN O O
American NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
appointments NN O I-INT
offered NN O O
bygeneral NN O O
practice NN O O
receptionists NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
uptake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irfluenza NN O I-OUT
immunisation NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
registered NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
east NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
OF NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Three NN O O
research NN O O
general NN O O
practices NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
East NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Essex NN O I-PAR
network NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
researchers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ELENoR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
1,820 NN O I-PAR
low-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recall NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
immunisation NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
October NN O O
2000 NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
receptionist NN O I-INT
to NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
households NN O O
, NN O O
offering NN O O
an NN O O
appointment NN O O
for NN O O
influenza NN O O
immunisation NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
nurse-run NN O O
. NN O O

clinic NN O O
Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
immunisation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
telephone-appointing NN O I-OUT
programme NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
immunisation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
1.29 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
= NN O O
1.03 NN O O
to NN O O
1.63 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
making NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
recieved NN O O
immunisation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
not NN O O
wanting NN O O
an NN O O
appointment NN O O
went NN O O
on NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
immunised NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
controlgroup NN O I-INT
, NN O O
income NN O I-OUT
generated NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.35 NN O O
pounds NN O O
per NN O O
immunisation NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
additional NN O O
immunisation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
income NN O O
was NN O O
5.20 NN O O
pounds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
'number NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
telephone NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
17 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Uptake NN O O
of NN O O
influenza NN O O
immunisation NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
inner-city NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
boosted NN O O
by NN O O
around NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
by NN O O
receptionists NN O O
. NN O O

Immunisation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
low-risk NN O O
group NN O O
fell NN O O
well NN O O
short NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
government NN O O
target NN O O
. NN O O

Improving NN O O
immunisation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
require NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
campaign NN O O
. NN O O

Retaining NN O O
the NN O O
item-of-service NN O O
payments NN O O
to NN O O
practices NN O O
should NN O O
support NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
practice-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12237625)

Hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
transcervical NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
destruction NN O I-INT
for NN O O
menorrhagia NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
rate 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
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transcervical NN O I-INT
hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
destruction NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
endometrium NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
menorrhagia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Gynecology NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Naples NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
menorrhagia NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
unresponsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
transcervical NN O I-INT
hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
thermal NN O I-INT
destruction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
endometrium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reintervention NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
destruction NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thermal NN O O
destruction NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
minutes NN O O
vs NN O O
37 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thermal NN O O
destruction NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
7.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mL NN O O
vs NN O O
89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reintervention NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transcervical NN O I-INT
hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
endometrial NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Discharge NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Thermal NN O I-INT
destruction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
endometrium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
menorrhagia NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12238830)

Combination NN O O
of NN O O
sotalol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
complication NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sotalol NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
partially NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
used NN O O
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sotalol NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
starting NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
g NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
starting NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O I-INT
pharmacologic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
dosages NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
S+M NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
CTR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
0.40 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6/51 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
8/54 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1/52 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S+M NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
19/50 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CTR NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
CTR NN O O
versus NN O O
groups NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
S+M NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
S+M NN O O
versus NN O O
groups NN O O
S NN O O
and NN O O
M NN O O
with NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
coronary NN O O
operation NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
sotalol NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
and NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
; NN O O
more NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
combining NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12239448)

Stepwise NN O I-INT
hook NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
for NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
ablation NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
stepwise NN O I-INT
hook NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
measuring NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RFA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
using NN O O
our NN O O
new NN O O
stepwise NN O I-INT
hook NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-hook NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LeVeen NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
was NN O O
deployed NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
steps NN O O
to NN O O
full NN O O
extension NN O O
during NN O O
ablation NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
full NN O O
extension NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Roll-off NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
sufficient NN O O
tumor NN O O
coagulation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
6-15 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
for NN O O
RF NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
271 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1,045 NN O O
W.m NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RFA-induced NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
were 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
group NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
27 NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
23-37 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
23 NN O O
, NN O O
0-42 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
RFA NN O O
using NN O O
stepwise NN O O
hook NN O O
extension NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
extension NN O O
method NN O O
since NN O O
it NN O O
produces NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
period NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
energy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12239480)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
adhesive NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
cements NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dentinal NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STATEMENT NN O O
OF NN O O
PROBLEMS NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cementation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
indirect NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-PAR
cements NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
frequently NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
scientifically NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
simulate NN O O
the NN O O
dentin/composite NN O O
cement NN O O
interface NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
cementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cast NN O O
restoration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
desensitizing NN O O
capabilities NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
cement NN O O
that NN O O
contains NN O O
a NN O O
self-etching NN O O
, NN O O
dual-polymerizing NN O O
resin NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
cement NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
phosphoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
etching NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single-bottle NN O O
, NN O O
light-activated NN O O
primer/resin-based NN O O
adhesive NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
hypersensitive NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
surfaces NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
coating NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
self-etching NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Linkmax NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
respective NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
coating NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventionally NN O I-INT
etched NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RelyX NN O I-INT
ARC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
negative NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dentin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
ascertained NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
accurate NN O O
cold NN O O
testing NN O O
device NN O O
that NN O O
slowly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
temperature NN O O
. NN O O

Tooth NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
both NN O O
immediately NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

Two-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
least NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
existed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
type NN O O
or NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
placement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
self-etching NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
respective NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
with NN O O
Linkmax NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
temperature NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
teeth NN O O
responded NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
8.4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
The NN O O
conventionally NN O O
etched NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
responded NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
9.4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
After NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
7.0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
4.3 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Untreated NN O O
controls NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
intervals NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3.6 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
4.1 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
composite NN O O
cement NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Within NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
untreated NN O O
control NN O O
teeth NN O O
, NN O O
Linkmax NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
RelyX NN O O
ARC NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
P=.066 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12241650)

Laser NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
haemangioma NN O O
: NN O O
progress NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (12241713)

Therapeutic NN O I-OUT
angiogenesis NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bone-marrow NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O O
implantation NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow-mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
endothelial NN O O
progenitor NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
into NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
limbs NN O O
increases NN O O
collateral NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
limbs NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
first NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
leg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
injected NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
gastrocnemius NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
limb NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
ischaemic NN O I-INT
limb NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
then NN O O
recruited NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
leg NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
injected NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
leg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peripheral NN O I-INT
blood-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
ankle-brachial NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
randomisation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
ABI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
legs NN O O
injected NN O O
with NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
injected NN O O
with NN O O
peripheral NN O I-INT
blood-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
0.09 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.06-0.11 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
[ NN O O
9-17 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.85 NN O O
[ NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.12 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.7-1.7 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Autologous NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
angiogenesis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
marrow NN O O
cells NN O O
to NN O O
supply NN O O
endothelial NN O O
progenitor NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
secrete NN O O
various NN O O
angiogenic NN O O
factors NN O O
or NN O O
cytokines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12270325)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
mycophenolate NN O I-INT
mofetil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
allograft NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12271298)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
erbium NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
yttrium-aluminum-garnet NN O I-INT
laser-assisted NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Penetration NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
stratum NN O O
corneum NN O O
limits NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ELA-Max NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
after NN O O
erbium NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
yttrium-aluminum-garnet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
stratum NN O O
corneum NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
split-face NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
stratum NN O O
corneum NN O O
was NN O O
painlessly NN O O
ablated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O O
on NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
face NN O O
was NN O O
covered NN O O
with NN O O
ELA-Max NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
for NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Full-face NN O O
laser NN O O
resurfacing NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
passes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Laser-assisted NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
painful NN O O
second NN O O
pass NN O O
. NN O O

Resurfacing NN O O
after NN O O
laser-assisted NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
pass NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
pass NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Laser-assisted NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
is NN O O
fast NN O O
, NN O O
painless NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
substantially NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
adequate NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
full-face NN O O
resurfacing NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12356338)

Acute NN O O
cardiac NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Nicotine NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
many NN O O
physiologic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
cardiac NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
and NN O O
conduction NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well-characterized NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
23-36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
chewed NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
approximate NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O O
nicotine NN O O
levels NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
echocardiograms NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
signal-averaged NN O I-INT
electrocardiograms NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SAECG NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
40 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
again NN O O
given NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cross-over NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
from NN O O
two-dimensional NN O O
images NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
then NN O O
calculated NN O O
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ESWS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
circumferential NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Vcfc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
from NN O O
SAECG NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
control NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
ESWS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Vcfc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
nicotine NN O O
chewing NN O O
gum NN O O
increases NN O O
afterload NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
acutely NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
nicotine NN O O
gum NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
P NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
chewing NN O O
nicotine NN O O
gum NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12358251)

Tegaserod NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5-hydroxytryptamine NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Certain NN O O
GI NN O I-INT
prokinetic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
cardiac NN O O
repolarization NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
5-hydroxytryptamine NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
tegaserod NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
promotile NN O O
agent NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
motility NN O O
disorders NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
irritable NN O O
bowel NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
IBS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tegaserod NN O I-INT
through NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IBS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
2516 NN O I-PAR
IBS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
tegaserod NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1679 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
837 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
iv NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tegaserod NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.8 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Standard NN O O
12-lead NN O O
electrocardiograms NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
QTc NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
tegaserod NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
supraventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Comparable NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
tegaserod NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
tegaserod NN O O
at NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

doses NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
times NN O O
those NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tegaserod NN O O
is NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
adversely NN O O
influence NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
confirm NN O O
preclinical NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12358871)

Multifaceted NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
in NN O O
diabetes NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multifaceted NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
identify NN O O
practice NN O O
characteristics NN O O
which NN O O
predict NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Cluster NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
185 NN O I-PAR
GPs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
reports NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
facilitator NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
compliance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
evidence-based NN O I-OUT
recommendations NN O I-OUT
pertaining NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discussion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discussion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
initiating NN O I-OUT
anti-diabetic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
uncontrolled NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scheduling NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
appointment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
GPs NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
in NN O O
1410 NN O I-PAR
consultations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1449 NN O I-PAR
consultations NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
: NN O O
foot NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.68 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.19-2.39 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
eye NN O O
examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.52 NN O O
; NN O O
1.07-2.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Discussion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
near NN O O
significant NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
increased NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.52 NN O O
; NN O O
0.99-2.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Practice NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Feedback NN O O
reports NN O O
with NN O O
support NN O O
from NN O O
facilitators NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
foot NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Alternative NN O O
interventions NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
pursuit NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
control NN O O
by NN O O
GPs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12370849)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
macronutrient NN O I-INT
composition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
: NN O O
microdialysis NN O O
study 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
elucidate NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
microdialysis NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
modifications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
influence NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
adipose NN O O
tissue NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mas NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.6 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
were NN O O
fed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high-fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
65 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high-carbohydrate NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O O
state NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
following NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extracellular NN O I-OUT
glycerol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EGC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.0375 NN O O
microg/min/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
submaximal NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
V*O2max NN O O
, NN O O
60-minute NN O O
duration NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EGC NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
isoprenaline NN O O
( NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
[ NN O O
AUC NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
HFD NN O O
, NN O O
1,534 NN O O
+/- NN O O
370 NN O O
micromol/90 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
HCD NN O O
, NN O O
1,108 NN O O
+/- NN O O
465 NN O O
micromol/90 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
[ NN O O
NS NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
stimulations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
: NN O O
HFD NN O O
, NN O O
190 NN O O
+/- NN O O
92 NN O O
micromol/30 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
HCD NN O O
, NN O O
251 NN O O
+/- NN O O
298 NN O O
micromol/30 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
EGC NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
HFD NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
: NN O O
HFD NN O O
, NN O O
1,641 NN O O
+/- NN O O
181 NN O O
micromol/60 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
HCD NN O O
, NN O O
963 NN O O
+/- NN O O
156 NN O O
micromol/60 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.056 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
insulinemia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
macronutrient NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
beta-adrenergic NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
action NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
HFD NN O I-INT
promotes NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
insulinemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12375315)

Combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydroxychloroquine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
increases NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
hydroxychloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
that NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
with NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
than NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
used NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
dosing NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
as NN O O
tablets NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O O
solution NN O O
, NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
tablet NN O O
or NN O O
oral NN O O
solution NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
coadministered NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
dosing NN O O
occasion NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
compound NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MTX NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
MTX NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
was NN O O
coadministered NN O O
with NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MTX NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
coadministration NN O O
with NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.072 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AUC NN O O
of NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.957 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dosing NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
potency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MTX-HCQ NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
over NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
sustained NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
Cmax NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
coadministration NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
diminution NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
liver NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Extra NN O O
vigilance NN O O
for NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
HCQ NN O I-INT
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
if NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
decreased NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12377836)

Home NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
studies NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
apnea/hypopnea NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
sleep-recording NN O O
device NN O O
used NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
in-laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
fully NN O O
supervised NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
apnea/hypopnea NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAHS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
case NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
sleep-disorders NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
referral NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
SAHS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
km NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O I-INT
sleep-recording NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Polysomnography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
read NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
investigators NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Diagnoses NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
decisions NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Agreement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
study NN O O
recordings NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
receiver NN O O
operating NN O O
characteristic NN O O
( NN O O
ROC NN O O
) NN O O
curves NN O O
and NN O O
Bland-Altman NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sleep NN O O
technician NN O O
's NN O O
set NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
equipment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
home NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
own NN O O
setup NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sleep-recording NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
instruction NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
economic NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
repeating NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
faulty NN O O
or NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
home NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
should NN O O
undergo NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
step NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seven NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
produced NN O O
no NN O O
interpretable NN O O
data NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
artifacts NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
study NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
sleep-recording NN O O
device NN O O
and NN O O
polysomnography NN O I-INT
agreed NN O O
in NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interpretable NN O O
home NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
home NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ROC NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
study-derived NN O O
parameters NN O O
was NN O O
between NN O O
0.84 NN O O
and NN O O
0.89 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
bias NN O O
between NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Bland-Altman NN O O
plot NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
expensive NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
( NN O O
143.86 NN O O
euros NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
93.08 NN O O
euros NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
129.97 NN O O
euros NN O O
) NN O O
intervention NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technician NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Home NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
SAHS NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
expensive NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sleep NN O O
technician NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
home NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
expensive NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
faulty NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
own NN O O
setup NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
equipment NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
sleep-recording NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12378396)

The NN O O
lunar NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
frequent NN O O
long-term NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
restenosis NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
building NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
neointima NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
endovascular NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
( NN O O
tissue NN O O
growth NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interesting NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Lunar NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
Inflow NN O I-INT
Dynamics NN O I-INT
is NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
coated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
layer NN O O
of NN O O
iridium NN O O
oxide NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
iridium NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
coating NN O O
is NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
stent NN O O
via NN O O
its NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MOONLIGHT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Multicenter NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O I-PAR
ObservatioNal NN O I-PAR
Lunar NN O I-INT
Iridiumoxide NN O I-INT
intimal NN O I-PAR
GrowtH NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
angiographic NN O O
success NN O O
after NN O O
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Lunar NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Between NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
mm NN O O
long NN O O
iridium-oxide NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
Lunar NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Lunar NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
lesions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
radiopacity NN O O
facilitated NN O O
optimal NN O O
stent NN O I-OUT
positioning NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
optimal NN O O
immediate NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
angiographic NN O O
results NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
unselected NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
lesion NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
MACE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
hyperplastic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12384805)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
adoptive NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
melanoma NN O O
tumor-infiltrating NN O I-INT
lymphocytes NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
interest NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
tumor-infiltrating NN O I-INT
lymphocytes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TIL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
excision NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
detectable NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
TIL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IL-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
determination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
46.9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction 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
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
invaded NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
invaded NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
) NN O O
=0.0285 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
) NN O O
=0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TIL+IL-2 NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-INT
only NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
as NN O O
regards NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
invaded NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
whatever NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
invaded NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
daily NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
TIL NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
melanoma NN O O
( NN O O
AJCC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
invaded NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
tumor NN O O
burden NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
crucial NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and/or NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
expansion NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O O
cells NN O O
specific NN O O
for NN O O
autologous NN O O
tumor NN O O
antigen NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
finding NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
vaccine NN O O
development NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12394700)

Transurethral NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
operative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Bleeding NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transurethral NN O O
prostate NN O O
resection NN O O
can NN O O
often NN O O
be NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
occasionally NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
bleeding NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematuria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
bleeding NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
be NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
giving NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
surgery 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
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
resected NN O O
prostate NN O O
weight NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
68 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
32 NN O O
received NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
and NN O O
36 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
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
43.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
69.3 NN O O
gm NN O O
. NN O O

hemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
when NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
gm NN O O
. NN O O

resected NN O O
prostate NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
( NN O O
2.65 NN O O
versus NN O O
4.65 NN O O
gm NN O O
. NN O O

hemoglobin NN O O
per NN O O
gm NN O O
. NN O O

prostate 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
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
given NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
decreases NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
timing NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
duration NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
identify NN O O
how NN O O
relevant NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
bleeding NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12396317)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
chlorpheniramine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O I-PAR
kinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hepatomegaly NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Plasmodium NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CQ NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
chlorpheniramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
histamine NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
antagonist NN O O
that NN O O
reverses NN O O
CQ NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enlarged NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Plasmodium NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
0.6-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
lived NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nigeria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allotted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
enlarged NN O I-OUT
livers NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
, NN O O
168 NN O O
or NN O O
336 NN O O
and NN O O
504 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
commencement NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CQ NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
chlorpheniramine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CQCP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
P-values NN O O
of NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
0.00000 NN O O
and NN O O
0.00002 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O O
resolution NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
HR50 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
HR90 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
enlargement NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
enlarged NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
168 NN O O
h NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
their NN O O
enlarged NN O O
livers NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
plotting NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

the NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
hepatomegaly NN O O
v. NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
hp NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
half-life NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hepatomegaly NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2hp NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CQCP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
completely NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
'hepatic NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
processes NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hepatomegaly NN O O
( NN O O
CL NN O O
( NN O O
Bhp NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hp NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
48 NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

AUC NN O O
( NN O O
hpFr148 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
hpFr96 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CQCP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
liver NN O O
enlargement NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
separately NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2hp NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hp NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hpFr196 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CL NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Bhl NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CQCP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
enlarged NN O I-OUT
livers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
kinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disposition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
chlorpheniramine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
enlargement NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
P. NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12406050)

Adherence NN O O
to NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
during NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
brisk NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
methods NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
future NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

DESCRIPTION NN O O
OF NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: 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
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
self-administered NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
brisk NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
day NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
self-report NN O O
diary NN O O
forms NN O O
that NN O O
elicited NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
activity NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
self-reported NN O O
daily NN O O
activity NN O O
levels NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
diffusion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
usual-care NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
maintaining NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
moderate-intensity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
exercise NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
prescribed NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reveal NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
IMPLICATIONS 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
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
exercised NN O O
regularly NN O O
before NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
their NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Women NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
lead NN O O
sedentary NN O O
lifestyles NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
that NN O O
includes NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
adherence NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12410073)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
biologic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
psychotropic NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
participated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O O
into NN O O
trios NN O O
matched NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
biologic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
CU/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measures NN O O
collected NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
infusion NN O O
included NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gathered NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
teachers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
investigators NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Two-factor NN O O
, NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
levels NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postinfusion NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Direct NN O O
observation NN O O
measures NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parent NN O O
reports NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
teacher-report NN O O
measure NN O O
showed NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
either NN O O
biologic NN O I-INT
or NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
amelioration NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
beyond NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
held NN O O
true NN O O
when NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12422941)

An NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
methamphetamine NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Methamphetamine NN O I-INT
abuse NN O O
and NN O O
dependence NN O O
are NN O O
growing NN O O
problems NN O O
nationally NN O O
and NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
no NN O O
effective NN O O
pharmocologic NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Animal NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
SSRI NN O O
's NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
modulation NN O O
alters NN O O
methamphetamine NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SSRI NN O I-INT
paroxetine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
design NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
craving NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
methamphetamine NN O I-INT
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
subjects NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
eight NN O O
week NN O O
trial NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
methamphetamine NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
OCDS NN O O
modified NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
performed NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
methamphetamine NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
effective NN O O
behavioral NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12423984)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Zambian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cryptosporidiosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cryptosporidiosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
causes NN O O
persistent NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
and NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment 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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nitazoxanide-a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
broad-spectrum NN O I-INT
antiparasitic NN O I-INT
drug-on NN O I-INT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Zambian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Cryptosporidium NN O I-PAR
parvum NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cryptosporidial NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Teaching NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lusaka NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Zambia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
nitazoxanide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
parasitological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
subsequently NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
negative NN O O
for NN O O
C NN O I-PAR
parvum NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
co-infected NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
HIV NN O O
serology NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
HIV-seropositive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
HIV-seronegative NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
subsequently NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
HIV-seronegative NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
receiving NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7-59 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

C NN O I-OUT
parvum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
stool NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
receiving NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
14-63 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-18 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-34 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HIV-seropositive NN O O
children NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O O
. NN O O

Nitazoxanide NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
stratum NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
A NN O O
3-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
nitazoxanide NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parasitological NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-seronegative NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
HIV-seropositive NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12424317)

Global NN O I-PAR
contour NN O I-PAR
saliency NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
local NN O O
colinear NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
link NN O I-PAR
components NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
contours NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
segregate NN O I-PAR
contours NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
backgrounds NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
geometric NN O I-PAR
grouping NN O I-PAR
rules NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
important NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
step NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
object NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
substrate NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
contour NN O I-PAR
integration NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
contextual NN O I-PAR
interactions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intrinsic NN O I-PAR
horizontal NN O I-PAR
connections NN O I-PAR
seen NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
V1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
perceptual NN O I-PAR
rules NN O I-PAR
governing NN O I-PAR
contour NN O I-PAR
saliency NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
determine NN O I-PAR
whether NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spatial NN O I-PAR
extents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
contextual NN O I-PAR
interactions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
horizontal NN O I-PAR
connections NN O I-PAR
match NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
mediating NN O I-PAR
saliency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O I-PAR
quantify NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
rules NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
stimuli NN O I-INT
composed NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
oriented NN O I-INT
nonoverlapping NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
segments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Salient NN O I-PAR
contours NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
formed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
colinear NN O I-PAR
alignment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nearby NN O I-PAR
segments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Contour NN O I-OUT
detectability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2-interval-forced-choice NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Contour NN O I-OUT
detectability NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
spacing NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
contour NN O O
elements NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
colinear NN O O
line NN O O
elements NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
short NN O O
contour NN O O
spacing NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
detectability NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
plateau NN O O
with NN O O
alignment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
line NN O O
segments NN O O
that NN O O
together NN O O
formed NN O O
a NN O O
contour NN O O
subtending NN O O
several NN O O
visual NN O O
degrees NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
intermediate NN O O
spacing NN O O
, NN O O
saliency NN O I-OUT
built NN O O
up NN O O
progressively NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
colinear NN O O
lines NN O O
, NN O O
extending NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
contour NN O O
spacing NN O O
was NN O O
beyond NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
about NN O O
2 NN O O
degrees NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
detectability NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
to NN O O
chance NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
colinear NN O O
lines NN O O
. NN O O

Contour NN O I-OUT
detectability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
spacing NN O O
of NN O O
contour NN O O
elements NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
noise NN O O
elements NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
pattern NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
contour NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O I-OUT
spacing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
line NN O O
elements NN O O
beyond NN O O
which NN O O
contours NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
detectable NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
contour NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O O
spatial NN O O
extent NN O O
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
interactions NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
interactions NN O O
can NN O O
cascade NN O O
over NN O O
larger NN O O
distances NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
spacing NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
elements NN O O
is NN O O
kept NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12424783)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adaptation NN O O
to NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-INT
Roy NN O I-INT
adaptation NN O I-INT
model-based NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
three-group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three-phase NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in-person NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Control NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
telephone-only NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Control NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
one-time NN O I-INT
mailed NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
Control NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
loneliness NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
Phases NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher-quality NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
Control NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-OUT
worry NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
individual NN O O
telephone NN O O
support NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
in-person NN O O
support NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
telephone NN O O
interventions NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
using NN O O
ethnically NN O O
and NN O O
economically NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12426230)

Immunologic NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
few NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
relative NN O O
adrenal NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
evoked NN O O
a NN O O
reassessment NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
antiinflammation NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
hour NN O O
until NN O O
Day NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 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
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
medication NN O O
until NN O O
Day NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

Hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
induced NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
nitrite/nitrate NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vasopressor NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD11b NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD64 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antiinflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
attenuated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
monocytes NN O O
, NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
antigen-DR NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
slightly NN O O
depressed NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
phagocytosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
monocyte-activating NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
interleukin-12 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O O
induced NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunologic NN O I-OUT
rebound NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
restored NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
differentially NN O O
modulated NN O O
the NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
antiinflammation NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12437457)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
vehicle-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-OUT
actinic NN O I-OUT
keratoses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Actinic NN O I-OUT
keratoses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AKs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
precancerous NN O O
epidermal NN O O
lesions NN O O
found NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
on NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
sun NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
case NN O O
studies NN O O
published NN O O
recently NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
, NN O O
currently NN O O
licensed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
genital NN O O
warts NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
AK NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
AK NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Patients 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
vehicle-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
applied NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
AK NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
lesions NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
resolved NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
, NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Rest NN O O
periods NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
allowed NN O O
if NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
specialized NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
dermatology NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
state-funded NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AK NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
histological NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
histological NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
AK NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
comply NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
notice NN O I-PAR
asking NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lesions NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
were NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
partially NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
histologically NN O O
confirmed NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
clinically NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
as NN O O
lesion NN O O
free NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
recurrence NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AK NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
vehicle-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
imiquimod NN O I-INT
included NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
induration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vesicles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
erosion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
excoriation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scabbing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
since NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
12-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vehicle NN O O
cream NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
AK NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12440177)

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
trajectory NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
contrast NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
trajectory NN O O
of NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
determinants NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
radiocontrast NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Included NN O O
were NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
forced NN O O
diuresis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
crystalloid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
furosemide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mannitol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
capillary NN O I-INT
wedge NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mmHg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
dopamine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
crystalloid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O O
and NN O O
postcatheterization NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
blood NN O O
draws NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
critical NN O O
trajectories NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
Cr NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CrCl NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
69.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12.1 NN O I-PAR
mL/min NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
driven NN O I-OUT
postprocedural NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.1 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
19 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
Cr NN O O
value NN O O
to NN O O
25.7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
values NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
1.7-8.7 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Longitudinal NN O O
models NN O O
support NN O O
baseline NN O O
Cr NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
predictions NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
Cr NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
Cr NN O O
trajectory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
requisite NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
any NN O O
given NN O O
individual NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
Cr NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
contrast NN O O
exposure NN O O
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
rise NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
Cr NN O O
trajectory NN O O
after NN O O
contrast NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Length NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
laboratory NN O O
measures NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
anticipated NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12443948)

Reactive NN O O
balance NN O O
adjustments NN O O
to NN O O
unexpected NN O I-INT
perturbations NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
walking NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
unexpected NN O I-INT
forward NN O I-INT
perturbations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
gait NN O O
on NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
mechanics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
Electromyographic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
muscles NN O O
surrounding NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
trunk NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preventing NN O I-OUT
collapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
FP NN O O
. NN O O

Distinct NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
moment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
FP NN O I-INT
but NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
positive NN O O
moment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
M NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
s NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
reactive NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
synchronized NN O O
effort NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
joints NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
collapse NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
FP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12447025)

Lofexidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hyperactive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
impulsive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12452403)

Hypnosis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
irritable NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
mechanism NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Hypnosis NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
irritable NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IBS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
physiological NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
seven NN O O
biweekly NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
audiotapes NN O I-INT
at NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

Rectal NN O O
pain NN O O
thresholds NN O O
and NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
tone NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
barostat NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
skin NN O O
conductance NN O O
, NN O O
finger NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
forehead NN O O
electromyographic NN O O
activity NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Somatization NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
IBS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
substantially NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Rectal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
smooth NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
autonomic NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
except NN O I-OUT
sweat NN O I-OUT
gland NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
somatization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
large NN O O
decreases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
IBS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
somatization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O O
parameters NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12452980)

Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
FK506 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gingival NN O O
overgrowth NN O O
following NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Gingival NN O O
overgrowth NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
following NN O O
liver NN O O
transplantation NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
commonly NN O O
recognized NN O O
clinical NN O O
problem 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
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
gingival NN O O
overgrowth NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
gingival NN O I-PAR
overgrowth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
FK506 NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
15-196 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Birmingham NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
fashion NN O O
and NN O O
scored NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
validated NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
immunosuppressant NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27 NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
receiving NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
also NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O I-PAR
gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
zero NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Those NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
immunosuppression NN O I-PAR
plus NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
developed NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O O
less NN O O
marked NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Tacrolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
unlike NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
overgrowth NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
following NN O O
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12456431)

Gastroesophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
and NN O O
tracheal NN O O
aspiration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thoracotomy NN O O
position NN O O
: NN O O
should NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
be NN O O
routine NN O O
? NN O O
UNLABELLED NN O O
Aspiration NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
contents NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
thoracotomy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
position NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Ranitidine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
reduces NN O O
gastric NN O O
volume NN O O
, NN O O
increases NN O O
gastric NN O O
pH NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
GER NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
used NN O O
continuous NN O O
intraluminal NN O O
esophageal NN O O
and NN O O
tracheal NN O O
pH NN O O
monitoring NN O O
probes NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
GER NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
GER NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
28.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
16 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
therefore NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
tracheal NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
appreciable NN O O
proportion NN O O
. NN O O

Premedication NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
eliminate NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
potentially NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
frequent NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
acid NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
premedication NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12457629)

Pharmacokinetics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
azithromycin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
washing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
azithromycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
, NN O O
lung NN O O
tissue NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bronchial NN O O
washing NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
lung NN O O
resection NN O O
at NN O O
various NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
204 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
drug NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Azithromycin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
widely NN O O
distributed NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
; NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detectable NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
sampling NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
204 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
bronchial NN O O
washing NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
long NN O O
terminal NN O O
half-lives NN O O
of NN O O
132.86 NN O O
and NN O O
74.32 NN O O
h NN O O
at NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
133.32 NN O O
and NN O O
70.5 NN O O
h NN O O
at NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Doubling NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
dose NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
remarkable NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
, NN O O
1318 NN O O
hx NN O O
microg NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
2502 NN O O
hx NN O O
microg NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O O
tissue NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
9.13+/-0.53 NN O O
microg NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
17.85+/-2.4 NN O O
microg NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
penetration NN O O
from NN O O
plasma NN O O
into NN O O
bronchial NN O O
secretion NN O O
and NN O O
lung NN O O
tissue NN O O
was NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
washing NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.96 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.27 NN O O
at NN O O
500 NN O O
and NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
64.35 NN O O
vs NN O O
97.73 NN O O
at NN O O
500 NN O O
and NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
and NN O O
bronchial NN O O
washing NN O O
to NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
doubling NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
favorable NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12458862)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anterior NN O O
surface NN O O
modified NN O O
prolate NN O O
intraocular NN O O
lens NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
anterior NN O O
surface NN O O
modified NN O O
prolate NN O O
intraocular NN O O
lens NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
spherical NN O O
intraocular NN O O
lens NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
Tecnis NN O I-INT
Z9000 NN O I-INT
intraocular NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pharmacia NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
AMO NN O I-INT
AR40e NN O I-INT
Opti-Edge NN O I-INT
intraocular NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AMO NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sine NN O O
wave NN O O
grating NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
testing NN O O
under NN O O
mesopic NN O O
and NN O O
photopic NN O O
conditions NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
principal NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
Tecnis NN O O
Z9000 NN O O
intraocular NN O O
lens NN O O
provided NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
cycles NN O O
per NN O O
degree NN O O
under NN O O
mesopic NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
cycles NN O O
per NN O O
degree NN O O
under NN O O
photopic NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
prolate NN O O
intraocular NN O O
lens NN O O
during NN O O
cataract NN O O
surgery NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
both NN O O
mesopic NN O O
and NN O O
photopic NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12478408)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
oral NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RTx NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O O
disease NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
RTx NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
t.i.d. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
n=14 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
GAN NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
q.i.d. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
n=12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
VAL NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
third NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
n=12 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
CMV-nested NN O O
PCR NN O O
in NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
donor NN O O
and NN O O
recipient NN O O
CMV NN O O
serology NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-six NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
38 NN O O
( NN O O
94.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
recipients NN O O
were NN O O
CMV-seropositive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Over NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
post-RTx NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
13 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
( NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GAN NN O O
and NN O O
VAL NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0005 NN O O
, NN O O
GAN NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
viremia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
30.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GAN NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
, NN O O
GAN NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
P=NS NN O O
, NN O O
GAN NN O O
vs NN O O
VAL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GAN NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.014 NN O O
, NN O O
GAN NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
vs NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
P=NS NN O O
, NN O O
GAN NN O O
vs NN O O
VAL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
CMV-associated NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
2001 NN O O
euros NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
2,449+/-1,178 NN O O
, NN O O
2,485+/-581 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4,259+/-4,616 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GAN NN O O
, NN O O
VAL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Ganciclovir NN O O
and NN O O
valacyclovir NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
ganciclovir NN O O
having NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
shortly NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
only NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O O
and NN O O
valacyclovir NN O O
are NN O O
equally NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O O
disease NN O O
after NN O O
RTx NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
are NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
help NN O O
reduce NN O O
CMV-associated NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
some NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12480867)

Galantamine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12482473)

Increased NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
corticosteroid-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amitritpyline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12485538)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12486433)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
transmitral NN O O
commissurotomy NN O O
with NN O O
Inoue NN O O
balloon NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
metallic NN O O
commissurotomy NN O O
: NN O O
immediate NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Inoue NN O O
balloon NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
mitral NN O O
commissurotomy NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
and NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

Metallic NN O O
commissurotomy NN O O
is NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
cheaper NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
balloon NN O O
mitral NN O O
commissurotomy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transmitral NN O I-INT
commissurotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O I-PAR
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Inoue NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IBMC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
49 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
metallic NN O I-INT
commissurotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PMMC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
51 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
technique NN O I-INT
when NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Success NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
valvotomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
procedure-related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Basal NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Procedural NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
45 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
91.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IBMC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
46 NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
90.18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PMMC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Crossover NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
comparable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IBMC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PMMC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
tamponade NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
requiring NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
requiring NN O O
mitral NN O O
valve NN O O
replacement NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IBMC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PMMC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
IBMC NN O O
and NN O O
PMMC NN O O
are NN O O
successful NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
relief NN O O
from NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
valve NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
transmitral NN O O
gradient NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O O
procedural NN O O
success NN O O
, NN O O
complication NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12492271)

Ankle NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
facilitates NN O O
soleus NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
2-factor NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
on NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ankle NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
voluntary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
soleus NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
60-minute NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
exists NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
torque NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Hoffmann NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
ankle NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Controversy NN O O
surrounds NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
cooling NN O O
muscle NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
cooling NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
around NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
resting NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
motoneuronal NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
voluntary NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pretested NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
normalized NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
maximum NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
[ NN O O
Hmax NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
maximum NN O O
direct NN O O
motor NN O O
response NN O O
[ NN O O
Mmax NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-INT
crushed NN O I-INT
ice NN O I-INT
bag NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ankle NN O I-INT
of NN O O
15 NN O O
subjects NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

H-reflex NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
at 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
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Surface NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ankle NN O O
and NN O O
electrode NN O O
site NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
measurement NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
at 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
minutes NN O O
increased NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
measurement NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
control NN O O
at 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
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
weak NN O O
correlation NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
soleus NN O O
motoneuron NN O O
pool NN O O
is NN O O
facilitated NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
30-minute NN O O
crushed NN O I-INT
ice NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
ankle NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
60-minute NN O O
postcooling NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
cooling NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
activity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12496956)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
core NN O O
behavioral NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
peptide NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
peptide NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
via NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
challenges 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
an NN O O
instrument NN O O
rating NN O O
six NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
know NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repeating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ordering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tell/ask NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
touching NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Repetitive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
partially NN O O
ameliorated NN O O
by NN O O
synthetic NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12504399)

Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
artesunate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
New NN O O
antimalarial NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
urgently NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
sub-Saharan NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Improved NN O O
therapies NN O O
should NN O O
decrease NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
malaria NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
studied 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
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
antimalarial NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Kampala NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Uganda NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
sulfadoxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
artesunate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
preassigned NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
every NN O O
new NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
malaria NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Recrudescent NN O O
and NN O O
new NN O O
infections NN O O
were NN O O
distinguished NN O O
by NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
in NN O O
merozoite NN O O
surface NN O O
protein NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
MSP2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
time NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
183 NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
316 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
malaria NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
577 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
Plasmodium NN O O
falciparum NN O O
malaria NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
study NN O O
drugs NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
of NN O O
215 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
amodiaquine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
164 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
artesunate NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
198 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
amodiaquine NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
malaria NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
amodiaquine NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
36-66 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sulfadoxine/ NN O O
pyrimethamine NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
12-54 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
artesunate NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Sulfadoxine/pyrimethamine NN O O
plus NN O O
amodiaquine NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
regimen NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12505565)

Treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
eptifibatide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
planned NN O O
coronary NN O O
stent NN O O
implantation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
ESPRIT NN O O
Trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-INT
glycoprotein NN O I-INT
IIb/IIIa NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
characterized NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CrCl NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
eptifibatide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
48-hour NN O O
and NN O O
30-day NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Enhanced NN O I-PAR
Suppression NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Platelet NN O I-PAR
IIb/IIIa NN O I-PAR
Receptor NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Integrilin NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESPRIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
eptifibatide NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adjunct NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,755 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CrCl NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=60 NN O I-INT
ml/min NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
289 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CrCl NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
ml/min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CrCl NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Cockcroft NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Gault NN O I-OUT
formula NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
CrCl NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
logistic NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
models NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CrCl NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
ml/min NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
hypertensive 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
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
stroke NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
eptifibatide NN O I-INT
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
had NN O O
borderline NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
30-day NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.109 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
trended NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
magnitude NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
CrCl NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.53 NN O O
, NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.34 NN O O
to NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
CrCl NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.68 NN O O
, NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.49 NN O O
to NN O O
0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
accompanying NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
apparent NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
CrCl NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
eptifibatide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
realized NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
trends NN O O
toward NN O O
being NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12512598)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intramammary NN O I-INT
tilmicosin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
drying-off NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
intramammary NN O O
infections NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period 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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intramammary NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
tilmicosin NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
intramammary NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
new NN O O
intramammary NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
dairy NN O I-PAR
herds NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
geographical NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
248 NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
938 NN O I-PAR
bacteriologically NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
quarters NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
drying-off NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
summarized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
quarters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
quarters NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
intramammary NN O I-INT
tilmicosin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intramammary NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
14.4 NN O O
and NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
coagulase-negative NN O O
staphylococci NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
environmental NN O O
streptococcal NN O O
organisms NN O O
( NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probability NN O O
for NN O O
quarters NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
when NN O O
cows NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
milk NN O O
production NN O O
before NN O O
drying-off NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
cows NN O O
had NN O O
longer NN O O
dry NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
dry NN O O
cows NN O O
were NN O O
housed NN O O
in NN O O
tie-stall NN O O
barns NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
parity NN O O
cows NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
somatic NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
4 NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
DHI NN O O
test NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
intramammary NN O I-INT
tilmicosin NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
efficacious NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
IMI NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
no NN O O
approved NN O O
intramammary NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
product NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
blanket NN O O
dry NN O O
cow NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
selective NN O O
dry NN O O
cow NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
identifying NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
managing NN O O
the NN O O
environment NN O O
of NN O O
dry NN O O
cows NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (125133)

Anabolic NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
athelics NN O O
: NN O O
crossover NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
weightlifters NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
weightlifters NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
high-protein NN O I-PAR
diets NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
methandienone NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
or NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
to NN O O
seeif NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
improved NN O O
athletic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Their NN O O
improvemments NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
methandienone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
their NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weights NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
though NN O O
this NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
water NN O O
retention NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Methandienone NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
many NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
men NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
withdraw NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
disappeared NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
. NN O O

Anabolic NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
high-protein NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
deprecate NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
athletics NN O O
but NN O O
can NN O O
suggest NN O O
no NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
stopping NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12531809)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
versus NN O O
weekly NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
includes NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prior NN O O
observations NN O O
suggested NN O O
potential NN O O
advantages NN O O
for NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
remain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
validated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
taper NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
randomized NN O O
assignment NN O O
was NN O O
for NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
or NN O O
weekly NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
during NN O O
consolidation NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
maintenance NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
steroid NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
monthly NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
delayed NN O O
intensification NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
10 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
21 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
taper NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intrathecal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system-directed NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
6-year NN O I-OUT
isolated NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system-relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
fewer NN O O
isolated NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
6-year NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

EFS NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
however NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12538120)

Direct NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
minimally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
mitral-valve NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
Port-Access NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Heartport NN O O
, NN O O
Redwood NN O O
City NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
mitral-valve NN O O
operations NN O O
originally NN O O
required NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
disadvantage NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
vessel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
data NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
markers NN O O
for NN O O
myocardial NN O O
damage NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
might NN O O
provide NN O O
better NN O O
myocardial NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
may NN O O
eliminate NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12541005)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
methodological NN O O
challenges NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
attempts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCTs NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
RCT NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
action NN O O
routines NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
identified NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
CHAT NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
made NN O O
more NN O O
progress NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
services NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
compromised NN O O
by NN O O
several NN O O
factors NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
reliance NN O O
on NN O O
parental NN O O
report NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
non-matching NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
initial NN O O
IQ NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
systematic NN O O
checking NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
commenced NN O O
intensive NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difficulties NN O O
encountered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conduct NN O O
of NN O O
RCTs NN O O
for NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

Methodological NN O O
challenges NN O O
and NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
well-designed NN O O
RCTs NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
highlighted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1254157)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
problems NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
second-look NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer 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
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
1022 NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
problems NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
look NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
remission NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
post-operative NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
secretions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pouch NN O O
of NN O O
Douglas NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ascites NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
where NN O O
a NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
assumed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
about NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
primarily NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
random NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Endoxan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
significant NN O O
five NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
only NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
uterus NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
adnexa NN O O
are NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

Radical NN O O
operation NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
remission NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
remission NN O O
continuous NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12546485)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
prelinguistic NN O I-INT
milieu NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
responsivity NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O O
dyads NN O I-OUT
involving NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
intellectual NN O I-OUT
disabilities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
facilitating NN O I-INT
prelinguistic NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
productive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
method NN O O
involved NN O O
Responsivity NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
Prelinguistic NN O I-INT
Milieu NN O I-INT
Teaching NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RPMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
prelinguistic NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parent-child NN O O
pairs NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
and 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
later NN O O
. NN O O

RPMT NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
comments NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
initiating NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
) NN O O
varied NN O O
by NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
requests NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
initiating NN O O
behavior NN O O
regulation NN O O
) NN O O
varied NN O O
by NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
Down NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
productive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
by NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
canonical NN O O
vocal NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

Recommended NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
PMT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
defining NN O O
which NN O O
nonspeaking NN O O
children NN O O
are NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
prelinguistic NN O O
goals NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12551867)

Acute NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improves NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteriograms NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
asymmetric NN O O
dimethylarginine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
asymmetric NN O I-OUT
dimethylarginine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
elevated NN O O
and NN O O
influence NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
L-arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
g/min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
bolus NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
euglycemic NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
ADMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
increased NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nitrite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nitrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
cGMP NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
insulin NN O O
bolus NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
saline NN O O
, NN O O
insulin-induced NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
cGMP NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
almost NN O O
abolished NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
L-arginine NN O O
restored NN O O
a NN O O
physiological NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
any NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O

ADMA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
basal NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
insulin-induced NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
cGMP NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
ADMA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
insulin-induced NN O O
increments NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cGMP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
effects NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
reversed NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
L-arginine NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
ADMA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O O
vascular NN O O
reactivity NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CSX NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1255322)

Variance NN O O
in NN O O
albumin NN O I-INT
loading NN O O
in NN O O
exchange NN O I-PAR
transfusions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
of NN O O
albumin NN O O
priming NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
exchange NN O O
transfusions NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
hyperbilirubinemic NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
exchange NN O I-PAR
transfusions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
gm/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
salt-poor NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
albumin NN O I-INT
one NN O O
hour NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
exchanges NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
simple NN O O
exchanges NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
variations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reserve NN O I-OUT
albumin-binding NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
pre NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
one-hour NN O I-OUT
post NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
primed NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
removed NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
kilogram NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
directly NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.87 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
efficiency NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
albumin NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
RABC NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
sephadex NN O O
gel NN O O
filtration NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12559222)

Intravenous NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
low-output NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
international NN O O
LIDO NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Levosimendan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
calcium NN O O
sensitiser NN O O
, NN O O
improves NN O O
cardiac NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
oxygen NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-output NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
low-output NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
European NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
LIDO NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
203 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dobutamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Survival NN O O
and NN O O
resource NN O O
utilisation NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
survival NN O O
was NN O O
extrapolated NN O O
assuming NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
additional NN O O
lifetime NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
North NN O O
Scandinavian NN O O
Enalapril NN O O
Survival NN O O
Study NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Costs NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
usage NN O O
and NN O O
hospitalisation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
analysis NN O O
on NN O O
dosage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
157+/-52 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
139+/-64 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dobutamine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
extrapolated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
expectancy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
at NN O O
0.35 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
discounted NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Levosimendan NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
1108 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
entirely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
life-year NN O I-OUT
saved NN O O
( NN O O
LYS NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
3205 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
level NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
countries NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
per NN O O
LYS NN O O
ranged NN O O
between NN O O
3091 NN O O
and NN O O
3331 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
robust NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levosimendan NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
alive NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O O
per NN O O
LYS NN O O
using NN O O
levosimendan NN O I-INT
compares NN O O
favourably NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cardiology NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12564610)

Long-term NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Viozan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sibenadet NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Viozan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sibenadet NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
AR-C68397AA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
dual NN O O
D2 NN O O
dopamine NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
beta2-adrenoceptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
COPD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
slowly NN O O
progressive NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
means NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
require NN O O
ongoing NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
management NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
even NN O O
decades NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
such NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
agents NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
paramount NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
large-scale NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
sibenadet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
safety NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
baseline NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
435 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
smoking-related NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
500 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
sibenadet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
pressurized NN O O
metered NN O O
dose NN O O
inhaler NN O O
( NN O O
pMDI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Sibenadet NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
notable NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
14.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
SAEs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sibenadet NN O I-PAR
pMDI NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
notable NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
beta2-agonist NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
report NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
timepoints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While 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
, NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
large-scale NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
means NN O O
that NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
development NN O O
will NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
continued NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12564611)

Utilization NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
( NN O O
RU NN O O
) NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
was NN O O
integrated NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
Viozan NN O O
( NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
HCl NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
smoking-related NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sibenadet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
52-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
establishing NN O I-OUT
typical NN O I-OUT
pre-trial NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
COPD-related NN O I-OUT
RU NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Interactive NN O I-OUT
Voice NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IVRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30-day NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IVRS NN O O
system NN O O
facilitated NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
and NN O O
minimized NN O O
inconvenience NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Compliance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
details NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
healthcare NN O O
services NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
year-long NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
overall NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
lower NN O O
RU NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
sibenadet NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
sustained NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
studies NN O O
conducted NN O O
concurrently NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
provide NN O O
valuable NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
RU NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
COPD NN O O
and NN O O
insights NN O O
into NN O O
adjustments NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
disease NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
COPD NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
seen NN O O
to NN O O
utilize NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
expensive NN O O
resources NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

inpatient NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
an NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
periods NN O O
when NN O O
an NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
periods NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
attending NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
doubled NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
trip NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Emergency NN O I-OUT
Room NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
approximately NN O O
ninefold NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
reporting NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
occurred NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
IVRS NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
gathering NN O O
RU NN O O
data NN O O
over NN O O
long NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
advent NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
any NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
and NN O O
limit NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
services NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
reduce NN O O
associated NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12568856)

Carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
uterine NN O O
distension NN O O
medium NN O O
for NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
vaginoscopic NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O O
in NN O O
infertile NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
uterine NN O O
distension NN O O
medium NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
vaginoscopic NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O O
in NN O O
infertile NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Hysteroscopy NN O O
units NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
university NN O O
hospitals NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
private NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-nine NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
hysteroscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Outpatient NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
CO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
with NN O O
endometrial NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
when NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
cavity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
tip NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
vasovagal NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
required NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
analgesics NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Uterine NN O O
distension NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
allows NN O O
operative NN O O
procedures NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
bipolar NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12575712)

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
long-acting NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12576246)

Low-dose NN O O
mifepristone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
uterine NN O O
leiomyomata 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
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
mifepristone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
leiomyoma NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
leiomyomata NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mifepristone NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Uterine NN O O
volume NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
bimonthly NN O O
intervals NN O O
by NN O O
sonography NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
follicle-stimulating NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O O
enzymes NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
endometrial NN O O
samples NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
menstrual NN O O
bleeding NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
taking NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
20 NN O O
subjects NN O O
taking NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
completed NN O O
all NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
shrank NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

Leiomyoma-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparably NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Amenorrhea NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
60-65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
2.5 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
in NN O O
anemic NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-mg NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Simple NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
hyperplasia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
subjects 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

No NN O O
atypical NN O I-OUT
hyperplasia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Mifepristone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
comparable NN O O
leiomyoma NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
few NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess 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
low-dose NN O O
mifepristone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12576957)

Enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
with NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
gamma-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antioxidants NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
alveolar NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
influx NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Previously NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
fed NN O O
an NN O O
enteral NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gamma-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
elevated NN O I-INT
antioxidants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPA+GLA NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Oxepa NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
these NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvements NN O O
by NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
testing NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
enteral NN O O
feeding NN O O
with NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
alveolar-capillary NN O O
membrane NN O O
protein NN O O
permeability NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin NN O O
( NN O O
IL NN O O
) NN O O
-8 NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
, NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
leukotriene NN O O
B4 NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
responsible NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Intensive NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Ohio NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury/acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
43 NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
isonitrogenous NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
that NN O O
was NN O O
tube NN O O
fed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
caloric NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
times NN O O
1.33 NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Bronchoalveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
BAL NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
BALF NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ceruloplasmin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
B4 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Oxygenation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
Pao2/Fio2 NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
BAL NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
fed NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
BALF NN O I-OUT
ceruloplasmin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

BALF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
B4 NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O O
patients NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

BALF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
similarly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
BALF NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Pao2/Fio2 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
BALF NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O O
and NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
alveolar-capillary NN O O
membrane NN O O
protein NN O O
permeability NN O O
, NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
B4 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
preliminary NN O O
investigation NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
BALF NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
and NN O O
leukotriene NN O O
B4 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
associated NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
BALF NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
and NN O O
alveolar NN O O
membrane NN O O
protein NN O O
permeability NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
respiratory NN O O
distress NN O O
syndrome NN O O
patients NN O O
fed NN O O
EPA+GLA NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvements NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12579266)

S-phase NN O I-INT
kinase-associated NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
prognostic NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
F-box NN O O
protein NN O O
S-phase NN O I-INT
kinase-associated NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Skp2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
positively NN O O
regulates NN O O
the NN O O
G1-S NN O O
transition NN O O
by NN O O
controlling NN O O
the NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
G1 NN O O
regulators NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
p27kip1 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LSCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
LSCC NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-OUT
overexpression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
36.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
metastasis NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
p27kip1 NN O O
expression NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
method NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-INT
overexpression NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.0051 NN O O
and NN O O
p=0.0002 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
p27kip1 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-INT
overexpression NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
p27kip1 NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
poorest NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0017 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-INT
expression NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
to NN O O
possess NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.0234 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.2055 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional NN O I-OUT
hazards NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Skp2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
Skp2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
closely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O O
progression NN O O
and NN O O
represented NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
LSCC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12585821)

The NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
computer-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
pervasive NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
communicative NN O O
impairments NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
restricted NN O O
, NN O O
ritualized NN O O
, NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endophenotype NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
includes NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
instance NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
Theory NN O O
of NN O O
Mind NN O O
and NN O O
problems NN O O
recognizing NN O O
facial NN O O
affect NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
computer-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
teach NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
basic NN O I-OUT
facially NN O I-OUT
expressed NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger-syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
investigation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
priori NN O O
the NN O O
facial NN O O
affect NN O O
recognition NN O O
test NN O O
had NN O O
shown NN O O
good NN O O
psychometric NN O O
properties NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
normative NN O O
sample NN O O
( NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
: NN O O
rtt=.91-.95 NN O O
; NN O O
retest NN O O
reliability NN O O
: NN O O
rtt=.89-.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prepost NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
computer NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
training NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
training NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trained NN O O
individuals NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
found NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
circumscribed NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
social-communicative NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
generalization NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
ensured NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12590404)

Fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
against NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although 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
are NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
than NN O O
tricyclic NN O O
antidepressants NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severe NN O O
depression NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or= NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
17-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
HAMD NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
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
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clomipramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100-250 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fluvoxamine NN O O
and NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
both NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
marked NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
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
them NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
17-item NN O I-OUT
HAMD NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Montgomery-Asberg NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or= NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
17-item NN O I-OUT
HAMD NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
. NN O O

Clomipramine NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
discontinued NN O I-OUT
prematurely NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
with NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Fluvoxamine NN O O
and NN O O
clomipramine NN O O
are NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12591004)

Bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
essential NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
perilla NN O I-INT
seed NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Increased NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
eicosapentanoic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
docosohexanoic NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
precursor NN O O
, NN O O
alpha-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ALA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
health NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

Enteric-coating NN O O
( NN O O
Entrox NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
improves NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
capsules NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
absorption NN O O
after NN O O
chronic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Entrox NN O O
coating NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
ALA NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
ALA-rich NN O O
Perilla NN O O
seed NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
Entrox-coated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
non-coated NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
6g NN O O
dose NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
ALA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
24h NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
ALA NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
ALA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
24h NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
Entrox NN O O
vs. NN O O
non-coated NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
Entrox NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12599844)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
LIFE-study NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
most NN O O
suitable NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
drug NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prespecified NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LIFE-study NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1195 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
LIFE-study NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomisation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
for NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
ECG-verified NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
177/96 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
4.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
composite NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
146/79 NN O O
and NN O O
148/79 NN O O
in NN O O
losartan-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
atenolol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
103 NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
586 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
139 NN O O
assigned NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
609 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
cause NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
39 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

DISCUSSION NN O O
Losartan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
anti-hypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12602669)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
spring NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
by NN O O
cysteinyl NN O O
leukotrienes NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cysteinyl NN O I-INT
leukotriene NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
1,214 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spring NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
spring NN O I-PAR
allergen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
predefined NN O I-PAR
daytime NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
3- NN O O
to NN O O
5-day NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
522 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
171 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
521 NN O O
) NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
diary NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
best NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
worst NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Montelukast NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
least NN O O
square NN O O
means NN O O
, NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
averaged NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
nighttime NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Loratadine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
validating NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
and NN O O
loratadine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Therapy NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improves NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12604982)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
on NN O O
enteric NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Colonization NN O O
patterns NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
by NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
flora NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
gut NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Probiotics NN O O
could NN O O
affect NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
either NN O O
directly NN O O
through NN O O
colonization NN O O
or NN O O
indirectly NN O O
by NN O O
promoting NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
gut NN O O
microbial NN O O
ecology NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
ability 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
to NN O O
colonize NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
modify NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
microbial NN O I-OUT
ecology NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Infants NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
24 NN O O
treated NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
LGG NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
23 NN O O
treated NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Stools NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
weighing NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1500 NN O O
g NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
quantitative NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Colonization NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
LGG NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
weighed NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1500 NN O O
g NN O O
versus NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

Colonization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
within NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
LGG NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
bacterial NN O O
species NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
larger NN O O
infants NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
1.11 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.12 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
higher NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
colony NN O I-OUT
forming NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CFU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8.79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.43 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.22 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.63 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
infants NN O O
weighing NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1500 NN O O
g NN O O
LGG NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
Gram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
species NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
CFU NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Gram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
infants NN O O
weighing NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1500 NN O O
g. NN O O
However NN O O
, NN O O
Gram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
CFU NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
species NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
after NN O O
LGG NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
weighing NN O O
1500 NN O O
to NN O O
1999 NN O O
g NN O O
LGG NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
probiotic NN O I-OUT
preparation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
gestational NN O O
and NN O O
post-natal NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
LGG NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
poor NN O O
colonizer NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12614193)

ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
AT-1 NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
- NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
OPTIMAAL NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
? NN O O
OPTIMAAL NN O O
( NN O O
Optimal NN O O
Trial NN O O
in NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
Antagonist NN O O
Losartan NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
major NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
Type NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Cozaar NN O O
trade NN O O
mark NN O O
, NN O O
Merck NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
captonpril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Capoten NN O O
trade NN O O
mark NN O O
, NN O O
Elan NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
and NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
499 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
447 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
losartan NN O O
( NN O O
420 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
363 NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Losartan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
discontinuing NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
versus NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
should NN O O
remain NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
complicated NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12614412)

Ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results 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
Although NN O O
no NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
varicose NN O O
veins NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
varicose NN O O
veins NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
September NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
therefore NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
amounted NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
for NN O O
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
for NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
additional NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
then NN O O
solely NN O O
for NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
complications NN O O
occurring NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
phlebectomy NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
blisters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
teleangiectatic NN O I-OUT
matting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
bandaging NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
varicose NN O O
veins NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leg NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O O
varicose NN O O
veins NN O O
persist NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
compression NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
argued NN O O
that NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
recurrence NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
phlebectomy NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
better NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12614707)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
review NN O O
and NN O O
case NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
in NN O O
research NN O O
for NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
education NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
trials NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
preference NN O O
effects NN O O
; NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
differential NN O O
outcomes NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
is NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
his NN O O
or NN O O
her NN O O
preferred NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
review NN O O
theoretical NN O O
and NN O O
empirical NN O O
literature NN O O
regarding NN O O
designs NN O O
that NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
appropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
designs NN O O
to NN O O
health NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
illustrate NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preference NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
health NN O O
education NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
present NN O O
analyses NN O O
using NN O O
process NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O I-PAR
RCT/preference NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
formats NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Self-Directed NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
PRIDE NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
being NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
choose NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
program NN O O
format NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
participate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
chose NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
format NN O I-INT
were NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
times NN O O
as NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
class NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
classes NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
format NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Several NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
format NN O O
preference NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
important NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
targeting NN O O
disease-management NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12618690)

Optimal NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
chronic NN O O
venous NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
While NN O O
definitive NN O O
therapy NN O O
awaits NN O O
level NN O O
I NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
controversy NN O O
persists NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
operation NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
propose NN O O
a NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
correction NN O O
or NN O O
amelioration NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
hypertension NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
hydrodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
hydrostatic NN O O
venous NN O O
reflux NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
balloon NN O O
dissection NN O O
, NN O O
subfascial NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
perforating NN O O
vein NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
SEPS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
posterior NN O O
deep NN O O
compartment NN O O
fasciotomy NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
ligation NN O O
and NN O O
stripping NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
superficial NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
when NN O O
reflux NN O O
is NN O O
documented NN O O
at NN O O
duplex NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
( NN O O
US NN O O
) NN O O
scanning NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cooperative NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
retrospective NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
832 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
CEAP NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
series NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C4 NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C5 NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
413 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C6 NN O I-PAR
CVI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C4 NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
venous NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
AVP NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
duplex NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
to NN O O
document NN O O
reflux NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
deep NN O O
, NN O O
superficial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perforating NN O O
venous NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
durability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
over NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
31/2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Uniformity NN O O
was NN O O
attempted NN O O
by NN O O
adoption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
senior NN O O
author NN O O
's NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
technique NN O O
through NN O O
on-site NN O O
preceptorship NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
surgeon NN O O
's NN O O
operative NN O O
theater NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
This NN O O
technique NN O O
interrupted NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
incompetent NN O O
perforating NN O O
veins NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
832 NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
SEPS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
460 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O O
saphenous NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stripping NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
ulcers NN O I-OUT
healed NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
64 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
ulcers NN O I-OUT
failed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
heal NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-two NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months-2 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
mo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Repeat NN O O
SEPS NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
96 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
deep NN O O
valve NN O O
repair NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
C4 NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
41 NN O O
refused NN O O
postoperative NN O O
AVP NN O O
, NN O O
leaving NN O O
51 NN O O
compliant NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SEPS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
AVP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O O
in NN O O
825 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
consisted NN O O
mostly NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
paradysthesia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
embolus NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
operative NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
31/2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
operative NN O O
protocol NN O O
proved NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
832 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SEPS NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
C4 NN O O
disease NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
AVP NN O O
, NN O O
objectively NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
reflux NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
CVI NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
definitive NN O O
level NN O O
I NN O O
evidence NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
operative NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
advocated NN O O
as NN O O
optimal NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
CVI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12630606)

A NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
positioning NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
morbidly NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypoxemia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
morbidly NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
concern NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesiologists NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
etiology NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
problem NN O O
is NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
positioning NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
contributing NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
optimal NN O O
patient NN O O
positioning NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
that NN O O
minimizes NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
hypoxemia NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
morbidly NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index-BMI NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
positions NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
Reverse NN O I-INT
Trendelenburg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Supine-Horizontal NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
Back NN O I-INT
Up NN O I-INT
Fowler NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
paralysis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
laryngoscopy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
placement NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
ventilated NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oxygen/50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
disconnected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ventilation NN O O
circuit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
capillary NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximeter NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
decline NN O O
from NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
and NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ventilation NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
immediately NN O O
re-established NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lowest NN O O
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
resuming NN O O
ventilation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
nadir NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
of NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hip-waist NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ 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
airway NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SAP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
was NN O O
178 NN O O
+/- NN O O
55 NN O O
, NN O O
123 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
153 NN O O
+/- NN O O
63 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
Trendelenburg NN O O
position NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
and NN O O
took NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recover NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
morbidly NN O O
obese NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
Reverse NN O I-INT
Trendelenburg NN O I-INT
position NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
longest NN O O
SAP NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
Back NN O I-INT
Up NN O I-INT
Fowler NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Horizontal-Supine NN O I-INT
positions NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
on NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
morbidly NN O O
obese NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
mask NN O O
ventilate NN O O
and/or NN O O
intubate NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
extra NN O O
time NN O O
may NN O O
preclude NN O O
adverse NN O O
sequelae NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
hypoxemia NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
Reverse NN O I-INT
Trendelenburg NN O I-INT
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
position NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12635578)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
nasal NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
perennial NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
daytime NN O O
somnolence NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
disrupted NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
nasal NN O O
congestion NN O O
. NN O O

Medications NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
decreased NN O O
congestion NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Previously NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
nasal NN O O
steroids NN O O
improved NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Presently NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
performed NN O O
objective NN O O
sleep NN O O
testing NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
subjective NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
topical NN O O
nasal NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
decreasing NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
overnight NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
polysomnography NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
recruited NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
perennial NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blinded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cross-over NN O I-PAR
fashion NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
a NN O O
spray NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
sprays NN O O
each NN O O
side NN O O
everyday NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
Balaam NN O O
's NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Epworth NN O I-OUT
Sleepiness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
overnight NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
polysomnograms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
tools NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
last NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
4-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
were NN O O
summarized NN O O
, NN O O
scored NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
PROC NN O O
MIXED NN O O
in NN O O
SAS NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
between NN O O
arousals NN O O
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Fluticasone NN O O
improved NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) 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
apnea/hypopnea NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
. NN O O

Daytime NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
used NN O O
at NN O O
approved NN O O
doses NN O O
improves NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
perennial NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
apnea/hypopnea NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12636954)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
peer NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
on NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
peer NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-two NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
peer-led NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
smoking NN O O
( NN O O
-9.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
-4.5 NN O O
cigarettes NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
absolute NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

Infant NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
cigarettes NN O O
smoked NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.29 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
expired NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

Birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
born NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
averaged NN O O
7.2 NN O O
lb NN O O
versus NN O O
6.8 NN O O
and NN O O
6.3 NN O O
lb NN O O
for NN O O
mothers NN O O
smoking NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
six NN O O
cigarettes NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
at NN O O
delivery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Peer NN O I-OUT
counseling NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cigarettes NN O I-OUT
smoked NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
cigarette NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Infant NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
peer NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
newborn NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
their NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12638099)

Continuous NN O I-INT
low-level NN O I-INT
heatwrap NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
acute NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain 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 O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
low-level NN O I-INT
heatwrap NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
( NN O O
investigator NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
facilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Two-hundred NN O I-PAR
nineteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
( NN O I-INT
heatwrap NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=95 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=96 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
blinding NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=12 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
unheated NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
wrap NN O I-INT
n=16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
: NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
mean NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0- NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
5-point NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
: NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
101-point NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
trunk NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
fingertip-floor NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Roland-Morris NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Heatwrap NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
significant NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
heatwrap NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.76+/-.10 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.05+/-.11 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43.1+/-1.21 NN O O
vs NN O O
47.6+/-1.21 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
flexibility NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.6+/-.44 NN O O
cm NN O O
vs NN O O
16.5+/-.45 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Disability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heatwrap NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. 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
infrequent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Continuous NN O O
low-level NN O O
heatwrap NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
, NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
LBP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12638834)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
25-gauge NN O I-INT
Quincke NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24-gauge NN O I-INT
Gertie NN O I-INT
Marx NN O I-INT
needles NN O O
for NN O O
spinal NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
insertion NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
between NN O O
25-gauge NN O I-INT
Quincke NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24-gauge NN O I-INT
Gertie NN O I-INT
Marx NN O I-INT
needles NN O I-INT
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
of NN O O
Benin NN O O
Teaching NN O O
Hospital NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
university-affiliated NN O O
tertiary NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Parturients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
25-gauge NN O I-INT
Quincke NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
24-gauge NN O I-INT
Gertie NN O I-INT
Marx NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
spaces NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
coagulopathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pre-eclampsia/eclampsia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
identification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postdural NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PDPH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-postdural NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NPDPH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
backache NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
24-gauge NN O O
Gertie NN O O
Marx NN O O
needle NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
attempt NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Non-postdural NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

PDPH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Quincke NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Gertie NN O O
Marx NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
backache NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
ease NN O O
of NN O O
insertion NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
PDPH NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
Gertie NN O O
Marx NN O O
needle NN O O
may NN O O
encourage NN O O
trainee NN O O
anaesthetists NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
this NN O O
needle NN O O
for NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12642251)

Iontophoretic NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
of NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
better NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
medial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
epicondylitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tennis NN O I-OUT
elbow NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Dermal NN O O
iontophoretic NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
of NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O O
phosphate NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medial NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
On NN O O
six NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
apart NN O O
within NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
199 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
40 NN O O
mA-minutes NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
active NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
23-mm NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
100-mm NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
14 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
mm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
19 NN O O
mm NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
scored NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
better NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Investigator-rated NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
completing NN O O
six NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Iontophoresis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epicondylitis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
short-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12642847)

Acute NN O O
and NN O O
subchronic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
often NN O O
accompany NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
first-generation NN O O
antihistamines NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
might NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
memory NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Levocetirizine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recently NN O O
introduced NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
antihistamine NN O O
said NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
free NN O O
from NN O O
sedative NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
acute NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subchronic NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administrated 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
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
test NN O O
battery NN O O
( NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
comprising NN O O
a NN O O
word-learning NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Sternberg NN O O
Memory NN O O
Scanning NN O O
Test NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
tracking NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
easy NN O O
and NN O O
hard NN O O
version NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
divided NN O O
attention NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
tracking NN O O
and NN O O
memory NN O O
scanning NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
separately NN O O
for NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O O
tracking NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
easy NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,90 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
25.9 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
hard NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,90 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
20.5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
divided NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
tracking NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,90 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
23.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
scanning NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,90 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
22.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
on NN O O
word-learning NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Sternberg NN O I-OUT
Memory NN O I-OUT
Scanning NN O I-OUT
Tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
impair NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tracking NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
unaffected NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
subchronic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
diphenhydramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
divided NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tracking NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
acute NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12644413)

Clonidine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
improves NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
diabetic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
ophthalmic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
stressful NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
concentrations NN O O
are NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
catecholamines NN O O
and NN O O
cortisol NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
centrally NN O O
acting NN O O
alpha NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-adrenoceptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
sympathoadrenal NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ophthalmic NN O O
surgery NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
premedication NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
premedicated NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
flunitrazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
5.5-11.1 NN O O
mmol NN O O
litre NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
every NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
counter-regulatory NN O I-OUT
hormones NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Glycaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
: NN O O
clonidine NN O O
group NN O O
9.0 NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
5.1 NN O O
) NN O O
units NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
18.6 NN O O
( NN O O
10.2 NN O O
) NN O O
units NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
catecholamine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Premedication NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
90 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
improves NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ophthalmic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12651674)

Esmolol NN O I-INT
blunts NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Cerebral NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
during NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
mechanism NN O O
is NN O O
speculative NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
overactivity NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included 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-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
short-acting NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Esmolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg. NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
infused NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
extubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBFV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
extubation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5-60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
extubation NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
COe NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
esophageal NN O O
Doppler NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
extubation NN O O
. NN O O

CBFV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
COe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
esmolol NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
CBFV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
COe NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
esmolol NN O O
blunted NN O O
the NN O O
CBFV NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
emergence NN O O
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
that NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
overactivity NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Esmolol NN O O
blunted NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
origin NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
potential NN O O
deleterious NN O O
consequences NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12653872)

Multiple NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
echolucent NN O I-PAR
plaques NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
randomized NN O O
6-year NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
plaques NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypothetically NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanism NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
echolucent NN O O
, NN O O
instable NN O O
, NN O O
rupture-prone NN O O
plaques NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
B-mode NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
6-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
randomization NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
High NN O I-INT
resolution NN O I-INT
B-mode NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
characterize NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
echogenicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
four NN O O
subgroups NN O O
- NN O O
dominantly NN O O
echolucent NN O O
, NN O O
substantially NN O O
echolucent NN O O
, NN O O
dominantly NN O O
echogenic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
uniformly NN O O
echogenic NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
echolucent NN O I-OUT
plaques NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
end-point NN O O
( NN O O
any NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
echogenic NN O I-OUT
plaques NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4/13 NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4/17 NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
11 NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
plaques NN O O
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
end-point NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
was NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
echolucent NN O O
plaques NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large-scale NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12653895)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
curative NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
Adjuvant NN O I-INT
locoregional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
curative NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
( NN O O
HCC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
retrospective NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
either NN O O
one NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin/lipiodol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
received NN O O
four NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
818 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
47.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
42.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recurrences NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2-year NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
one-dose NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
four-dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
respective NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
was NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
permeation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12654143)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
supports NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neuromotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
equivalent NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neuromotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
nursed NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
term NN O O
equivalent NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
observer NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
123 NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
neonatal NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sole NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Western NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
29-30 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
disposable NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interventions NN O O
started NN O O
when NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
stable NN O O
and NN O O
ceased NN O O
when NN O O
routine NN O O
side-lying NN O O
commenced NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
term NN O O
postmenstrual NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Infants NN O O
nursed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
improved NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
term NN O O
equivalent NN O O
age NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
infants NN O O
nursed NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
only NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
nursed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O O
support NN O O
roll NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O O
support NN O O
nappy NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improved NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
term NN O O
equivalent NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
nappy NN O I-INT
while NN O O
very NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
are NN O O
nursed NN O O
prone NN O O
improves NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
term NN O O
postmenstrual NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
postural NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
roll NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
posture NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
term NN O O
equivalent NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12660676)

Sustained NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
GUSTO-III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
will NN O O
develop NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
, NN O O
timing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
international NN O O
Global NN O O
Utilization NN O O
of NN O O
Streptokinase NN O O
and NN O O
TPA NN O O
( NN O O
alteplase NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
Occluded NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Arteries NN O O
( NN O O
GUSTO NN O O
) NN O O
-III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-INT
identified NN O I-INT
independent NN O I-INT
predictors NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inhospital NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
fibrillation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
tachycardia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
30-day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1-year NN O I-INT
mortality NN O I-INT
rates NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
1121 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
13,921 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
arrhythmias NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
hospitalization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
inhospital NN O O
VF NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
Killip NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
preenrollment NN O I-OUT
lidocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
beta-blocker NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
< NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
enrollment NN O O
; NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
inhospital NN O O
VT NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
lidocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
before NN O O
enrollment NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
Killip NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
faster NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
advanced NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
VF NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
VT NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
neither NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
late NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
enrollment NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
early NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
enrollment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
, NN O O
inhospital NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
30-day NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
when NN O O
occurring NN O O
later NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O O
therapies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12663340)

Dose-response NN O O
characteristics NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Inhaled NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
systemic NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
( NN O O
PaO2/FIO2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
response NN O O
varies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
outcome NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O O
dose-response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
inhaled NN O O
NO NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
parts NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
million NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ppm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
NO NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
weaning NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
initiated NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
DR NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PaO2/FIO2 NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PaO2/FIO2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
ppm NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
NO-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DR NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
NO-treated NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
left NN O O
shifted NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O O
response NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
ppm NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
ppm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
inhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
disappeared NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
inhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
with NN O O
constant NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
ppm NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
enhanced NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
after NN O O
several NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
allow NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ventilation NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
inhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
in NN O O
ARDS NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
carefully NN O O
interpreted NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
used NN O O
constant NN O O
NO NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
become NN O O
overdoses NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
several NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12668582)

Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single- NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
oral NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oxazolidinone NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oxazolidinone NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
single- NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-escalating NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
( NN O O
375 NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
or NN O O
625 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
500 NN O O
or NN O O
625 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first- NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
administrations NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Non-compartmental NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O O
of NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
linezolid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
proportionally NN O O
with NN O O
dose NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
linezolid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
MIC90 NN O O
for NN O O
susceptible NN O O
target NN O O
pathogens NN O O
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
dosing NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
routes NN O O
. NN O O

Linezolid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
linezolid NN O I-INT
exhibit NN O O
linear NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
concentrations NN O O
remaining NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
MIC90 NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dosing NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
schedule NN O O
for NN O O
linezolid NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
converting NN O O
from NN O O
intravenous NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
dosing NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12676060)

Enhanced NN O O
pitch NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
signal NN O O
detection NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Past NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
a NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
comparison NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
memorizing NN O O
picture-pitch NN O O
associations NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
detecting NN O O
pitch NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
melodies NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
musical NN O I-PAR
savants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
also NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
possess NN O O
absolute NN O O
pitch NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
superiority NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
abnormally NN O O
high NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
fine-grained NN O O
pitch NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sounds NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
psychoacoustic NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
were NN O O
devised NN O O
so NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
signal NN O O
detection NN O O
methodology NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
musically NN O I-PAR
untrained NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
normally NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Their NN O O
task NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
judge NN O O
the NN O O
pitch NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pure NN O I-INT
tones NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
same-different NN O O
discrimination NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
high-low NN O O
categorization NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
obtained NN O O
psychometric NN O O
functions NN O O
revealed NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pitch NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
categorization NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
pitch NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Superior NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
pitch NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
categorization NN O I-OUT
extends NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
enhanced NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
domain NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O O
perceptual NN O O
functioning NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
peaks NN O O
of NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O O
Mottron NN O O
& NN O O
Burack NN O O
, NN O O
2001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
outperform NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
population NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
low-level NN O O
perceptual NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12680863)

A NN O O
single NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
induced NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-asthmatic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
plasma NN O O
interleukin-5 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND 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
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nasal NN O O
allergic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
enhances NN O O
bone-marrow NN O O
eosinophil NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
via NN O O
IL-5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
increased NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O O
allergy NN O O
on NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
open-labelled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
non-asthmatic NN O I-PAR
SAR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
season NN O O
on NN O O
induced NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

SAR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
skin-prick NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
IgE NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
function/bronchial NN O I-PAR
hyper-responsiveness NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
season NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
asthma/wheezing NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sputum NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supernatant NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sICAM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
diluent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Nasal NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pre NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O O
= NN O O
212 NN O O
+/- NN O O
63 NN O O
micro NN O O
g/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sICAM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
to NN O O
6.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
provocation NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
to NN O O
29 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sputum NN O I-OUT
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
undetectable NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
challenge NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
to NN O O
14.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.9 NN O O
pg/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
and NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
IL-5 NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
'responders NN O O
' NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.71 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
A NN O O
single NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
in NN O O
SAR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
increased NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
via NN O O
pronounced NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cells NN O O
through NN O O
circulating NN O O
immediate-type NN O O
reaction NN O O
cytokines NN O O
like NN O O
IL-5 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
explanatory NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
SAR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
incident NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12704402)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
energy-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
weight NN O O
stabilization NN O O
in NN O O
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
replacing NN O O
some NN O O
dietary NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
with NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
energy NN O O
restriction NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TEE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
REE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thermic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperinsulinemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Parallel NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
MJ/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
MJ/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
high-protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
E NN O O
as NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
lower-protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
E NN O O
as NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
E NN O O
as NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperinsulinemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
males/26 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
34-65 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
28-43 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
fasting NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
12-45 NN O I-PAR
mU/l NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TEE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
REE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RQ NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TEF NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
an NN O O
HP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
meal NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
diet NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
7.9+/-0.6 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
6.8+/-0.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
was NN O O
fat NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

REE NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
similarly NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
diet NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
719+/-106 NN O O
kJ/day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TEF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
HP NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
LP NN O I-INT
meal NN O O
at NN O O
baseline 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
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TEF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
dietary NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
TEE NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperinsulinemia NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
energy-restrictive NN O O
diet NN O O
containing NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
protein-to-carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Caloric NN O O
restriction NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
macronutrient NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12713767)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
absorption NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Following NN O O
dietary NN O O
stabilization NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
2-12-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
lead-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
827 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LDL-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=3.36 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=6.47 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
250 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
triglycerides NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=3.95 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
350 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
3:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks 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
percentage NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
LDL-C. NN O I-OUT
Ezetimibe NN O O
reduced NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
17.7 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O O
to NN O O
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
subgroups NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
trend NN O I-OUT
toward NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lipid-soluble NN O I-OUT
vitamins NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
favorably NN O O
affects NN O O
other NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O O
new NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
lipid NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12718385)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
intravesical NN O I-INT
instillations NN O I-INT
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravesical NN O I-INT
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
instilled NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Disease NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interval NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
survivorship NN O O
curves NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
used NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
19.8 NN O O
% NN O O
-38.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
-36.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
22 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.580 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
Grade NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
primary NN O O
tumors 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
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.784 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
21.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Especially NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
tolerable NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
intravesical NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12738312)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comet NN O O
assay NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
oxygen NN O O
microelectrode NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
head-and-neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
Eppendorf NN O I-INT
PO2 NN O I-INT
histograph NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
alkaline NN O I-INT
comet NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
as NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
measuring NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head-and-neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
65 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head-and-neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
nodal NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Eppendorf NN O I-OUT
PO2 NN O I-OUT
histographs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comet NN O I-OUT
assays NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
fine-needle NN O I-INT
aspirates NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
sufficient NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
comet NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Individual NN O O
cells NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
single-strand NN O I-INT
breaks NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
alkaline NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
electrophoresis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
distribution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
values NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
quantified NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
median NN O I-INT
tail NN O I-INT
moment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Nonirradiated NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
from NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
fine-needle NN O O
aspirates NN O O
received NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vitro NN O I-INT
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
oxygenated NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
1- NN O O
and NN O O
2-min NN O O
MTM NN O O
( NN O O
slope NN O O
= NN O O
0.77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
irradiated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
Eppendorf NN O I-OUT
PO2 NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comet NN O I-OUT
MTM NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
node NN O O
studied NN O O
and NN O O
comet NN O O
MTMs NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
Eppendorf NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Comet NN O O
assays NN O O
are NN O O
reproducible NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
biopsies NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Intertumor NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MTM NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
radiosensitivity NN O O
but NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
Eppendorf NN O O
PO2 NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
comet NN O O
MTM NN O O
. NN O O

Comet NN O O
assays NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
Eppendorf NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
for NN O O
short-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comet NN O O
assay NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
for NN O O
locoregional NN O O
tumor NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
survivals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12742556)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
second NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
third NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hirsutism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
second NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
third NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hirsutism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hirsutism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
Ferriman-Gallwey NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
OC NN O O
containing NN O O
either NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/desogestrel NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
for NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Ferriman-Gallwey NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Hormones NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
duplicate NN O O
by NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
24 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/desogestrel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
23 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
desogestrel-containing NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
levonorgestrel-containing NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desogestrel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3alpha-androstanediol NN O I-OUT
glucuronide NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/desogestrel NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
Ferriman-Gallwey NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
Ferriman-Gallwey NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
35.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/desogestrel NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
33.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol/levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
Ferriman-Gallwey NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hirsute NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
third NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
desogestrel NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3alpha-androstanediol NN O I-OUT
glucuronide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
second NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hirsutism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12743142)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
whole-pelvic NN O O
versus NN O O
prostate-only NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
suppression NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Radiation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
9413 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
combined NN O O
androgen NN O I-INT
suppression NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
whole-pelvic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
boost NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
improves NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CAS NN O O
and NN O O
prostate-only NN O O
( NN O O
PO NN O O
) NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
also NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NCHT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
PFS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AHT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eligibility NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
prostate-specific NN O I-PAR
antigen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
ng/mL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1,323 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
accrued NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
WP NN O O
+ NN O O
NCHT NN O O
, NN O O
PO NN O O
+ NN O O
NCHT NN O O
, NN O O
WP NN O O
+ NN O O
AHT NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
PO NN O O
+ NN O O
AHT NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
cause NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
59.5 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
WP NN O O
RT NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-year NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PO NN O O
RT NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.022 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
NCHT NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
4-year NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
AHT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
comparing NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
WP NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
NCHT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PO NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
NCHT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
WP NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
AHT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
PO NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
AHT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
WP NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
NCHT NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PO NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NCHT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
PO NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
AHT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
WP NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
AHT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
LN NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12748567)

Systematic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
positional NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
management NN O O
approach NN O O
that NN O O
combines NN O O
the NN O O
canalith NN O I-INT
repositioning NN O I-INT
maneuver NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vestibular NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
positional NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPPV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
/=70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
semicircular NN O I-PAR
canal NN O I-PAR
BPPV NN O I-PAR
formed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
2 NN O O
parts NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-INT
CRM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
avoidance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CRM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
reevaluated NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vertigo NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
provoked NN O I-OUT
nystagmus NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRM NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
no-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
VR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
CRM NN O O
and NN O O
VR NN O O
improves NN O O
BPPV NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
CRM NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
VR NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
BPPV NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12769155)

Preservative-free NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-INT
hydrating NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
wearers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
saline NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
PVP NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
preservative-free NN O I-INT
hydrating NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
multidose NN O O
( NN O O
ABAK NN O O
) NN O O
bottles NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
contact NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
wearers NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-OUT
dryness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
4-week NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
polyvinylpyrrolidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NaCl NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
ocular NN O O
discomfort NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
biomicroscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
tolerability NN O O
on NN O O
instillation NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
PVP NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
NaCl NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mostly NN O I-PAR
wore NN O I-PAR
frequent-replacement NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
lenses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
environmental NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
video NN O I-PAR
monitors NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
air NN O I-PAR
conditioning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
D0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
PVP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NaCl NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
the NN O O
comfort NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lens NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
instillations NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relieve NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
for NN O O
PVP NN O I-INT
ABAK NN O O
; NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
for NN O O
NaCl NN O I-INT
ABAK NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PVP NN O I-INT
use NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
fluorescein-staining NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
punctuations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
considered NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

Lens NN O I-OUT
wettability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
deposits NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
subjects NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
ABAK NN O O
bottles NN O O
convenient NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ocular NN O O
hydration NN O O
improves NN O O
comfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
contact NN O O
lens NN O O
wearers NN O O
. NN O O

NaCl NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
fluorescein-staining NN O O
punctuations NN O O
, NN O O
lubrication NN O O
with NN O O
PVP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12787235)

Changing NN O O
Childbirth NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adapted NN O O
pilot NN O O
Changing NN O I-INT
Childbirth NN O I-INT
initiative NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
continuity NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
known NN O I-INT
midwives NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
maternity NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Between-groups NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cared NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
Changing NN O I-INT
Childbirth NN O I-INT
scheme NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
project NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-INT
scheme NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
postpartum NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
about NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
provided NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
antenatal NN O O
, NN O O
delivery NN O O
and NN O O
postpartum NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
about NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pilot NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
continuity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
their NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
felt NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
compromise NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
FOR NN O O
PRACTICE NN O O
Many NN O O
previous NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
introduce NN O O
the NN O O
Changing NN O O
Childbirth NN O O
initiative NN O O
have NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
continuity NN O O
of NN O O
carer NN O O
requirement NN O O
. NN O O

Taking NN O O
account NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
needs NN O O
and NN O O
existing NN O O
provision NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
adapted NN O O
this NN O O
concept NN O O
to NN O O
continuity NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
apparently NN O O
affect NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
guiding NN O O
principles NN O O
contained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
document NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
yet NN O O
enhanced NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
would NN O O
appear NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Changing NN O O
Childbirth NN O O
agenda NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
adapted NN O O
and NN O O
integrated NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
situations NN O O
without NN O O
sacrificing NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
overarching NN O O
principles NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12790985)

Stapled NN O I-INT
mucosectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
thrombosed NN O O
circumferentially NN O O
prolapsed NN O O
piles NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
haemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Stapled NN O I-INT
mucosectomy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
haemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
elective NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
haemorrhoids NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
setting 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
this NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
thrombosed NN O O
circumferential NN O O
prolapsed NN O O
haemorrhoids NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
Milligan-Morgan NN O I-INT
haemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stapled NN O I-INT
mucosectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
thrombosed NN O I-PAR
circumferential NN O I-PAR
prolapsed NN O I-PAR
haemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Operative NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
week NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
week NN O O
review NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
endoanal NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O O
on NN O O
passing NN O O
stool NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
this NN O O
stage NN O O
over NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
complained NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
review NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
readmission NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
none NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stapled NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
vs NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
claimed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
continent NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
ultrasonic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
internal NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Stapled NN O I-INT
mucosectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
thrombosed NN O O
circumferential NN O O
piles NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12791549)

An NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
rating NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
needs NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
systematically NN O O
prioritizing NN O O
needs NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
hazardous NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
exposures NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
manufacturing NN O I-PAR
work NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
evaluating NN O O
intervention NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
checklist NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
six NN O O
unique NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
yes/no NN O O
variables NN O O
organized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
3 NN O O
matrix NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
potential NN O O
versus NN O O
protection NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
columns NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
materials NN O O
, NN O O
processes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
interface NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
rows NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three NN O O
levels NN O O
correspond NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O O
hierarchy NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
indicator NN O O
variables NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
high/moderate/low NN O O
rating NN O O
. NN O O

Ratings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
matrix NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
combined NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
overall NN O O
exposure NN O O
prevention NN O O
rating NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
hierarchy NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
material NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
weighted NN O O
highest NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
human NN O O
interface NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
checklist NN O O
was NN O O
filled NN O O
out NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
industrial NN O I-PAR
hygienist NN O I-PAR
while NN O O
conducting NN O O
a NN O O
walk-through NN O I-PAR
inspection NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
manufacturing NN O I-PAR
processes/areas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
work NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
area NN O O
or NN O O
process NN O O
per NN O O
manufacturing NN O O
department NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
rated NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
resulting NN O O
Exposure NN O I-OUT
Prevention NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
exposures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
well NN O O
controlled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
areas NN O O
assessed NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
6-point NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
some NN O O
room NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
areas NN O O
( NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
roughly NN O O
10 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
assessed NN O O
are NN O O
urgently NN O O
in NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
hygienist NN O I-PAR
independently NN O O
assessed NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
areas NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
inter-rater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reliability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
( NN O O
weighted NN O O
kappa NN O O
= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rating NN O O
scheme NN O O
has NN O O
good NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
power NN O O
and NN O O
reliability NN O O
and NN O O
shows NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
broadly NN O O
applicable NN O O
and NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
needs NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Validation NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
next NN O O
step NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
assessment NN O O
method NN O O
complements NN O O
quantitative NN O O
exposure NN O O
assessment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
upstream NN O O
prevention NN O O
focus NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12792318)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
canalith NN O I-INT
repositioning NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
our NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
canalith NN O I-OUT
repositioning NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
expectation NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
benign NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
positional NN O O
vertigo NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
neurotological NN O O
clinic NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
positional NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
block NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
CRP NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
until NN O O
the NN O O
nystagmus NN O O
disappeared NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
mastoid NN O O
oscillator NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
were NN O O
any NN O O
instructions NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
maneuver NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
recorded NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anti-vertiginous NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cinnarizine NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Objective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
made NN O O
weekly NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
nystagmus NN O I-OUT
disappeared NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
had NN O O
passed NN O O
since NN O O
treatment NN O O
began NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
benign NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
positional NN O O
vertigo NN O O
were NN O O
75.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
48.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
lateral NN O I-OUT
canalithiasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fainting NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
expectation NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
benign NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
positional NN O O
vertigo NN O O
insofar NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
provided NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
required NN O O
less NN O O
dependence NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CRP NN O I-INT
were NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12793516)

Service NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
repeated NN O O
parasuicide NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
POPMACT NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
480 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
repeated NN O I-PAR
parasuicide NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
centres NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
cognitive-behaviour NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MACT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
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
are NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
personality NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Variation NN O O
in NN O O
service NN O O
policies NN O O
influenced NN O O
recruitment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
earlier NN O O
assessment NN O O
centres NN O O
seeing NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-harm NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
greater NN O O
parasuicide NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
later NN O O
ones NN O O
. NN O O

Parasuicide NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
parasuicide NN O O
episode NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
recent NN O O
latest NN O O
episode NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12804020)

Safety NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
astaxanthin-rich NN O I-INT
Haematococcus NN O I-INT
pluvialis NN O I-INT
algal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
growing NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
scientific NN O O
literature NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
astaxanthin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
powerful NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
carotenoids NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
E NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
confer NN O O
numerous NN O O
health NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
safety NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Haematococcus NN O I-INT
pluvialis NN O I-INT
algal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
astaxanthin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
35-69 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
three NN O O
gelcaps NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
meal NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
gelcaps NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
algal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
safflower NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
containing NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
astaxanthin NN O I-INT
each NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
gelcaps NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
safflower NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
chemistry NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
metabolic NN O O
panel NN O O
and NN O O
cell NN O O
blood NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
algal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
reveal NN O O
that NN O O
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
astaxanthin NN O I-INT
per NN O O
day NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
H. NN O I-INT
pluvialis NN O I-INT
algal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O O
by NN O O
healthy NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12810472)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hyperplastic NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O O
chloride NN O O
cotransporter NN O O
channel NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
basolateral NN O O
surface NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
epithelial NN O O
cell NN O O
, NN O O
vs NN O O
no NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
intranasal NN O O
mometasone NN O I-INT
furoate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
relapses NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
hyperplastic NN O O
sinusitis NN O O
with NN O O
nasal NN O O
polyposis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-9 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hyperplastic NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
surgically NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ENT NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Siena NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
97 NN O O
) NN O O
started NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intranasal NN O I-INT
furosemide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mometasone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
instrumental NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Seventeen NN O O
( NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
97 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
30.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
24.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
experienced NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
polyposis NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
noted NN O O
a NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
early-stage NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
furosemide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
mometasone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
grades NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
hyperplastic NN O I-OUT
sinusitis NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
polyposis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hyperplastic NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12813449)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
thrombopoietin NN O I-INT
augments NN O O
mobilization NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
progenitor NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
autologous NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
thrombopoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhTPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
mobilization NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
progenitor NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
PBPCs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
134 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
PBPC NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug 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
and NN O O
5 NN O O
before NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte NN O O
colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
) NN O O
10 NN O O
microg/kg/day NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
pheresis NN O O
starting NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
9 NN O O
. NN O O

Randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
treatments 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
and NN O O
5 NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n=27 NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rhTPO NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n=27 NN O O
) NN O O
rhTPO NN O O
1.5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
groups NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
n=22 NN O O
) NN O O
rhTPO NN O O
0.5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PBPC NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
through NN O O
4 NN O O
received NN O O
rhTPO NN O O
1.5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
+2 NN O O
, NN O O
+4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
+6 NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
5 NN O O
microg/kg/day NN O O
( NN O O
groups NN O O
1-3 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O O
colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
250 NN O O
microg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
5 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
5 NN O O
microg/kg/day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
rhTPO NN O I-INT
to NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
increased NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
yield/pheresis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cohorts NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
rhTPO NN O I-INT
was NN O O
started NN O O
before NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
yields NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
2.67 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
3.10 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
1.86 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
group NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
1.65 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=.006 NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparing NN O O
rhTPO NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
higher NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
=2 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=.050 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
yield NN O O
of NN O O
CD34+ NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P= NN O O
.041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

rhTPO-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
required NN O O
fewer NN O O
phereses NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
minimum NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.015 NN O O
) NN O O
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
rhTPO NN O I-INT
given NN O O
after NN O O
transplantation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
speed NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
antibodies NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
rhTPO NN O I-INT
can NN O O
safely NN O O
enhance NN O O
mobilization NN O O
of NN O O
PBPC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
leukapheresis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
allow NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
minimal NN O O
cell NN O O
yield NN O O
requirements NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
high-dose NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
PBPC NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12814457)

A NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
putative NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Whether NN O O
chronic NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
confers NN O O
benefit 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
asthma NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
fully NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
evaluating NN O O
putative NN O O
benefits NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
off NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
latter NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
dissociate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
from NN O O
ICS NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
preceded NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
when NN O O
ICS NN O I-INT
were NN O O
discontinued NN O O
and NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
started NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
basis NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
after NN O O
run-in NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
sequence NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
responses NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
first NN O O
or NN O O
second NN O O
. NN O O

Methacholine NN O I-OUT
PD20 NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
63 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
ICS NN O O
washout NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O I-OUT
pre NN O O
vs NN O O
post NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was 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
for NN O O
FEF25-75 NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
. NN O O

Montelukast NN O O
conferred 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
improvements NN O O
as NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
post NN O O
run-in NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
methacholine NN O O
PD20 NN O O
, NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
, NN O O
FEF25-75 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
, NN O O
diurnal NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
methacholine NN O O
PD20 NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
amounted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
1.6-fold NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
moderate NN O O
persistent NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
switched NN O O
from NN O O
taking NN O O
ICS NN O O
to NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
adding NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
conferred NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
indicated NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
exhibits NN O O
additive NN O O
effects NN O O
to NN O O
ICS/long-acting NN O I-INT
beta2-adrenoceptor NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
inhalers NN O O
upon NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12816740)

Antiinflammatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
phosphodiesterase-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
cilomilast NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ariflo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cilomilast NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ariflo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
phosphodiesterase-4 NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
improves NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
COPD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
its NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
cilomilast NN O I-INT
, NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
five NN O O
further NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
elastase NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
sputum NN O O
supernatant NN O O
. NN O O

Bronchial NN O O
biopsies NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
10 NN O O
were NN O O
immunostained NN O O
and NN O O
counted NN O O
for NN O O
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
T-lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subsets NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD68+ NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cells NN O O
expressing NN O O
the NN O O
genes NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
hybridization NN O O
and NN O O
quantified NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
cilomilast NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
any NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
bronchial NN O O
biopsies NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
cilomilast NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CD68+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
Poisson NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
cell NN O O
counts NN O O
analyzed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD8+ NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48 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
CD68+ NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
reduction NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
agent NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O

Phosphodiesterase-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
represent NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
new NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
substances NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1282182)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
spasm NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vasospastic NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
spasm NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteriography NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
spontaneously NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ergometrine-induced NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
active NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
an NN O O
ergometrine NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
Methergin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ergometrine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
0.10 NN O O
, NN O O
0.20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.40 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
tests NN O O
always NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ergometrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
10 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
reproducibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
negative NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ergometrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0034 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

After NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
negative NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ergometrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0039 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nicorandil NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
had NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nicorandil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
prevents NN O O
ergometrine-induced NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
compound NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vasospastic NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12823122)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
Hungarian NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
instrument NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
instrument NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine 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
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
119 NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
64 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
55 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
education NN O I-INT
instrument NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
EuroPharm-Forum NN O O
Guidelines NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
self-developed NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
' NN O O
QoL NN O O
, NN O O
asthma NN O O
knowledge NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
twice NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O I-INT
seminar NN O I-INT
, NN O O
education NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

QoL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
St NN O I-OUT
George NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Respiratory NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SGRQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
answers NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
asthma NN O O
questions NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
inhaler-use NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
neither NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
nor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
visits NN O O
neither NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SGRQ NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
experience NN O O
lower NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
regularly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
general NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
inhaler-use NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
regularly NN O O
refresh NN O O
asthma NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
self-management NN O O
plans NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
long-term NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12823129)

The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
IgE NN O O
sensitization NN O O
to NN O O
formaldehyde NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Formaldehyde NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
documented NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
occupational NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
attention NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
paid NN O O
to NN O O
FA NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
allergen NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
pollutant NN O O
that NN O O
enhances NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
FA-specific NN O O
IgE NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
IgE NN O O
sensitization NN O O
to NN O O
FA NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
nonallergic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Specific NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
FA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
CAP NN O I-INT
RAST NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
answered NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
containing NN O O
questions NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
FA-specific NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
two NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
IgE NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
FA NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
0.42 NN O O
and NN O O
0.46 NN O O
UA/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
FA-specific NN O O
IgE NN O O
had NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
had NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
rare NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
IgE NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
FA NN O O
appears NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
likely NN O O
that NN O O
FA NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
allergens NN O O
causing NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12824973)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
clomiphene NN O O
citrate-resistant NN O O
anovulation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
pill NN O O
suppression NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O O
clomiphene NN O O
citrate NN O O
treatment 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
endocrine NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O O
suppression NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
prospectively NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive/clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-OUT
beta-estradiol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follicle-stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
androgens NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assayed NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follicle NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Student NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptive/clomiphene NN O O
citrate NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
ovulated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
of NN O O
ovulatory NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O I-OUT
beta-estradiol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptive/clomiphene NN O O
citrate NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ovary NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptives NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
excellent NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
ovulation NN O O
and NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
androgens NN O O
, NN O O
luteinizing NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
beta-estradiol NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
improved NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12830748)

Clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
waiting NN O O
: NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
taught NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
received NN O O
during NN O O
that NN O O
visit NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
longer NN O O
patients NN O O
waited NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
their NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
were NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12834936)

Pethidine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
labor NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
parturients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
At NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neonates NN O O
developed NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Pethidine NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
alternative NN O O
than NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
obstetric NN O O
analgesia NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
superiority NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12839657)

[ NN O O
Long NN O O
term NN O O
observation NN O O
in NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
table NN O O
salt NN O O
on NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
220 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
supplementary NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
supplementary NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
given NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
table NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Night NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
urinary NN O O
Na NN O O
( 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
urinary NN O O
K NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
5.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg/1.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
group NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
( NN O O
1.3/1.7 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adequate NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
daily NN O O
table NN O O
salt NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
form NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
could NN O O
promote NN O O
their NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12850861)

Alendronate NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
, NN O O
weekly NN O O
in NN O O
conventional NN O O
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
in NN O O
enteric NN O O
tablets NN O O
: NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bisphosphonates NN O I-INT
are NN O O
now NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vanguard NN O O
of NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Frequently NN O O
, NN O O
gastro-oesophageal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
drugs 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
compare NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
alendronate NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
tablets NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
enteric NN O I-PAR
coating NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
3-month NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
45-58 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
osteopenia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T-score NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
quantitative NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
10mg/day NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
or NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
enteric NN O I-INT
alendronate NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
recorded NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-telopeptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
hydroxyproline NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
pyrosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
by NN O O
seven NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
one NN O O
woman NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

C-telopeptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
40.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
34.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
38.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
hydroxyproline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
31.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
31.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
27.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
25.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
25.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Weekly NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
alendronate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whether NN O O
conventional NN O O
or NN O O
enteric-coated NN O O
; NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
heartburn NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Enteric NN O I-INT
alendronate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
action NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
tablets NN O O
on NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1286738)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
food NN O O
supplement NN O O
, NN O O
ViviScal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hereditary NN O I-PAR
androgenic NN O I-PAR
alopecia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ViviScal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
incorporating NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
marine NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
silica NN O I-INT
compound NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hereditary NN O I-PAR
androgenic NN O I-PAR
alopecia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
histological NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
alopecia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
perifollicular NN O I-PAR
inflammation NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ViviScal NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
baldness NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
well NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
topical NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
minoxidil NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
biopsy NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
histological NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
non-vellus NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fourth NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ViviScal NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
non-vellus NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ViviScal NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
none NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fish NN O O
extract NN O O
showed NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
histological NN O O
difference NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
minimal NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
erythemal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
ViviScal NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
highly NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
androgenic NN O O
alopecia NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12872081)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
cancer NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
GI NN O O
tract NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
strip NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-INT
resections NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
resections NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
suck-and-ligate NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
submucosa NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
cap NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
submucosa NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dilute NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
assessment NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
specimen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
resected NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ligation NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
16.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.0 NN O O
] NN O O
x NN O O
11 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.1 NN O O
] NN O O
mm/185 NN O O
[ NN O O
84 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
cap NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
15.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.1 NN O O
] NN O O
x NN O O
10.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.7 NN O O
] NN O O
mm/168 NN O O
[ NN O O
83 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
ligation NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
20.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.8 NN O O
] NN O O
x NN O O
14.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.5 NN O O
] NN O O
mm/314 NN O O
[ NN O O
160 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
cap NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
18.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.1 NN O O
] NN O O
x NN O O
12.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.8 NN O O
] NN O O
mm/260 NN O O
[ NN O O
145 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
advantage NN O O
( NN O O
greater NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O O
specimens NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ligation NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
one NN O O
minor NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
severe NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
41 NN O O
of NN O O
72 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
resection NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
follow-up NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
after NN O O
resection NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
resection NN O O
specimens NN O O
[ NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
had NN O O
lateral NN O O
margins NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
coagulation NN O O
artifact NN O O
or NN O O
contained NN O O
malignancy NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
base NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
cap NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
with NN O O
submucosa NN O O
injection NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ligation NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
without NN O O
submucosa NN O O
injection NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
esophageal NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12876177)

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
I NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HSS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
reciprocity NN O O
and NN O O
standardised NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HSS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
CU/kg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
placebo/HSS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
HSS/saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
ADI-R NN O O
( NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Interview-Revised NN O O
) NN O O
algorithm NN O O
. NN O O

Severity NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
CARS NN O O
( NN O O
Childhood NN O O
Autism NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
Communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Symbolic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSBS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ritvo NN O I-OUT
Real-life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GBRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
daily NN O O
log NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
communication NN O O
subscale NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CSBS NN O O
, NN O O
specifying NN O O
communication NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
reciprocity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
social-affective NN O O
signalling NN O O
was NN O O
videotaped NN O O
and NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
trained NN O O
observer NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

After NN O O
randomisation 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
gender NN O O
, NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
GBRS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Ritvo NN O O
Scale NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
CSBS NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
scores NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O O
after NN O O
HSS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
HSS NN O I-INT
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
changing NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12876178)

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
II NN O O
: NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
secretin NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O O
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Standardised NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
short NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
that NN O O
standardised NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
insensitive NN O O
to NN O O
dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
child NN O O
behaviour NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
nonetheless NN O O
detectable NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
guess NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
2x2 NN O O
crossover NN O O
randomised NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixty NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
43-103 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
guess NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
guessed NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
correctly NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
guessed NN O I-PAR
incorrectly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
48 NN O O
instances NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
based NN O O
their NN O O
guess NN O O
on NN O O
perceived NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
six NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
based NN O O
their NN O O
guess NN O O
on NN O O
perceived NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
saw NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
offered NN O O
no NN O O
guess NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
family NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
family NN O O
was NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
secretin NN O I-INT
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (12881389)

Cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PELF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
than NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAMTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAMTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PELF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
both NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
5-FU NN O O
, NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
and NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
FAM NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
included NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
PELF NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
FAMTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PELF NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
FAMTX NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
PELF NN O O
and NN O O
FAMTX NN O I-INT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% 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
6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
CR NN O O
plus NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
rates NN O O
] NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
significantly NN O O
favouring NN O O
the NN O O
PELF NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
30.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
22.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
15.7 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
PELF NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
different NN O O
but NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
feasible NN O O
provided NN O O
that NN O O
careful NN O O
patient NN O O
monitoring NN O O
is NN O O
assured NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
PELF NN O I-INT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
than NN O O
FAMTX NN O I-INT
and NN O O
deserves NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12882611)

Phonophoresis NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
few NN O O
decades NN O O
, NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
transdermal NN O O
transport NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
referred NN O O
to NN O O
as NN O O
phonophoresis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purposes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
transdermal NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
concentrations NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
continuous NN O O
and NN O O
pulsed NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
arthroscopy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Just NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Fastum NN O O
gel NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
using NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
MHz NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
W/cm2 NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
duty NN O O
cycle NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
C NN O O
received NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
head NN O O
was NN O O
moved NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
10-cm2 NN O O
area NN O O
using NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
continuous NN O O
, NN O O
circular NN O O
movements NN O O
. NN O O

Biopsies NN O O
of NN O O
adipose NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
synovial NN O O
tissue NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
penetration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
also NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O I-OUT
whether NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
entered NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
negligible NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
synovial NN O O
tissue NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
synovial NN O O
tissue NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
synovial NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
AND NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
phonophoresis NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O O
allows NN O O
the NN O O
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
higher NN O O
local NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O O
phonopheresis NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
can NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
transdermal NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12886239)

Randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydroxyurea NN O I-INT
with NN O O
hydroxyurea NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
( NN O O
CML-study NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha NN O O
and NN O O
hydroxyurea NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
optimum NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
( NN O O
CML NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
hydroxyurea NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, 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
compare NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HU NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
HU NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CML-study NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
From NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
376 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
CML NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
340 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Ph/BCR-ABL NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
unbalanced NN O O
1:2 NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
study NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
CML-study NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
planned NN O O
in NN O O
advance NN O O
to NN O O
add NN O O
the NN O O
HU NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n=194 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
HU NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
534 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
226 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IFN/HU NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
308 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
observation NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
nontransplanted NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
7.6 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
7.9 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
IFN/HU NN O O
and NN O O
7.3 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
HU NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
profile NN O O
( NN O O
new NN O O
CML NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
532 NN O O
patients NN O O
: NN O O
200 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
239 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
intermediate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
93 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
IFN/HU-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
vs NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
169 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
IFN/HU-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
104 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
cytogenetic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
major NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n=24 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
minimal NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n=59 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
534 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
105 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
in NN O O
first NN O O
chronic NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
low-risk NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
65 NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
transplanted NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intermediate-risk NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
55 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
IFN/HU NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
HU NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
64 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
IFN/HU NN O O
and NN O O
53 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
HU-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0063 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
IFN NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
HU NN O O
achieves NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
HU NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
CML-study NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
IFN/HU NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
IFN NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

HU NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
IFN NN O O
in NN O O
IFN-based NN O O
therapies NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
comparisons NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12900807)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
urinary NN O O
N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Tubulointerstitial NN O O
injury NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
prospectively NN O O
analyzed NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase NN O O
( NN O O
NAG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
tubular NN O O
renal NN O O
damage NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
excretion NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
PTF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from 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
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Proteinuria NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
NAG NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
DM NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
PTF NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
DM NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NAG-creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
920 NN O O
+/- NN O O
522 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
14.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.9 NN O O
U/g NN O O
to NN O O
803 NN O O
+/- NN O O
523 NN O O
mg/d 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
10.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.3 NN O O
U/g NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
NAG NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
NAG NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.61 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
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.51 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
Urinary NN O I-OUT
NAG NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
increases NN O O
as NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
progresses NN O O
. NN O O

PTF NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
NAG NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PTF NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
tubulointerstitial NN O O
damage NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1291393)

An NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
comparative NN O O
analysis NN O O
: NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopy NN O O
of NN O O
dentin/restoration NN O O
interfaces NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
premolar NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
restorative NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
stored NN O O
in NN O O
deionized NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
7d NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
longitudinal NN O I-INT
sectioning NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mesio-distal NN O I-INT
plane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
sectioning NN O O
, NN O O
ten NN O O
specimens NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
chosen NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
available NN O O
sections NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sectioned NN O O
surfaces NN O O
were NN O O
polished NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
600-grit NN O I-INT
SiC NN O I-INT
abrasive NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etched NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
phosphoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
to NN O O
remove NN O O
the NN O O
smear NN O O
layer NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
sectioning NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
tooth NN O O
sections NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
dentin NN O O
bonding NN O O
resin NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
dry NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
24h NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
glass NN O O
ionomer-based NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
reimmersed NN O O
in NN O O
deionized NN O O
water NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
five NN O O
sections NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
replicated NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
addition-cure NN O I-INT
vinyl NN O I-INT
polysiloxane NN O I-INT
impression NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
epoxy NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sections NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
replicas NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
tooth NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
sputter-coated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gold NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscope NN O O
. NN O O

Replicas NN O O
were NN O O
gold-coated NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Different NN O O
tooth/restoration NN O O
interfaces NN O O
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
materials NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
marked NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
replicas NN O O
and NN O O
tooth NN O O
sections NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
glass NN O I-INT
ionomer-based NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
resin-based NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
systems NN O O
. NN O O

Representative NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
replicas NN O O
and NN O O
specimens NN O O
are NN O O
shown NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
differences NN O O
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12918532)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nimodipine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (12925182)

Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
MAC NN O O
by NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
or NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
alveolar NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
MAC NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rat NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
opioid NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

ANIMAL NN O O
POPULATION NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
Wistar NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
For NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
using NN O O
an NN O O
induction NN O O
chamber NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
14-gauge NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
oxygen NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
T-piece NN O O
breathing NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
baseline NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
alveolar NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
( NN O O
MACISO NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
animal NN O O
. NN O O

Fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
hour-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
240 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
hour-1 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
infused NN O O
intravenously NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
cannulated NN O O
tail NN O O
vein NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
started NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
MACISO NN O O
( NN O O
MACISO+drug NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
was NN O O
cannulated NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
presence/absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apnoea NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
opioid NN O O
infusion NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
hour-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
240 NN O O
micro NN O O
g NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
hour-1 NN O O
) NN O O
similarly NN O O
reduced NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
MAC NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
fashion NN O O
: NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
medium NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
opioids NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
way NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
apnoea NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
apnoea NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
animals NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rat NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
MAC NN O O
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
sparing NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
during NN O O
inhalant NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rat NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
providing NN O O
similar NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
rapid NN O O
offset NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
alternative NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
be NN O O
instituted NN O O
before NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
discontinued NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12928692)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cystoid NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
oedema NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Behcet NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
oedema NN O O
( NN O O
CMO NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Behcet NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
Behcet NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
well-controlled NN O I-PAR
uveitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CMO NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
4-week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fundus NN O I-OUT
fluorescein NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
13-50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
33.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
on NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
better NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
grade NN O O
improvement NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
vs NN O O
five NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
three NN O O
vs NN O O
seven NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Acetazolamide NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.53 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
vs NN O O
eight NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
three NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Despite NN O O
seemingly NN O O
favourable NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescein NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Behcet NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CMO NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12932301)

Advice NN O O
or NN O O
exercise NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
whiplash NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Design 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
Whiplash-associated NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
or NN O O
whiplash NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
condition NN O O
incurring NN O O
considerable NN O O
expense NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
economic NN O O
terms NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
whiplash NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
prompted NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
whiplash NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
movement/ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
re NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
predict NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
individualized NN O I-OUT
sub-maximal NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
programs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
whiplash NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
operational NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
whiplash NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12951131)

Observational NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
classes NN O O
of NN O O
reading NN O O
skills NN O O
by NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
stimulus NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
observing NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
demonstrate NN O I-INT
the NN O O
prerequisite NN O O
conditional NN O O
discriminations NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
learned NN O I-INT
conditional NN O I-INT
discriminations NN O I-INT
among NN O I-INT
dictated NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
printed NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
observed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
disabilities NN O I-INT
demonstrate NN O I-INT
conditional NN O I-INT
discriminations NN O I-INT
among NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
set NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dictated NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
printed NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
participant NN O I-INT
belonged NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
larger NN O I-INT
superordinate NN O I-INT
category NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
superordinate NN O I-INT
categories NN O I-INT
were NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
subsequently NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
full NN O O
stimulus NN O O
classes NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
stimuli NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
direct NN O O
training NN O O
: NN O O
They NN O O
named NN O O
pictures NN O O
, NN O O
read NN O O
printed NN O O
words NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
matched NN O O
pictures NN O O
and NN O O
words NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
observing NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
full NN O O
stimulus NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
learned NN O O
conditional NN O I-INT
discriminations NN O I-INT
among NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
in NN O O
three NN O O
sets NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
observed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
stimuli NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
sets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
classes NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
belonged NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
larger NN O O
superordinate NN O O
category NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
subsequently NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
full NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
stimuli NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
direct NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
full NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
model NN O O
's NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
full NN O O
stimulus NN O O
classes NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
from NN O O
observing NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
named NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
's NN O O
pictures NN O O
, NN O O
read NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
's NN O O
printed NN O O
words NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
matched NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
's NN O O
pictures NN O O
and NN O O
words NN O O
. NN O O

Stimulus NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
, NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
perform NN O I-INT
a NN O O
skill NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
economical NN O O
and NN O O
efficient NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
teaching NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (12954577)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LY353381 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hormone-sensitive NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
modulator NN O I-INT
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
choose NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
World NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Organization NN O I-INT
criteria NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
graded NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
National NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
Institute NN O I-INT
Common NN O I-INT
Toxicity NN O I-INT
Criteria NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NCI-CTC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
NONMEM NN O O
software NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O O
GloboMax NN O O
, NN O O
Hanover NN O O
, NN O O
MD NN O O
, NN O O
USA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
numerically NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
50-mg NN O O
arm NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O O
( NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
36.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
review NN O O
panel NN O O
( NN O O
42.9 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CBR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
arm NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O O
( NN O O
64.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
61.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
review NN O O
panel NN O O
( NN O O
59.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
47.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O O
observed NN O O
steady-state NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
were NN O O
3.62 NN O O
and NN O O
7.48 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
arzoxifene NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
was NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12956656)

Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentine NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
model NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
using NN O O
toothpastes NN O I-INT
of NN O O
different NN O O
abrasivity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Studies NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
abrasion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
erosion NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
act NN O O
synergistically NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
wear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Methods NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
are NN O O
recently NN O O
available NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
separately NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
combine NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
protocols NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
interplay NN O O
between NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
five-treatment NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
each NN O O
10-day NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
wore NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
0900 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1700 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-INT
removable NN O I-INT
acrylic NN O I-INT
appliance NN O I-INT
holding NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
polished NN O I-INT
enamel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
polished NN O I-INT
dentine NN O I-INT
specimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
specimen NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
and NN O O
brushing NN O I-INT
with NN O O
toothpaste NN O I-INT
A NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O O
water NN O O
and NN O O
brushing NN O O
with NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O I-INT
orange NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O O
orange NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
A NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O O
orange NN O O
juice NN O O
and NN O O
brushing NN O O
with NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Drinking NN O O
and NN O O
brushing NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
around NN O O
0900 NN O O
, NN O O
1100 NN O O
, NN O O
1300 NN O O
and NN O O
1500 NN O O
h. NN O O
Drinks NN O O
were NN O O
consumed NN O O
as NN O O
250 NN O O
ml NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
brushing NN O O
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
specimen NN O O
. NN O O

Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
made NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
profilometer NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
treatments NN O O
produced NN O O
increasing NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
considerably NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
dentine NN O O
than NN O O
enamel NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
enamel NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

orange NN O O
juice NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
erosive NN O O
than NN O O
water NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
abrasion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
treatments NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O O
orange NN O O
juice NN O O
and NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
directional NN O O
for NN O O
synergy NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
dentine NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
specimens NN O O
exceeded NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
microm NN O O
set NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
profilometer NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
orange NN O O
juice NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
erosion NN O O
than NN O O
water NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
abrasion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
paste NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
abrasive NN O O
to NN O O
dentine NN O O
than NN O O
paste NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
synergy NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
dentine NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
truncation NN O O
effect NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
set NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
profilometer NN O O
was NN O O
exceeded NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Erosion NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
toothpaste NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dentine NN O O
is NN O O
considerably NN O O
more NN O O
susceptible NN O O
than NN O O
enamel NN O O
to NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abrasion NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
. NN O O

Dentine NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
abrasivity NN O O
( NN O O
RDA NN O O
value NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12970516)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vascular NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
positive NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
international NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VaD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
cholinesterase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
relieving NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
in NN O O
VaD NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=603 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
73.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
55.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
probable NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
70.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
VaD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Neurological NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Stroke NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NINDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
Internationale NN O I-PAR
pour NN O I-PAR
la NN O I-PAR
Recherche NN O I-PAR
et NN O I-PAR
l'Enseignement NN O I-PAR
en NN O I-PAR
Neurosciences NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIREN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
n=198 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
first NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
n=206 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=199 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale-cognitive NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
score NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
: NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
-1.90 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
-2.33 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
( NN O O
observed NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinician NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Interview-Based NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Change-Plus NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Boxes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Dementia NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Donepezil-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
score NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
: NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
-1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
-1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Donepezil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Withdrawal NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
donepezil NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
VaD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
show NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12971959)

Cirrhosis NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
very NN O O
early NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Retrospective NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
recent NN O O
decades NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
left NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
practitioner NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
followed NN O O
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medium/large NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
varices NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B/C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
218 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O O
245 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
form NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
76 NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
14 NN O O
related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
deaths NN O O
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
onset NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
during NN O O
hospital NN O O
transfer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2.5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
onset NN O O
; NN O O
six NN O O
involved NN O O
Child NN O O
C NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
bleeding NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
Cox NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
tense NN O O
ascites NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
3.4 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
2.5-5.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.6-7.5 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
variceal NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
prolonged NN O O
prothrombin NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
receiving NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
advent NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
variceal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
, NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
quarter NN O O
of NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
occur NN O O
very NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
bleeding NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
rapid NN O O
specific NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12973849)

Outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
centrally NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
gliomas NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Group NN O O
high-grade NN O O
glioma NN O O
study NN O O
CCG-945 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CCG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
glioma NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CCG-945 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
gliomas NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
hoc NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
pathologic NN O I-PAR
review NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biologic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
250 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
institutionally NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
gliomas NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CCG-945 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
lomustine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
8-drugs-in-1-day NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
nonrandomly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O O
independent NN O O
review NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
neuropathologists NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
reclassification NN O O
of NN O O
low-grade NN O I-PAR
glioma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
focus NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
7.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the 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
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remainder NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
poorer NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
younger NN O O
than NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
fibrillary NN O O
astrocytoma NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
posterior NN O O
fossa NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
low-grade NN O O
gliomas NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
contemporary NN O O
chemotherapy-alone NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
report NN O O
calls NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
pathologic NN O O
review NN O O
in NN O O
large NN O O
multiinstitutional NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
gliomas NN O O
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
aggressive NN O O
front-line NN O O
combined NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
confer NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
highly NN O O
selected NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (12974687)

Abrasive NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
eroded NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
dentine NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
different NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
saliva NN O I-INT
in NN O O
situ NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
salivary NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
abrasive NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acid-eroded NN O I-PAR
dentine NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
. NN O O

One-hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
bovine NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
dentine NN O I-PAR
slabs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
six NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
A-F NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
intraoral NN O O
palatal NN O O
devices NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
worn NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
4 NN O O
d. NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
erosive/abrasive NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
3 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
erosive NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
extraorally NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
immersing NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
for NN O O
90 NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
soft NN O O
drink NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
immediately NN O O
brushed NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
strokes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
were NN O O
brushed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
times NN O O
: NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
E NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
acid-eroded NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
brushed NN O O
. NN O O

Dentine NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
profilometer NN O O
. NN O O

anova NN O O
and NN O O
Dunnett NN O O
's NN O O
test NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
groups NN O O
A-D NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
statistically NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
but NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
F. NN O O
The NN O O
lowest NN O O
mean NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
F. NN O O
Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
salivary NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
dentine NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
saliva NN O O
of NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
eroded NN O I-OUT
dentine NN O I-OUT
wear NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
toothbrushing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1302807)

Shorter NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
vaginal NN O I-PAR
candidosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
single-dose NN O O
oral NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fluconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
slightly NN O O
expensive NN O O
, NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-PAR
candidosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Single-dose NN O I-INT
fluconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
three-day NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
miconazole NN O I-INT
pessaries NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
candidosis NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Finland NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
good NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
assessed NN O O
both NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
yeast NN O O
cultures NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
administration NN O O
was NN O O
preferred NN O O
to NN O O
local NN O O
therapy NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
being NN O O
, NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
or NN O O
lactation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1307461)

[ NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris NN O O
: NN O O
clinico-ergometric NN O O
evaluation NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem 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
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eight-seven NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
tablets NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
180 NN O O
to NN O O
240 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
clinical-ergometric NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
coronary NN O O
arteriography NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anginal NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
sublingual NN O I-OUT
nitrate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diltiazem NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
regarding NN O O
same NN O O
periods NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
reach NN O O
higher NN O O
stages NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ergometric NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
exercise NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
electrocardiographical NN O O
aspects NN O O
and NN O O
raises NN O O
the NN O O
effort NN O O
tolerance NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ergometric NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (130920)

A NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
muscle NN O I-INT
relaxant NN O I-INT
analgesic NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lumbago NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1326734)

Randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
4'-epi-doxorubicin NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
high-dose NN O O
4'-epi-doxorubicin NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eleven NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive 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
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
; NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
; NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
toxicity NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR+PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
61.4 NN O O
( NN O O
27/44 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
67.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
35/52 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
7.7 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2. NN O O
WHO NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
encountered NN O O
in NN O O
25.5 NN O O
and NN O O
15.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm 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

One NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
combinations NN O O
showed NN O O
considerable NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1331023)

The NN O O
adrenocorticotrophic NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
benefits NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
report NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ACTH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
checklist NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
clinicians NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pointed NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
clearest NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
preferences NN O O
substantiated NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ORG NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
an NN O O
ethologically NN O O
analyzed NN O O
playroom NN O O
session NN O O
, NN O O
ORG NN O O
2766 NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
experimenter NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Gaze NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
experimenter NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1334639)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O O
B-cell NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
mucosal NN O O
fluids NN O O
of NN O O
swine NN O O
for NN O O
protective NN O O
immunity NN O O
against NN O O
pseudorabies NN O O
virus NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
memory NN O O
isotype-specific NN O O
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
directed NN O O
against NN O O
pseudorabies NN O O
virus NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
mucosal NN O O
fluids NN O O
of NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
passively NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
maternal NN O I-PAR
antibody NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
virus NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Pigs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
inoculated NN O O
intranasally NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
virulent NN O I-INT
NIA-3 NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
avirulent NN O I-INT
Bartha NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
inoculated NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inactivated NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Phylaxia NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
pigs NN O O
were NN O O
challenge-exposed NN O I-INT
intranasally NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
NIA-3 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O O
pigs NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
without NN O O
passively NN O O
acquired NN O O
antibody NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
inoculated NN O O
with NN O O
virulent NN O O
virus NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
challenge NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pseudorabies NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
virus NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
inoculated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
strain NN O I-PAR
Bartha NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
inactivated NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
developed NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
excreted NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
challenge NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
pigs NN O O
without NN O O
passively NN O O
acquired NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
intranasal NN O O
inoculation NN O O
with NN O O
strains NN O O
NIA-3 NN O O
or NN O O
Bartha NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
primary NN O O
IgM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
IgG1 NN O O
and NN O O
IgG2 NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
. NN O O

Intramuscular NN O O
inoculation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
inactivated NN O O
vaccine NN O O
induced NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
IgM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgG1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgG2 NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Challenge NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
pigs NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
inoculated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Bartha NN O O
strain NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
inactivated NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
clear NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
oropharyngeal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
challenge NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
pigs NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
inoculated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
virulent NN O O
NIA-3 NN O O
strain NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
memory NN O O
responses 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- (1337070)

Erythema NN O I-PAR
migrans NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenoxymethylpenicillin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenoxymethylpenicillin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
erythema NN O I-PAR
migrans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
bd NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
od NN O O
for NN O O
eight NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
phenoxymethylpenicillin NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
million NN O O
IU NN O O
tds NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
bd NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
cutaneous NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
starting NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
10.5 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
8.8 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
8.6 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shortest NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
phenoxymethylpenicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
given NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
subsequently NN O O
developed NN O O
major NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
Lyme NN O I-OUT
borreliosis NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
erythema NN O O
migrans NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1342306)

Long-term NN O O
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
after NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Warfarin NN O O
Re-Infarction NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
and NN O O
clotting NN O O
factor NN O O
VII NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
apparently NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
pathoanatomic NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiography NN O O
have NN O O
confirmed NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
thrombus NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
Q-wave NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effective NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
or NN O O
limit NN O O
thrombus NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
events NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Warfarin NN O O
Re-Infarction NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
WARIS NN O O
) NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1918 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1214 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
37 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Analyzed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
123 NN O O
( NN O O
20 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
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
versus NN O O
94 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Considering NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
within NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Relapsing NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1342906)

Topical NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
pollinosic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

glucocorticosteroids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
topical NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
piroxicam NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Parietaria NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
season NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
June-July NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
piroxicam NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
as NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
one NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
eye NN O O
q.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
clinician NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
diary NN O O
card NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
ASA NN O O
and NN O O
piroxicam NN O O
reduced NN O O
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pollen-induced NN O O
allergic NN O O
conjunctivitis NN O O
; NN O O
they NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
NSAIDs NN O O
in NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
closely NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
steroids NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
avoiding NN O O
the NN O O
well-known NN O O
side-effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
in NN O O
prolonged NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1350581)

Amisulpride NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
bromocriptine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
with NN O O
opposite NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
dopaminergic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
dopaminergic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
much NN O O
more NN O O
complex NN O O
than NN O O
simple NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
evoked NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
therefore NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
DA NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
amisulpride NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
DA NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bromocriptine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
mentally NN O I-PAR
retarded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Amisulpride NN O I-INT
acts NN O O
preferentially NN O O
on NN O O
specific NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
whereas NN O O
bromocriptine NN O I-INT
acts NN O O
more NN O O
on NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
raise NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
which NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
act NN O O
preferentially NN O O
on NN O O
some NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
observations NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
sedative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
DA NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
stimulant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
DA NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
benzamides NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1358607)

Oral NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
studies NN O O
included NN O O
ASA NN O I-PAR
Class NN O I-PAR
I-III NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
about NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
0-24 NN O O
h NN O O
period NN O O
following NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Ondansetron NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Side-effects NN O I-OUT
mainly NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
ondansetron- NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention 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


-DOCSTART- (1359258)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
and NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
raised NN O O
renin NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported 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
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
( NN O O
ACE NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
and NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
in NN O O
6797 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.35 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Left NN O I-PAR
Ventricular NN O I-PAR
Dysfunction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SOLVD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3401 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3396 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
2.5-20 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
concurrent NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2569 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4228 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
averaged NN O O
40 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
trial NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
158 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
127 NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
204 NN O O
vs NN O O
161 NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
( NN O O
240 NN O O
vs NN O O
187 NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
355 NN O O
vs NN O O
312 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
362 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O O
with NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
288 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11-34 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

595 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
499 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
9-29 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
711 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
615 NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
14-26 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Enalapril NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1359322)

Amphotericin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
antimony-unresponsive NN O I-PAR
kala-azar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
isethionate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parasitologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
antimony-unresponsive NN O I-PAR
kala-azar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Doses NN O O
were NN O O
twenty NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
on NN O O
alternate NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
fourteen NN O O
definitive NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
infused NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
dextrose NN O O
on NN O O
alternate NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

48 NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
pentamidine NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
definitive NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Amphotericin NN O I-INT
also NN O O
brought NN O O
about NN O O
quicker NN O O
abatement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
spleen NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1359809)

Dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thiopental NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fentanyl NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nitrous NN O I-PAR
oxide NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oxygen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Isoflurane NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
as NN O O
needed 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
two NN O O
parts NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
comprised NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
infusion NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
receiving NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
two-step NN O O
infusion NN O O
to NN O O
rapidly NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
steady-state NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
dose NN O O
given NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
induction NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
begun NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
closure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
abdominal NN O O
fascia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infusion NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
tested NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
120 NN O O
ng.kg-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
6 NN O O
ng.kg-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
270 NN O O
+ NN O O
13.5 NN O O
ng.kg-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min-1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
170 NN O O
ng.kg-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min-1 NN O O
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
ng.kg-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min-1 NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O O
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
nitrous NN O O
oxide NN O O
and NN O O
oxygen NN O O
. NN O O

Isoflurane NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
predetermined NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Dexmedetomidine NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
completely NN O I-OUT
abolish NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
isoflurane NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
endotracheal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
blunted NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1364154)

[ NN O O
Platelet NN O O
serotonin NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cross-over NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
serotoninergic NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT NN O O
) NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
is NN O O
corroborated NN O O
by NN O O
biological NN O O
dosages NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
which NN O O
decrease NN O O
blood NN O O
serotonin NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
dopaminergic NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
or NN O O
antagonists NN O I-INT
, NN O O
have NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore 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
two NN O O
dopaminergic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
5-HT NN O O
effect NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficiency NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
DA NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bromocriptine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
DA NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
amisulpride NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O O
5-HT NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
prolactinemia NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
DA NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
during NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
in-between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-INT
5-HT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
prolactin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
every NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
active NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
radioenzymology NN O O
and NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O O
methods NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
principal NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
show NN O O
neither NN O O
order NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
order NN O O
effect NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect 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
amisulpride NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
bromocriptine NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
5-HT NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
neither NN O O
order NN O O
x NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
order NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
5-HT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
order NN O O
effect NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
remanent NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
amisulpride NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
wash-out NN O O
weeks 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- (1370735)

Different NN O I-INT
aprotinin NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
influencing NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
orthotopic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
aprotinin NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
product NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
orthotopic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
aprotinin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
Mill NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Kallikrein NN O O
inactivator NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
KIU NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
OLT NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
10 NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
aprotinin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.1-0.4 NN O I-INT
Mill NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
KIU/hr NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperfibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
thrombelastography NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Tissue-type NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
anhepatic NN O O
phase NN O O
but NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
OLT NN O O
were NN O O
tendentiously NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bolus NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
so NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
packed NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
whereas 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
fresh NN O O
frozen NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
woman NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
retransplantation NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
host-versus-graft NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
perfusate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O O
liver NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
detected NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
t-PA NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
aprotinin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
as NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
over NN O O
bolus NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
OLT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1376306)

Induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1982 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1986 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II-III-IV NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
oropharynx NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
cavity NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/m2/day NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
definitive NN O I-INT
locoregional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
locoregional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
modalities NN O O
of NN O O
definitive NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
chosen NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
116 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
locoregional NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
CR NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
of NN O O
61 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cause-specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
22 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Responders NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
fare NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

Chemotherapy-related NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
few NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
for NN O O
35 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 O
deaths NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
locoregional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
induction NN O O
regimen NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
offer NN O O
any NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1394200)

Perioperative NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
interleukin NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Major NN O O
surgery NN O O
impairs NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
therefore NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
immunological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
interleukin NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
in NN O O
perioperative NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunological NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subset NN O O
number NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
Days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
interleukin NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymphokine-activated NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
cytotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
clearly NN O O
demonstrated 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
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O I-OUT
T-cell NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
lymphopenia NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
rebound NN O I-OUT
lymphocytosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
upregulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subset NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
CD25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD45RO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T-memory NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
consequences NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
metastatic NN O O
dissemination NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
perioperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1396108)

Buprenorphine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-dependent NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O I-OUT
agonist NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
agonist-antagonist NN O O
marketed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
and NN O O
under NN O O
development NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
abuse NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
residential NN O O
laboratory NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
non-physically-dependent NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
abuser NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg/70 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg/70 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Buprenorphine NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
dose-related NN O O
opioid NN O O
agonist NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Concurrent NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
attenuated NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
agonist NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
naloxone NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
lower NN O O
abuse NN O I-OUT
liability NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1408861)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
first-time NN O I-INT
adolescent NN O I-INT
mothers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
infants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
special NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
243 NN O I-PAR
mother-infant NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
unwed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
well-baby NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
rigorous NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
discussions NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mother NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
her NN O I-INT
plans NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
return NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
school NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dropout NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
after NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
dropout NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mothers NN O O
were NN O O
located NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
18 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
repeat NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
returning NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
fully NN O I-OUT
immunized NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mothers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
special NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
who NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
clinic NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
mothers NN O O
who NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O O
one NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
bring NN O O
about NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
adolescent NN O O
mothers NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1409770)

The NN O O
cumulative NN O O
dose NN O O
response NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cumulative NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
10,000 NN O O
mg NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
to NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
were NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
, NN O O
333 NN O O
and NN O O
3333 NN O O
mg. NN O O
A NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
free-EPA NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
onwards NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
free-arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
other NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
essential NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
changed NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
non-significantly NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1410028)

The NN O O
radial NN O O
forearm NN O O
flap NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
donor-site NN O O
morbidity NN O O
utilizing NN O O
sheep NN O O
tibia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vascularized NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reconstruct NN O O
extremity NN O O
and NN O O
mandibular NN O O
defects NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
commonplace NN O O
in NN O O
reconstructive NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Fibula NN O O
, NN O O
scapula NN O O
, NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest NN O O
, NN O O
rib NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
metatarsal NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O O
forearm NN O O
osseocutaneous NN O O
flaps NN O O
have NN O O
all NN O O
been NN O O
utilized NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
. NN O O

Troublesome NN O O
spiral NN O O
fractures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
fractures NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
vascularized NN O O
bone-graft NN O O
donor NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
donor-site NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
torsional NN O O
( NN O O
rotational NN O O
) NN O O
loading NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
clinical NN O O
series NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
examined NN O O
this NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
loading NN O O
after NN O O
harvesting NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
graft NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
tibiae NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
utilized NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
radii NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
radius NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sheep NN O O
tibia NN O O
for NN O O
experimental NN O O
purposes NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
donor-site NN O O
defects NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
with NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
matched NN O O
pairs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
alteration NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
test NN O O
condition NN O O
included NN O O
five NN O O
matched NN O O
pairs NN O O
of NN O O
sheep NN O O
tibiae NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
osteotomy NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
doing NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
one-third NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
removed NN O I-INT
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
specimens NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
( NN O O
1a NN O O
) NN O O
30 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
1b NN O O
) NN O O
37 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
1c NN O O
) NN O O
50 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
bone NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
osteotomy NN O I-OUT
shape NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
varied NN O O
. NN O O

Instead NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ends NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cuts NN O O
being NN O O
squared NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ends NN O O
were NN O O
beveled NN O O
or NN O O
rounded NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
3 NN O O
compared NN O O
different NN O O
lengths NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
removed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
defect NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
In NN O O
experiment NN O O
3a NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sheep NN O O
tibia NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
incisura NN O O
fibularis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
dimension NN O O
was NN O O
one NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
one-diameter NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
3b NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
two-diameter NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
3c NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
three-diameter NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
3d NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
four-diameter NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (1411449)

[ NN O O
Physical NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
sedation NN O O
: NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
temazepam NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O I-INT
non-benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
hypnotic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
zolpidem NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
well-known NN O O
that NN O O
many NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
some NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
precompetition NN O O
stress NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
insomnia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
before NN O O
their NN O O
competition NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
only NN O O
partial NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
requires NN O O
good NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
performance 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
whether NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hypnotic NN O O
drug NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
performance NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
temazepam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
medium NN O I-INT
half-life NN O I-INT
benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
zolpidem NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
half-life NN O I-INT
non-benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
as NN O O
regards NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
stressed NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
use NN O O
sleep NN O O
inducers NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
before NN O O
their NN O O
competition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1412152)

Desmopressin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
excessive NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
product NN O I-PAR
requirements NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
during NN O O
open-heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
sometimes NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
excessive NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O O
a NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
study NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
desmopressin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
blood NN O O
product NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
i. NN O O
v. NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overt NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O O
582 NN O O
vs NN O O
465 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Red-cell NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fresh NN O O
frozen NN O O
plasma NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
requirements NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
haemostatic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
desmopressin NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
von NN O O
Willebrand NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
vWF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
vWF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIII NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
vWF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIII NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
desmopressin-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombin-antithrombin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
degradation NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
systems NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
uniformly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
desmopressin NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
excessive NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1415973)

Isoflurane NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
recently NN O O
to NN O O
offer NN O O
better NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
alternative NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Intensive NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
artificial NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
monitor NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
end-point NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
over NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Technological NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
volatile NN O O
agents NN O O
as NN O O
long-term NN O O
sedatives NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Intensive NN O O
Care NN O O
Unit NN O O
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
their NN O O
more NN O O
widespread NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1420057)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
rises NN O O
in NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
chamber NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O O
elevations NN O O
in 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
commonly NN O O
follow NN O O
extracapsular NN O O
cataract NN O O
extraction NN O O
and NN O O
lens NN O O
implant NN O O
in NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
chamber NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
Diamox NN O I-INT
Sustets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
peroperative NN O I-INT
intracameral NN O I-INT
Miochol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
treatments NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IOPs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
rises NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
level NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
hour NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
greatest NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
only NN O O
at NN O O
8.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
maximum NN O O
rise NN O O
was NN O O
6.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
0.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

IOP NN O I-OUT
rises NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

IOP NN O I-OUT
rises NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
only NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
only NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
receiving NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
only NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
receiving NN O O
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
rises NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
test NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
acetazolamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
rises NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
rises NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
operation NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
rises NN O O
seen NN O O
following NN O O
cataract NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
lens NN O O
implant NN O O
in NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
recommend NN O O
combined NN O O
ocular NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1423955)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
beats NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
minute NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
25-mg NN O I-PAR
bolus NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
mg/hr NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/hr NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
elimination NN O O
half-life NN O O
was NN O O
6.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
and NN O O
6.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
distribution NN O O
was NN O O
411 NN O O
+/- NN O O
151.8 NN O O
and NN O O
299 NN O O
+/- NN O O
70.8 NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
clearance NN O O
was NN O O
42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.4 NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.3 NN O O
l/hr NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
principal NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
desacetyldiltiazem NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-desmethyldiltiazem NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
diltiazem NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
< NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O O
response NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
24-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
sigmoidal NN O O
Emax NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
relation NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
r2 NN O O
, NN O O
0.78 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
diltiazem NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
Emax NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
percent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
EC50 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
plasma NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
concentration NN O O
that NN O O
achieves NN O O
half NN O O
Emax NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
110 NN O O
+/- NN O O
84 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
model NN O O
predicts NN O O
that NN O O
mean NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
diltiazem NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
79 NN O O
, NN O O
172 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
294 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
plasma NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
percent NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
r2 NN O O
, NN O O
SBP/DBP NN O O
: NN O O
0.35 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.24/0.36 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
untoward NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
First NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
apparent NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O O
clearance NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
sigmoidal NN O O
Emax NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
plasma NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
percent NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Third NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
principal NN O O
metabolites NN O O
desacetyldiltiazem NN O O
and NN O O
N-desmethyldiltiazem NN O O
are NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1426893)

Interferon NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
posttransfusion NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1440804)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
Plasmodium NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
mefloquine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
mefloquine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
parasite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
48.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.6 NN O O
and NN O O
32.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.7 NN O O
h NN O O
respectively NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
49.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.1 NN O O
and NN O O
30.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.3 NN O O
h NN O O
respectively NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no 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
in NN O O
these NN O O
values NN O O
between NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperparasitaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
53.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.1 NN O O
and NN O O
36.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.0 NN O O
h NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
hyperparasitaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
49.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.6 NN O O
and NN O O
31.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.6 NN O O
h NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parasitaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
day NN O O
30 NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
isolates NN O O
showed NN O O
reduced NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mefloquine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
minimum NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
MIC NN O O
) NN O O
> NN O O
67 NN O O
nM/litre NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MIC NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
200.8 NN O O
, NN O O
6.27 NN O O
, NN O O
31.7 NN O O
and NN O O
119.6 NN O O
nM/litre NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
isolates NN O O
were NN O O
resistant NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MIC NN O O
> NN O O
108 NN O O
nM/litre NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Isolates NN O O
that NN O O
showed NN O O
low NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mefloquine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
were NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
chloroquine NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
resistant NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
chloroquine NN O O
were NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mefloquine NN O O
. NN O O

Irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
MIC NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
mefloquine NN O O
, NN O O
parasitaemia NN O O
cleared NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
96 NN O O
h NN O O
or NN O O
less 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- (1444609)

[ NN O I-INT
Mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ablative NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
Ta NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
T1 NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
ablation NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Ta-T1 NN O O
superficial NN O O
bladder NN O O
tumors NN O O
versus NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
whose NN O O
intravesical NN O O
ablation NN O O
properties NN O O
are NN O O
well-known NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
completely NN O O
resected NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
underwent NN O O
TUR NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
Mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
other NN O O
instillations NN O O
every NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
ml NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
and NN O O
8th NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
no NN O O
gross NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microscopic NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CR NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
77.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
Mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
can NN O O
conclude NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
Mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
ablation NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
warrants NN O O
its NN O O
limited NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
dilutions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1444872)

[ NN O O
Unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8.5 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
respectively NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
240 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
160 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
7th NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CKMB NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
until NN O O
7th NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
arteriography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significative NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
crisis NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sublingual NN O I-OUT
nitrates NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
equally NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Individual NN O O
groups NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significative NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
SAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CKMB NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
arteriography NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1445476)

Controlled NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
propionyl-L-carnitine NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
propionyl-L-carnitine NN O O
( NN O O
CAS NN O O
17298-37-2 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
NYHA NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
digitalis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diuretics NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
still NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
chosen NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
propionyl-L-carnitine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
tested NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bidimensional NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
propionyl-L-carnitine NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increases NN O O
which NN O O
became NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
after NN O O
90 NN O O
and NN O O
180 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
stated NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
having NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
particular NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
propionyl-L-carnitine NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
of NN O O
undoubted NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
efficaciously NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1449552)

Oestrogen NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
oophorectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
patches NN O I-INT
and NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14506591)

Biodistribution NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
photosensitizers NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
tumor NN O O
eradication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Photosensitizers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
porfimer NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tin NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
etiopurpurin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aluminum NN O I-INT
chlorophthalocyanine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

to NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
tissue NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
harvested NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
hours NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
photosensitizers NN O I-INT
in NN O O
tumor NN O O
( NN O O
fibrosarcoma NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
adjacent NN O O
normal NN O O
tissue NN O O
biopsies NN O O
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
tissue NN O O
solubilization NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
fluorimetry NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
selectivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
photosensitizers NN O I-INT
were NN O O
addressed NN O O
by NN O O
two-phase NN O O
exponential NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
uptake NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Porfimer NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
175.3 NN O I-OUT
hr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
slower NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.0028 NN O I-OUT
L/kg/hr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1075 NN O O
microg/g/hr NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
tumors NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
tin NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
etiopurpurin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
aluminum NN O I-INT
chlorophthalocyanine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
porfimer NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
selectivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
located NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
provided NN O O
clinical NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
alternatives NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1451242)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
and NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
lone NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
during NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
122 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
evolving NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
PTCA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
adjunctive NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ECG NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
contraindication NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cardiogenic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
immediately NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10,000 NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
M NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
immediately NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
catheterization NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
suitable NN O O
coronary NN O O
anatomy NN O O
underwent NN O O
immediate NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subsequent NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
serial NN O O
radionuclide NN O O
ventriculography NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
repeat NN O O
angiography NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PTCA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Use NN O O
of NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Angioplasty NN O I-INT
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
radionuclide NN O O
ventriculography NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
24-hour NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
6-week NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast NN O I-OUT
ventriculography NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
immediate NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
6-month NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
( NN O O
58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Coronary NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
patients NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
restudy NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
intravenous NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
complicate NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

Hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
9.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.0 NN O O
versus NN O O
7.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
costly NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
25,191 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15,368 NN O O
versus NN O O
$ NN O O
19,643 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7,250 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
emergency NN O O
coronary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
streptokinase-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adjunctive NN O O
intravenous NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
early NN O O
preservation NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improve NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O O
MI NN O O
. NN O O

Hospital NN O O
course NN O O
is NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
complicated NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
these NN O O
reasons NN O O
, NN O O
PTCA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O O
MI NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
routinely NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
intravenous NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14519754)

Selenium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-INT
of NN O O
nonmelanoma NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Nutritional NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
selenized NN O I-INT
yeast NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
prevent NN O I-PAR
nonmelanoma NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
1312 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
from NN O O
September NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
1983 NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
December NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinomas NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
report NN O O
summarizes NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
blinded NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
ended NN O O
on NN O O
January NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
1996 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
nonmelanoma NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
overall NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
results NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
blinded NN O O
period NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.09 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
0.94 NN O O
to NN O O
1.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.25 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.03 NN O O
to NN O O
1.51 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nonmelanoma NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.17 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.02 NN O O
to NN O O
1.34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Nutritional NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nonmelanoma NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
ineffective NN O O
at NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
nonmelanoma NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14520769)

Analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac-K NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
flexible NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimen NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
resulting NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
2-day NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac-K NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
took NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
2.5 NN O O
additional NN O O
tablets NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac-K NN O I-INT
or NN O O
2.4 NN O O
tablets NN O O
of NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
almost NN O O
all NN O O
as NN O O
1-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
discontinued NN O O
by NN O O
taking NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac-K NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
efficacy NN O O
outcomes NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
took NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
About NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
some NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
lot NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
complete NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
initial NN O O
double-dose NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac-K NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
adequately NN O O
relieved NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
intense NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
flexible NN O O
multiple NN O O
dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
tablets NN O O
) NN O O
maintained NN O O
adequate NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
needed NN O O
only NN O O
1-tablet NN O O
doses NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
2-tablet NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14567804)

GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
before NN O O
total NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
for NN O O
large NN O O
uteri NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
uterine NN O O
shrinkage NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
wks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
total NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Task NN O O
Force NN O O
classification NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University-affiliated NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
myomas NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
16-20 NN O I-PAR
wks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Total NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
benign NN O I-INT
pathology NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1:1 NN O O
by NN O O
random NN O O
selection NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
11.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Uterine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
conversions NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
laparotomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Triptorelin NN O O
decreased NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
26.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
concerning NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
uterine NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
preoperative NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
, NN O O
decreasing NN O O
uterine NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1457622)

EEG NN O O
mapping NN O O
and NN O O
psychopharmacological NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
denbufylline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
SDAT NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
MID NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
electroencephalograms NN O O
( NN O O
EEG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
psychometric NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
demented NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
61-96 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-III NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
off NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subdiagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
Marshall-Hachinski NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
senile NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SDAT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
multiinfarct NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MID NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
denbufylline NN O I-INT
BID NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
included NN O O
EEG NN O O
mapping NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Sandoz NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Geriatric NN O O
( NN O O
SCAG NN O O
) NN O O
score/factors NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression NN O O
( NN O O
CGI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Digit NN O O
Symbol NN O O
Substitution NN O O
Test NN O O
( NN O O
DSST NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Trail-Making NN O O
Test NN O O
( NN O O
TMT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Digit NN O O
Span NN O O
Test NN O O
( NN O O
DS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Descriptive NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
including NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
statements NN O O
found NN O O
delta/theta NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
enhanced NN O O
, NN O O
alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
augmented NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
centroid NN O I-OUT
slowed NN O O
down NN O O
over NN O O
various NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
subtypes NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
differentiated NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
conventional NN O O
EEG NN O O
variables NN O O
but NN O O
mostly NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
power NN O O
asymmetry NN O O
indices NN O O
. NN O O

Denbufylline NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
SDAT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MID NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
CGI NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TMT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
DS NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
interdrug NN O O
differences NN O O
being NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
primary NN O O
target NN O O
variables NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MMS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SCAG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DSST NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
degenerative NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
benefit NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
objectified NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
neurophysiological NN O O
level NN O O
by NN O O
EEG NN O O
mapping NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
vigilance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14576501)

Prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
meropenem NN O I-INT
of NN O O
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
versus NN O O
imipenem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Prophylactic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
are NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
meropenem NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
carbapenem NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
imipenem NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
necrotizing NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
meropenem NN O I-INT
t.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
imipenem NN O I-INT
q.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extrapancreatic NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
a NN O O
septic NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
necrosis NN O O
was NN O O
suspected NN O O
, NN O O
fine NN O O
needle NN O O
aspiration NN O O
with NN O O
cultures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Surgery NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
verified NN O O
infected NN O O
necrosis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
meropenem NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
imipenem NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
terms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
11.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
13.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
extrapancreatic NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
21.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
23.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Meropenem NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
imipenem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
acute NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14578078)

More NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
better NN O O
: NN O O
Examining NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
reference NN O O
memory NN O O
component NN O O
in NN O O
timing NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
experiments NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
temporal NN O I-PAR
generalization NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
presentations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
experiments NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
presentations NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
block NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
judge NN O O
whether NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
comparison NN O O
stimuli NN O O
was NN O O
or NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
changed NN O O
between NN O O
blocks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three NN O O
experiments NN O O
varied NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
( NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
task NN O I-OUT
difficulty NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
how NN O O
closely NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
stimuli NN O O
were NN O O
spaced NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
standards NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Number NN O O
of NN O O
presentations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
never NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
identifications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
other NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
generalization NN O O
gradients NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
of NN O O
reference NN O O
memories NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
scalar NN O O
timing NN O O
system NN O O
were NN O O
explored NN O O
via NN O O
models NN O O
that NN O O
made NN O O
different NN O O
assumptions NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
presentations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
stored NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14589718)

Fake NN O I-PAR
bad NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
bias NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
faking NN O I-INT
bad NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Variables NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Attention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TOVA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
placed NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
took NN O O
the NN O O
TOVA NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
first NN O O
; NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
requested NN O O
to NN O O
subtly NN O I-INT
fake NN O I-INT
bad NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
subjects NN O O
took NN O O
the NN O O
TOVA NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
fake NN O I-INT
bad NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
took NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
order NN O O
yielded NN O O
non-significant NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
basic NN O O
TOVA NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
quarters NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
halves NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
NC NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
FB NN O O
instructions NN O O
yielded NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O I-OUT
TOVA NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
quarters NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
halves NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
FB NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
excessive NN O O
amounts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
omission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
commission NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
slower NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
variance NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
affirms NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
professional NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
TOVA NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
carefully NN O O
eliminate NN O O
a NN O O
fake NN O O
bad NN O O
test-taking NN O O
bias NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
produce NN O O
excessive NN O O
test NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1459383)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
pelvic NN O I-INT
floor NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O O
incontinence NN O O
and NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
urge NN O O
incontinence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
assistant NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
constructed NN O O
severity NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
incontinence NN O O
diary NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
themselves NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
previous NN O O
and NN O O
current NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
exactly NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
way NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
about NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
either NN O O
dry NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
mildly NN O I-OUT
incontinent NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wet NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
gone NN O O
down NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
felt NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cured NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
later NN O O
corroborated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
this NN O O
successful NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
slightly NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
successfully NN O O
treated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
continues NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14596755)

Including NN O O
a NN O O
'no NN O O
active NN O O
intervention NN O O
' NN O O
arm NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
trials NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
: NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
CLasP NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O I-INT
'no NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
called NN O I-INT
'conservative NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
enlargement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
7.5 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
were NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
randomisation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
conservative NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
priori NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
177 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
755 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
randomisation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
including NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
want NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
who NN O O
wanted NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
men NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
conservative NN O O
management NN O O
were NN O O
willing NN O O
to NN O O
undertake NN O O
it NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
between NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
wanted NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
with NN O O
it NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
expected NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
conservative NN O O
management NN O O
patients NN O O
requested NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
interference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
unsuccessful NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
appreciable NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Including NN O O
a NN O O
'no NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
recruitment NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
; NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
conservative NN O O
management NN O O
was NN O O
successfully NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
researchers NN O O
need NN O O
not NN O O
avoid NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
no-intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
trials NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
take NN O O
care NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
presentation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14599236)

Modeling NN O I-PAR
hippocampal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neocortical NN O I-INT
contributions NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
recognition NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complementary-learning-systems NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
computational NN O I-PAR
neural-network NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
hippocampus NN O O
and NN O O
medial NN O O
temporal NN O O
lobe NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
MTLC NN O O
) NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
hippocampal NN O I-INT
component NN O O
contributes NN O O
by NN O O
recalling NN O O
studied NN O O
details NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MTLC NN O O
component NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
recall NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
can NN O O
extract NN O O
a NN O O
scalar NN O O
familiarity NN O O
signal NN O O
from NN O O
MTLC NN O O
that NN O O
tracks NN O O
how NN O O
well NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
item NN O O
matches NN O O
studied NN O O
items NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
present NN O O
simulations NN O I-INT
that NN O O
establish NN O O
key NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hippocampal-recall NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
MTLC-familiarity NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
identify NN O O
several NN O O
manipulations NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
target-lure NN O O
similarity NN O O
, NN O O
interference NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
differentially NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
signals NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
stochastic NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
recall NN O O
and NN O O
familiarity NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O O
versus NN O O
complete NN O O
hippocampal NN O O
lesions NN O O
on NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14605954)

Micronized NN O I-INT
flavonoids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
micronized NN O I-INT
flavonoid NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MFF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
112 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
MFF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
MFF NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
POD NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
on NN O O
PODs NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.033 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
required NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.022 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Using NN O O
MFF NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14616133)

Mometasone NN O I-INT
furoate NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
olfactory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14616151)

Esomeprazole NN O I-INT
resolves NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
erosive NN O I-PAR
oesophagitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
erosive NN O I-PAR
oesophagitis NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
suppression NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
relieve NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
erosive NN O I-PAR
oesophagitis NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
4-week NN O O
, NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
identical NN O O
methodology NN O O
compared NN O O
once-daily NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
241 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
234 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
242 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
rigorous NN O O
end-point NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end-points NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn-free NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn-free NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Esomeprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
mean NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
6-7 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
( NN O O
12-17 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
10-12 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
sustained NN O O
, NN O O
21-22 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
spectrum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Esomeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
at NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
erosive NN O I-PAR
oesophagitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (14616279)

Vaginal NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
floor NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinent NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravaginal NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
pelvic NN O O
floor NN O O
for NN O O
urinary NN O O
incontinence NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
ES NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
floor NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
preferable NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
underwent NN O O
every-other-day NN O O
ES NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
floor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
Kegel NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
KE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Objective NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Urinary NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
PAD NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pelvic NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
perineometer NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
detrusor NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
ambulant NN O I-OUT
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
registration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjective NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
women NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PRAFAB NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ES NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Kegel NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
completed NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
study NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Chi-square NN O O
test 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

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ES NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
KE NN O I-INT
( NN O O
with NN O O
29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
showing NN O O
objective NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
was NN O O
subjective NN O O
improvement NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
reporting NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
enrolled NN O O
women NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
small NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Treating NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
vaginal NN O O
ES NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pelvic NN O O
floor NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
cost NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ES NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
pelvic NN O O
floor NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O O
incontinent NN O O
elderly NN O O
women NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
great NN O O
discrepancy NN O O
between NN O O
objective NN O O
amelioration NN O O
( NN O O
PAD NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
amelioration NN O O
( NN O O
PRAFAB NN O O
score/quantity NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O O
leakage NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O O
improvement NN O O
is NN O O
adequately NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
reasonable NN O O
to NN O O
advise NN O O
elderly NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
urinary NN O O
incontinence NN O O
to NN O O
undertake NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
and NN O O
intense NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
terminated NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
outcome NN O O
with NN O O
ES NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14616872)

Presentation NN O O
of NN O O
allergen NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
food NN O O
preparations NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Characterization NN O O
of NN O O
fatal NN O O
and NN O O
non-fatal NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
food NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
reactions NN O O
are NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
prepared NN O O
foods NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
non-processed NN O O
allergen NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
food NN O O
challenge NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
peanut NN O O
allergy NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
reaction NN O O
severity NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
anticipated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
challenge NN O O
vehicle NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
observed NN O O
challenge NN O O
reactions NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
repeated NN O O
on NN O O
re-challenge NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Peanut-allergic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
re-challenged NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
recipe NN O I-INT
after NN O O
reacting NN O O
more NN O O
severely NN O O
than NN O O
was NN O O
anticipated NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
peanut NN O I-INT
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
challenge NN O O
vehicle NN O O
recipes NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
fat NN O O
content NN O O
( NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
31.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peanut NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
recipes NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
RAST NN O O
inhibition NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
ELISA NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
subjects NN O O
reacted NN O O
to NN O O
much NN O O
smaller NN O O
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peanut NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
re-challenge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
equivalence NN O O
- NN O O
23 NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
peanut NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
fat NN O O
recipe NN O O
. NN O O

RAST NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
neither NN O O
recipe NN O O
altered NN O O
epitope NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
higher NN O O
fat NN O O
recipe NN O O
required NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
peanut NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ELISA NN O O
detected NN O O
far NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
peanut NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
fat NN O O
recipe NN O O
( NN O O
220 NN O O
000 NN O O
parts NN O O
per NN O O
million NN O O
( NN O O
p.p.m NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
fat NN O O
recipe NN O O
( NN O O
990 NN O O
000 NN O O
p.p.m. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
fat NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
vehicle NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
profound NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
reaction NN O O
experienced NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
another NN O O
factor NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
foods NN O O
to NN O O
food-allergic NN O I-PAR
consumers NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
adds NN O O
another NN O O
dimension NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
regulatory NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14622630)

Measuring NN O O
adherence NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Non-adherence NN O O
in NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
problem NN O O
and NN O O
promoting NN O O
adherence NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
taking NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adherence NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
MEMS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Medication NN O I-OUT
Event NN O I-OUT
Monitoring NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Aprex NN O O
Corporation NN O O
, NN O O
Fremont NN O O
, NN O O
California NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
electronic NN O O
system NN O O
that NN O O
records NN O O
the NN O O
date NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
opening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
container NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
measurements NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
capsule NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
client NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
estimate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assign NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Descriptive NN O O
statistics NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
answer NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
questions NN O O
. NN O O

Frequency NN O O
and NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
with NN O O
lowest NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
two NN O O
items NN O O
of NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
forgetfulness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
46 NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
stringent NN O O
electronic NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MEMS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
percentages NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80-90 NN O O
range NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Electronic NN O O
monitoring NN O O
correlated NN O O
best NN O O
with NN O O
capsule NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
visit NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14623199)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
feline NN O I-PAR
chlamydophilosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
current NN O O
recommended NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
feline NN O I-PAR
chlamydophilosis NN O I-PAR
involves NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
antimicrobials NN O I-INT
to NN O O
all NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
4-6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Not NN O O
surprisingly NN O O
, NN O O
owner NN O O
compliance NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
poor NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
apparent NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
anecdotal NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Chlamydia NN O O
trachomatis NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
offer NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
by NN O O
allowing NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
dosing NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chlamydia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Chlamydophila NN O I-PAR
felis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whilst NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
10-15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
C NN O O
felis NN O O
was NN O O
re-isolated NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
chronically NN O O
infected NN O O
cats NN O O
was NN O O
ineffective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clearing NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
azithromycin NN O O
protocols NN O O
used NN O O
here NN O O
were NN O O
therefore NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
unsuccessful NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eliminating NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
carriage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
felis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14625812)

Twenty-four NN O O
vs. NN O O
forty-eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
re-therapy NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
interferon NN O I-PAR
alpha NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
relapsers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIM NN O O
Roughly NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
relapsed NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
respond NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
re-therapy NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Whether NN O O
prolonging NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
will NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
sustained NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
remains NN O O
ill NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
week NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
48 NN O O
week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha NN O O
and NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
in NN O O
interferon NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
relapsers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Interferon NN O I-PAR
alpha NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
relapsers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
3 NN O O
MIU NN O O
sc NN O O
weekly NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000/1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
po NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Virological NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
HCV NN O O
RNA NN O O
PCR NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
initial NN O O
response 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
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
of- NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
sustained NN O O
response NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
HCV NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
continued NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
treatment NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
12/19 NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
week NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
14/18 NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
week NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
lost NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
initial NN O O
responders NN O O
remained NN O O
HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Sustained NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
10/19 NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
week NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
13/18 NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
week NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
discontinued NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
non-compliance NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dose NN O O
modifications NN O O
were NN O O
necessary NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
week NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
anaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Prolonging NN O O
interferon NN O O
/ NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
relapsers NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
from NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Larger NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
using NN O O
pegylated NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha NN O O
and NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
in NN O O
relapsers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
seem NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14626750)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
by NN O O
community NN O O
pharmacists NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
reduced-calorie NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RCD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacy NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Travis NN O I-PAR
Pharmacy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Shenandoah NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Iowa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Ninety-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
southwestern NN O I-PAR
iowa NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
southeastern NN O I-PAR
Nebraska NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
88 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
continuing NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
MR NN O I-INT
plan NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
RCD NN O I-INT
plan NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
returned NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
RCD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O O
lost NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
= NN O O
4.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.30 NN O O
kg NN O O
MR NN O O
versus NN O O
4.30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.30 NN O O
kg NN O O
RCD NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MR NN O O
group NN O O
lost NN O O
0.70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.40 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
RCD NN O O
group NN O O
lost NN O O
0.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.40 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Successful NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacy NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
MR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RCD NN O I-INT
programs NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14627879)

Parent-defined NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
RUPP NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
customer NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
consumer-oriented NN O O
efficacy NN O O
assessment NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
should NN O O
measure NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
chief NN O O
complaint NN O O
and NN O O
consumer NN O O
request NN O O
( NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
concern NN O O
to NN O O
patient/caregiver NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
diluted NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
multisymptom NN O O
scales NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
Research NN O I-PAR
Units NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Psychopharmacology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RUPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
chief NN O O
concerns NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
standardized NN O O
primary NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Blinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
judges NN O O
rated NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
9-point NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
normalized NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
= NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
= NN O O
disastrous NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
94 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
usable NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
symptoms NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
were NN O O
tantrums NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interrater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
on NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ratings NN O O
were NN O O
collinear NN O O
with NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
dimensional NN O O
measure NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
1.2 NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O O
subscale NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
twofold NN O O
by NN O O
symptom NN O O
category NN O O
, NN O O
largest NN O O
for NN O O
self-injury NN O O
( NN O O
2.11 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tantrums NN O O
( NN O O
1.95 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
most NN O O
concern NN O O
to NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O O
individualized NN O O
participant-chosen NN O O
target NN O O
symptoms NN O O
seems NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
, NN O O
sensitive NN O O
, NN O O
efficient NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
consumer-friendly NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14628158)

Removal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hypertrophied NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
papillae NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibrous NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
polyps NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
anal NN O I-PAR
fissure NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypertrophied NN O O
anal NN O O
papillae NN O O
and NN O O
fibrous NN O O
anal NN O O
polyps NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
fissure NN O O
in NN O O
ano NN O O
. NN O O

Usually NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
specific NN O O
attention NN O O
is NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
them NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
normal NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
determining NN O O
whether NN O O
removal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hypertrophied NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
papillae NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibrous NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
polyps NN O I-INT
while NN O O
dealing NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
fissure NN O O
in NN O O
ano NN O O
confers NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
anal NN O I-PAR
sphincterotomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
fibrous NN O I-INT
polyps NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hypertrophied NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
papillae NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
removed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
intact NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
detailed NN O O
interview NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
masked NN O I-OUT
investigator NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
polyp NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
papilla NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
rated NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
excellent NN O O
or NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
grading NN O O
was NN O O
9.2 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
8.1 NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Removal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hypertrophied NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
papillae NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibrous NN O I-INT
anal NN O I-INT
polyps NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
fissure NN O O
in NN O O
ano NN O O
. NN O O

Persistence NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
structures NN O O
leaves NN O O
behind NN O O
a NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
incomplete NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Radiofrequency NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
concomitant NN O O
pathologies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14636372)

Prophylactic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
bipolar NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Phenytoin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
anticonvulsant NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
in NN O O
bipolar NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
herein NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Bipolar NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
1-13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Phenytoin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
current NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O O
observation NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
each NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nine NN O O
had NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
BP NN O O
disorder NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
F-test NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
comparing NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
3.44 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
add-on NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
BP NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
confirmation NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14649341)

Intraperitoneal NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Intraperitoneal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
has NN O O
already NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
except NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
injections NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
intraperitoneally NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
30 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 I-PAR
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
physiological NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
30 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
30 NN O O
mL NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
' NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirement NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
metamizol NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
device NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
coughing NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

morphine 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

Supplemental NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metamizol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metamizol NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
2025 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1044 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs. NN O O
4925 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1238 NN O O
and NN O O
4125 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1276mg 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
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (14650571)

Can NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
ease NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
menopause NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
2-group NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
menopausal NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
body NN O O
points NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
menopausal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
comparison NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
designated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O O
tonic NN O O
specifically NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
the NN O O
flow NN O O
of NN O O
Ch'i NN O O
( NN O O
energy NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
monthly NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flush NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
site-specific NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
comparison NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
declined NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Mood NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
acupuncture NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Acupuncture NN O I-INT
using NN O O
menopausal-specific NN O O
sites NN O O
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
nonhormonal NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14650863)

Future NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
factor NN O O
Xa NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
thrombotic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
targeted NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
factor NN O O
Xa NN O O
inhibition NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
extensively NN O O
, NN O O
initially NN O O
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
venous NN O I-PAR
thromboembolism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VTE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
selective NN O O
factor NN O O
Xa NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
diseases NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

Thromboembolic NN O O
diseases NN O O
can NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
venous NN O O
or NN O O
arterial NN O O
sides NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
circulatory NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Factor NN O O
Xa NN O O
inhibition NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
targeted NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
that NN O O
resulted NN O O
from NN O O
significant NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
coagulation NN O O
cascade NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
factor NN O I-INT
Xa NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
extensively NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
orthopedic NN O O
surgical NN O O
setting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
VTE NN O O
. NN O O

Current NN O O
investigations NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
under NN O O
way NN O O
or NN O O
completed NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fondaparinux NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
future NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
fondaparinux NN O O
resides NN O O
primarily NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
areas NN O O
: NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
VTE NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
VTE NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
VTE NN O O
, NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
as NN O O
extended NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
following NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
PENTHIFRA NN O O
Plus NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
PEGASUS NN O O
and NN O O
APOLLO NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
ARTEMIS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
evaluating NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
VTE NN O O
are NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
MATISSE NN O O
clinical NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O O
MATISSE NN O O
DVT NN O O
and NN O O
MATISSE NN O O
PE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fondaparinux NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
studies NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
including NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PENTALYSE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PENTUA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Encouraging NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
programs NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
( NN O O
MICHELANGELO NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
orthopedic NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
and NN O O
nonorthopedic NN O O
clinical NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
fondaparinux NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
targeted NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
advance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
antithrombotic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14656280)

Intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
no NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
8-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
EORTC NN O O
55875 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
in NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pathologically NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
First-line NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
debulking NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pathological NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pCR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
second-look NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
relapses NN O I-PAR
still NN O I-PAR
occurs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
153 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pCR NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
four NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
includes NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
violations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
balanced NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
terms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
P.S NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
O NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
serous NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
residuum NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
mainly NN O O
through NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
catheters NN O O
( NN O O
Port-a-Cath NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
Tenckhoff NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
included NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=grade NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=grade NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
grade NN O O
1-2 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
grade NN O O
2-3 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] 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
8 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
progressed NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
respective NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratios NN O O
for NN O O
PFS NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O O
with NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
are NN O O
0.89 NN O O
( NN O O
0.59-1.33 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.82 NN O O
( NN O O
0.52-1.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
benefit NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
are NN O O
reviewed NN O O
and NN O O
briefly NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14657766)

Nonnucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitor-containing NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
are NN O O
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14660988)

Identification NN O O
, NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Identifying NN O O
Depression NN O O
As NN O O
a NN O O
Comorbid NN O O
Condition NN O O
( NN O O
IDACC NN O O
) NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Given NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
among NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
practical NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
general-practitioner-based NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
managing NN O O
depression NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
comorbid NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
Identifying NN O O
Depression NN O O
As NN O O
a NN O O
Comorbid NN O O
Condition NN O O
( NN O O
IDACC NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
employed NN O O
a NN O O
hybrid NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
incorporating NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
nested NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

IDACC NN O O
screened NN O O
for NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
nested NN O I-PAR
IDACC NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
tests NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
identifying NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
offering NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
evidence-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
general NN O O
practitioners NN O O
, NN O O
incorporating NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
conferencing NN O I-INT
, NN O O
will NN O O
reduce NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improve NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
associated NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
46.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
1455 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Center NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Epidemiological NN O I-OUT
Studies NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=16 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
being NN O O
younger NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
, NN O O
divorced NN O O
or NN O O
separated NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
employed NN O O
, NN O O
living NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
poorer NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

Nearly NN O O
one NN O O
fifth NN O O
( NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
Center NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Epidemiological NN O I-OUT
Studies NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
27 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
project NN O O
confirms NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
Australian NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
will NN O O
enhance NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
nested NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
on NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
involving NN O O
tailored NN O O
advice NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
general NN O O
practitioners NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14661011)

Early NN O O
reperfusion NN O I-INT
and NN O O
late NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Primary NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
PCI NN O I-INT
and NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
achieve NN O O
comparable NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
ST-segment NN O O
resolution NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
and NN O O
short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
contraindication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
infarct NN O O
location NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
interquartile NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
criterion NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
location NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
bpm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
was NN O O
217 NN O O
( NN O O
139 NN O O
, NN O O
335 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCI NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
210 NN O O
( NN O O
145 NN O O
, NN O O
334 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SK NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
balloon NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
82 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
needle NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TIMI NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
primary NN O O
PCI NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
was NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCI NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SK NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predischarge NN O O
angiogram NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
PCI NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
SK NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
PCI NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
SK NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
freedom NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postdischarge NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCI NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SK NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
primary NN O O
PCI NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
SK NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
higher NN O O
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infarct NN O O
vessel NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14662278)

Determination NN O O
of NN O O
vital NN O O
status NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DIG NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Digitalis NN O O
Investigation NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
DIG NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
whose NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
beneficial NN O O
, NN O O
harmful NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
/=0.45 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
simple NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
302 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
many NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
inexperienced NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
ensure NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
reported NN O O
accurately NN O O
without NN O O
possible NN O O
bias NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
missing NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
leadership NN O O
decided NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
outcome NN O O
results NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
reported NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
vital NN O O
status 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
known NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Planning NN O O
for NN O O
closeout NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
began NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
end NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
December NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
1995 NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
plans NN O O
for NN O O
obtaining NN O O
vital NN O O
status NN O O
on NN O O
December NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
1995 NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O I-INT
postcards NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
final NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
completed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mailed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
January NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1996 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
5602 NN O I-PAR
postcards NN O I-PAR
distributed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5070 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
90.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
contract NN O O
search NN O O
agency NN O O
was NN O O
hired NN O O
to NN O O
locate NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
7788 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DIG NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
97 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
vital NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
investigators NN O O
having NN O O
an NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
end NN O O
date NN O O
include NN O O
plans NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
obtaining NN O O
their NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
activate NN O O
those NN O O
plans NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14669937)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate-protein NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
of NN O O
varying NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
concentrations NN O O
during NN O O
prolonged NN O O
variable NN O O
intensity NN O O
exercise NN O O
by NN O O
supplementing NN O O
with NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
spare NN O O
muscle NN O O
glycogen NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
will NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
supplement NN O O
. 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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate-protein NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nine NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
cyclists NN O I-PAR
exercised NN O O
on NN O O
3 NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
at NN O O
intensities NN O O
that NN O O
varied NN O O
between NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
VO2max NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
VO2max NN O O
until NN O O
fatigued NN O O
. NN O O

Supplements NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
7.75 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
7.75 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate/1.94 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Carbohydrate NN O O
supplementation NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exhaustion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
19.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.6 NN O O
min NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
12.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.1 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
supplement NN O O
( NN O O
carbohydrate-protein NN O O
26.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
elevated NN O O
above NN O O
placebo NN O O
during NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
carbohydrate-protein NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
and NN O O
carbohydrate-protein NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
that NN O O
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
evident NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14670288)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
respiratory NN O O
allergy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Sublingual NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
allergens NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
allergies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
drawback NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
long NN O O
and NN O O
complex NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
phase 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
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
different NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
served NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
20-day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
improved 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

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
For NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
allergies NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
8-day NN O O
induction NN O O
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
encourage NN O O
the NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
shorter NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
produce NN O O
better NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14674492)

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
radiographic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
guided NN O O
tissue NN O O
regeneration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
regeneration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GTR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
bioabsorbable NN O O
membrane NN O O
in NN O O
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
mandibular NN O O
molars NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
open NN O O
flap NN O O
debridement NN O O
( NN O O
OFD NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
Class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
initial NN O O
preparation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
defects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
GTR-group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
OFD-group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
standardized NN O O
radiographs NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgeries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
radiographs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
subtraction NN O O
radiography NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Comparing NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
6-month NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
horizontal NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAL-h NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
recession NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
vertical NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAL-v NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
OFD-group NN O O
. NN O O

Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments 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
in NN O O
PD NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GTR NN O O
: NN O O
1.67 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
OFD NN O O
: NN O O
2.51 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CAL-v NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GTR NN O O
: NN O O
0.62 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
OFD NN O O
: NN O O
1.16 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GR NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GTR NN O O
: NN O O
1.04 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
OFD NN O O
: NN O O
1.24 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GTR NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
complete NN O O
closure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
furcation NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O O
sites NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
horizontal NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GTR NN O O
: NN O O
2.27 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
OFD NN O O
: NN O O
1.01 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subtraction NN O O
radiography NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
height NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
GTR-group NN O O
and NN O O
OFD-group NN O O
( NN O O
-0.14 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
0.86 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14685645)

Prediction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reboxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RATIONALE NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Depression NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
post-stroke NN O O
depression NN O O
( NN O O
PSD NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
drug NN O O
is NN O O
critically NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
concurrent NN O O
pathologies NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
citalopram NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
noradrenaline NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NARI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
reboxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
anxious NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
retarded NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-four NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
as NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
anxious NN O O
or NN O O
retarded NN O O
depression NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
synoptic NN O O
table NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
subgroup NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
reboxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
Beck NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
synoptic NN O O
table NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
score NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
and NN O O
reboxetine NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
good NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Citalopram NN O O
exhibited NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
anxious NN O O
depressed NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
reboxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
retarded NN O O
depressed NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Citalopram NN O I-INT
or NN O O
other NN O O
SSRIs NN O O
and NN O O
reboxetine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
choice NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
PSD NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
good NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
PSD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
clinical NN O O
profile NN O O
( NN O O
similarly NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
primary NN O O
depression NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
SSRIs NN O O
or NN O O
reboxetine NN O O
as NN O O
drugs NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14690574)

[ NN O O
Combined NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
xeloda NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lower NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
xeloda NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
operation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
xeloda NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anal NN O I-OUT
preservation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
86.66 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
33.33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
15.38 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
83.33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Combined NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
xeloda NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lower NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
resection NN O O
, NN O O
anal NN O O
preservation NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14699228)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
requirement NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myasthenia NN O I-PAR
gravis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myasthenia NN O I-PAR
gravis NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anticholinesterase NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
heightened NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
towards NN O O
non-depolarising NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxants NN O O
. NN O O

Continuing NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
till NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
or NN O O
omitting NN O O
it NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
variable NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
regards NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIMS NN O O
Myographic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myasthenia NN O I-PAR
gravis NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
pyridostigmine NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
teaching NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Medically NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
well-controlled NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myasthenia NN O I-PAR
gravis NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
posted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
thymectomy NN O I-INT
, 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

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
their NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
while NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
even NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1-2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
intravenously NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
rescue NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Vecuronium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.01 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
intubation NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxation NN O O
during NN O O
trans-sternal NN O I-INT
thymectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
reversed NN O O
using NN O O
neostigmine NN O O
and NN O O
atropine NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
belonging NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
sexes NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intubating NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
showed NN O O
quicker NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
155 NN O O
sec NN O O
or NN O O
2.7 NN O O
min NN O O
approx NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
T1 NN O O
suppression NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
belonging NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3/7 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
discomfort NN O O
while NN O O
waiting NN O O
for NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
giving NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O O
intubating NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
peak NN O O
effect-97 NN O O
% NN O O
T1 NN O O
suppression NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
198 NN O O
sec NN O O
approx. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reversal NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Omission NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
predisposed NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
myasthenia NN O I-PAR
gravis NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
discomfort NN O O
and NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Continued NN O O
administration NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vecuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14710214)

Randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
assessing NN O O
estramustine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
estramustine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
hormone-escaped NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
North NN O O
American NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VBL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hormone NN O O
refractory NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
VBL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
rest NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
option NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
sufficient NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unexpectedly NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
or NN O O
refusal NN O O
in NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
already NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
27.2 NN O O
and NN O O
30.8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
44 NN O O
and NN O O
50.9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
24.6 NN O O
and NN O O
28.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EMP/VBL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
EMP NN O I-INT
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
the NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
tested NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
that NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
North NN O O
American NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EMP NN O I-OUT
monotherapy NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
VBL NN O I-INT
was NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
hormone NN O O
refractory NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
mandatory NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14713377)

Intervention NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Coordination NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Coordination NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DCD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
a NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Provision NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
made NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
paediatrician NN O O
through NN O O
occupational NN O I-INT
or NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
though NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
prevalence NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
regular NN O O
provision NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
limited NN O O
professional NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
guidance NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DCD NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
whether NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DCD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
helped NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
way NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

SAMPLE NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DCD NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Following NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
teachers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
child NN O O
had NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
sessions NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
lasting NN O O
approximately NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
worked NN O O
with NN O O
teachers NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
worked NN O O
with NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
swapped NN O O
over NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
regularly NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Movement NN O O
ABC NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
diaries NN O O
and NN O O
comments NN O O
from NN O O
teachers NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
40-week NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
teachers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
have NN O O
difficulties NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
complex NN O O
type NN O O
which NN O O
require NN O O
more NN O O
specialist NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
meet NN O O
their NN O O
need NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14714361)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fuzheng NN O I-INT
yiliu NN O I-INT
granule NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
and NN O O
nuclear NN O O
transcription NN O O
factor-kappa NN O O
B NN O O
in NN O O
tissue NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal-gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Fuzheng NN O I-INT
Yiliu NN O I-INT
Granule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FZYLG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
and NN O O
nuclear NN O O
transcription NN O O
factor-kappa NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
NF-kappa NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
tissue NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal-gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
FZYLG NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
FZYLG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O O
tissue NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
resected NN O O
and NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
NF-kappa NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
flowcytometry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NF-kappa NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher 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 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
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
G0/G1 NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
S NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
obvious NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher 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 NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
FZYLG NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
NF-kappa NN O O
B NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
block NN O O
the NN O O
proliferation NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14715180)

Azimilide NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
implantable NN O I-PAR
cardioverter NN O I-PAR
defibrillators NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
azimilide NN O I-INT
dihydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anti-tachycardia NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shock-terminated NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
implantable NN O I-PAR
cardioverter NN O I-PAR
defibrillators NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Animal NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
AZ NN O O
for NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
supraventricular NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
( NN O O
VT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Azimilide NN O I-INT
dihydrochloride NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
VT NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
ICD NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
ATP NN O O
and NN O O
cardioversion/defibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
ICD NN O O
shocks NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
inducible NN O O
monomorphic NN O O
VT. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
172 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
35 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
125 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
AZ NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ICDs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
majority NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
remote NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
appropriate NN O I-OUT
shocks NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
among NN O O
AZ-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICD NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient-year NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
36 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
among NN O O
35 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
125 NN O O
mg NN O O
AZ NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.31 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Azimilide NN O O
dihydrochloride NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Azimilide NN O I-INT
dihydrochloride NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
implanted NN O O
ICDs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14732749)

Outcomes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
era NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
REStenosis NN O O
with NN O O
Tranilast NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
PRESTO NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
portends NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Whether NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
current NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
( NN O O
stents NN O O
, NN O O
IIb/IIIa NN O O
antagonists NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
substantial NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
outcomes NN O O
remains NN O O
an NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
on NN O O
9-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
era NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
482 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
REStenosis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Tranilast NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
Outcomes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRESTO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
( NN O O
n=2694 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
( NN O O
n=8798 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
older NN O O
; NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
female NN O O
; NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
congestive NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
CABG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
multivessel NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Cardiology/American NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
type NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
15 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

Angiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
procedural NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar 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
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
as NN O O
time-to-first NN O O
event NN O O
within NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
certain NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
diabetes NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.31 NN O O
to NN O O
2.68 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
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
TVR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.27 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.14 NN O O
to NN O O
1.42 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
death/myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction/TVR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.26 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.13 NN O O
to NN O O
1.40 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
Despite NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
interventional NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
diabetes NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intermediate NN O O
term NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (14736356)

Single-needle NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
alleviates NN O O
gag NN O O
reflex NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
transesophageal NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
single-needle NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
in NN O O
suppressing NN O O
gag-reflex NN O O
in NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
( NN O O
TEE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Settings/locations NN O O
: NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
transient NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
TEE NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
presumed NN O I-PAR
cardioembolic NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialized NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Johann NN O I-PAR
Wolfgang NN O I-PAR
Goethe-University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Frankfurt/Main NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects/Study NN O O
interventions NN O O
: NN O O
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
single-needle NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
0.2 NN O O
x NN O O
13 NN O O
mm NN O O
disposable NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
needle NN O O
( NN O O
Suzhou NN O O
Medical NN O O
Appliances NN O O
, NN O O
China NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10-mm NN O O
deep NN O O
either NN O O
at NN O O
Chengjiang NN O O
( NN O O
midline NN O O
between NN O O
lower NN O O
lip NN O O
and NN O O
chin NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
superficially NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
tip NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chin NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
TEE NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
alleviating NN O O
gag NN O O
reflex NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gagging NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
rated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
visual-analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
gagging NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
nonacupuncture NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CV24 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
gag NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
TEE NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14745744)

Psychoeducational NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
wives NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
distress NN O O
, NN O O
coping NN O O
, NN O O
personal NN O O
growth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
marital NN O O
communication NN O O
of NN O O
wives NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
wives NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
measures NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
no-treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
wives NN O O
' NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer-specific NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
perceived NN O O
that NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
spouse NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
had NN O O
made NN O O
positive NN O O
contributions NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
lives NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
reappraisal NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
denial NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
spouses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14749563)

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxandrolone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hepatic NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
proteins NN O O
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
burned NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Acute NN O O
phase NN O O
protein NN O O
production NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
hallmark NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
burns NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
wondered NN O O
whether NN O O
anabolic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
oxandrolone NN O O
would NN O O
affect NN O O
these NN O O
proteins NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oxandrolone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
postburn NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
constitutive NN O O
proteins NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
proteins NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
admission NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
at 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
burn NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
transaminases NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Constitutive NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prealbumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retinol-binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
1-acid NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C3 NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
2-macroglobulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxandrolone NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Albumin NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxandrolone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Hepatic NN O I-OUT
transaminases NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
within NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oxandrolone NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
burns NN O O
significantly NN O O
increases NN O O
constitutive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14763475)

Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ketorolac NN O O
after NN O O
refractive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
refractive NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
stinging NN O O
on NN O O
instillation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospectively NN O O
to NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
and NN O O
surgeon NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
know NN O O
which NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Ocular NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
instillation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
radial NN O O
keratotomy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
relieving NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
stinging NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
instillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
medications NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
stinging NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
instillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1486965)

Salmeterol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
slow-release NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
ketotifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
. NN O O

French NN O I-PAR
Multicentre NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
wished NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SML NN O O
; NN O O
50 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
slow-release NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketotifen NN O I-INT
p.o NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
TK NN O O
; NN O O
T NN O O
300 NN O O
mg+K NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
expiratory NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
60-90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
reversibility NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
awakenings NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
14-day NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
successive NN O O
28-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
success/failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
disappearance NN O O
of NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
symptoms/awakening NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
SML NN O O
and NN O O
TK NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
criterion NN O O
: NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
success NN O O
with NN O O
SML NN O O
during NN O O
periods NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
28-day NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
cross-over NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
TK NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SML NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
salbutamol NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
five NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
SML-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
SML NN O O
were NN O O
obviously NN O O
far NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
TK NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nocturnal NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1488874)

Oscillatory NN O I-PAR
potentials NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
lowering NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
glucosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
HbA1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neurosensory NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OP-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
OP-2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
OP-3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
summed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OP-sum NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
amplitudes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
potentials NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
electroretinography NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
at NN O O
study NN O O
start NN O O
and NN O O
7-years NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
the NN O O
Oslo NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
7-year NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OP-2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OP-3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OP-sum NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001-0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
from NN O O
HbA1 NN O O
of NN O O
11.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
start NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
7-year NN O O
cumulative NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
9.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
identify NN O O
any NN O O
independent NN O O
relations NN O O
between NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
OP-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OP-2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OP-3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OP-sum NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
background NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
observations NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
showed NN O O
negative NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
all NN O O
OPs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001-0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
OP-3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
counts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microaneurysms 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

The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
various NN O O
clinical NN O O
background NN O O
variables NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
individual NN O O
and NN O O
summed NN O O
amplitudes NN O O
of NN O O
OPs NN O O
differently NN O O
. NN O O

Reduced NN O I-OUT
neurosensory NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OPs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
appear NN O O
after NN O O
7-years NN O O
, NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14966713)

Reliance NN O O
on NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Part NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
balance NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
cue NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
balance NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
cue NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
balance NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
vision NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Public NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemiplegia NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single-hemisphere NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
occurred NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
balance NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
programs-with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
cue NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
respects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
Balance NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
6 NN O O
sensory NN O O
conditions NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
computerized NN O O
dynamic NN O I-OUT
posturography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EquiTest NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
stair NN O I-OUT
climbing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
timed NN O I-OUT
stair NN O I-OUT
climbing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O

Balance NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vision-deprived NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
free-vision NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Balance NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
more NN O O
after NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
free NN O I-INT
vision NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O O
overuse NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
compensatory NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
imbalance NN O O
exacerbated NN O O
by NN O O
traditional NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14970775)

Injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postinjection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
palatal-anterior NN O I-PAR
superior NN O I-PAR
alveolar NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Wand NN O O
Plus NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of 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
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postinjection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
with NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
using NN O O
the NN O O
computer-assisted NN O O
Wand NN O O
Plus NN O O
injection NN O O
system NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
the NN O O
palatal-anterior NN O O
superior NN O O
alveolar NN O O
( NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
) NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
P-ASA NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
1:100,000 NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
appointments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
injection NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
utilizing NN O O
the NN O O
Wand NN O O
Plus NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
incisive NN O O
canal NN O O
located NN O O
lingual NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
incisors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postinjection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
Heft-Parker NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty NN O O
injections NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
using NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
40 NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solution 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
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
needle NN O O
placement NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
incisive NN O O
canal NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
solution NN O O
deposition NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solution 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
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
postinjection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
when NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
wore NN O O
off NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate/severe NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
3 NN O O
days 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
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

Postinjection NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
experienced NN O O
temporary NN O I-OUT
numbness/paresthesia NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incisive NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
incisive NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
soreness NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Wand NN O O
Plus NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
painful NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postinjection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
temporary NN O I-OUT
numbness/paresthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incisive NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
soreness NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
problems NN O O
occur NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
P-ASA NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1497159)

Rapid-sequence NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
fasciculations NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
pancuronium NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
minidose NN O I-INT
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Fasciculations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
intracranial NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
emesis NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
aspiration NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
requires NN O O
a NN O O
nondepolarizing NN O O
blocking NN O O
agent NN O O
before NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
fasciculations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
of NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
accomplished NN O O
as NN O O
safely NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
with NN O O
minidose NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
defasciculating NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pancuronium NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN 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

SETTING NN O O
An NN O O
inner-city NN O I-PAR
county NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
70,000 NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Sequential NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
rapid-sequence NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
contraindications NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
pancuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Each NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
who NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
maneuvers NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
IV 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
minidose NN O I-INT
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pancuronium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.03 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
one NN O O
minute NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O I-INT
paralytic NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
. NN O O

Fasciculations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
graded NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pancuronium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
fasciculations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
fasciculations NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cords NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
emesis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
dysrhythmias NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
minidose NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
no NN O O
greater NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
fasciculations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
pancuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
of NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
paralytic NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
rapid-sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
of NN O O
head NN O O
trauma NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14977031)

Body NN O I-INT
asymmetry NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
conjugate NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A. NN O O
H. NN O O
Baker NN O O
( NN O O
1989 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
A. NN O O
H. NN O O
Baker NN O O
and NN O O
A. NN O O
I. NN O O
Ledner NN O O
( NN O O
1990 NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
visual NN O O
stimulation NN O O
affects NN O O
conjugate NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CLEM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
explored NN O O
whether NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
body NN O O
position NN O O
similarly NN O O
affects NN O O
CLEM NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O O
CLEMs NN O O
twice NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
symmetric NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O I-PAR
sat NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
completely NN O I-INT
symmetrical NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
facing NN O O
a NN O O
wall NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
( NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
) NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
rotated NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
heads NN O I-INT
68 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
clockwise NN O I-INT
relative NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
bodies NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
experimenter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
half NN O I-INT
rotated NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
heads NN O I-INT
68 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
counterclockwise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
face NN O O
the NN O O
experimenter NN O O
. NN O O

CLEM NN O O
was NN O O
predominantly NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
's NN O O
position NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
asymmetrical NN O O
condition NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
's NN O O
position NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
symmetrical NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1497864)

Clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
opiate NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
self-injurious NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
maladaptive NN O O
idiosyncratic NN O O
mannerisms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
over NN O O
17 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
use NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
administered 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 I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14984440)

Delayed NN O O
genomic NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
nongenomic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticosteroids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Glucocorticosteroids NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
disease NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

rhinorrhea NN O O
and NN O O
itching NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
relief NN O O
for NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
by NN O O
steroids NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
steroid NN O O
action NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
discriminations NN O O
between NN O O
genomic NN O O
and NN O O
nongenomic NN O O
actions NN O O
of NN O O
steroids NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
affection NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
steroid NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
specific NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
three-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
intranasal NN O O
allergen NN O O
provocation NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O O
and NN O O
240 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
rhinomanometry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Nasal NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O O
following NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
steroids NN O O
within NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Itching NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
depressed NN O O
by NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
steroids NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
150 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
rsp NN O O
. NN O O

19 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
240 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
airflow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
following NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
beneficially NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
steroids NN O O
150 NN O O
and NN O O
240 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
following NN O O
betamethasone NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
shows NN O O
rapid NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O O
glucocorticosteroids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Itching NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
pathophysiologically NN O O
complex NN O O
sensation NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
favourably NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
steroids NN O O
within NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
presumably NN O O
via NN O O
nongenomic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

Though NN O O
no NN O O
detailed NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
steroid NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
receptors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
mediating NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14985215)

Plasma NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3'-dehydro-lutein NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
multiple NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
kinetic NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
synthetic NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
repeated NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
carotenoids NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
run-in NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
parallel NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
1.76 NN O O
micro NN O O
mol NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
17.6 NN O O
micro NN O O
mol NN O O
) NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
42 NN O O
d. NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
, NN O O
concentrations NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dosing NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
concentrations NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
76 NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
all-E-Zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
0.048 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.026 NN O O
micro NN O O
mol/L NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
0.20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
and NN O O
0.92 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.28 NN O O
micro NN O O
mol/L NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose-normalized NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-E-zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the10-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
1-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
kinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
17 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
> NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reached NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
half-life NN O O
for NN O O
accumulation NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
d. NN O O
The NN O O
terminal NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
all-E-3-'dehydro-lutein NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
resembled NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
all-E-zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
data NN O O
provided NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
all-E-3-'dehydro-lutein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
all-E-zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
carotenoids NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

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

CONCLUSION NN O O
Long-term NN O O
oral NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
beadlets NN O O
increases NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
approximately NN O O
4- NN O O
and NN O O
20-fold NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
that NN O O
all-E-3-dehydro-lutein NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
formed NN O O
from NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
strong NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14989068)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
dan NN O I-INT
shao NN O I-INT
tang NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
IgA NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
of NN O O
deficiency NN O O
of NN O O
yin NN O O
with NN O O
damp-heat NN O O
symptom 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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Dan NN O I-INT
Shao NN O I-INT
Tang NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
IgA NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
IgAN NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
deficiency NN O O
of NN O O
Yin NN O O
with NN O O
damp-heat NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IgAN NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Yin NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
damp-heat NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

50 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
DST NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
only NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
indexes NN O O
including NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hematuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
70.00 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
37.50 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

Treatment NN O O
group NN O O
is NN O O
obviously NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
hematuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
DST NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
IgAN NN O O
of NN O O
deficiency NN O O
of NN O O
Yin NN O O
with NN O O
damp-heat NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14995965)

Skin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
synthetase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
after NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
with NN O O
bioelastic NN O O
membrane NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
states NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
dermal NN O O
pressure NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
dazmegrel NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
greyhound NN O I-INT
dogs NN O I-INT
wearing NN O I-INT
leg NN O I-INT
casts NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sparring NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
pressure NN O O
ulcer NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
bioelastic NN O O
matrices NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
A2 NN O O
synthetase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
dazmegrel NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
tissue NN O O
concentrations NN O O
sufficient NN O O
for NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
synthesis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
animal NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
greyhound NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
thin NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
angular NN O I-PAR
conformation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
predisposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
occurring NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
vivo NN O O
skin NN O O
penetration NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
epidermal NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
bioelastic NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
synthetase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
TSI NN O O
) NN O O
matrix NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TSI NN O I-OUT
sufficient NN O O
for NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
synthetase NN O O
inhibition 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
dazmegrel NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
layers NN O O
( NN O O
epidermis NN O O
, NN O O
dermis NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
layers NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
14-day NN O O
exposures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (14996144)

Short-term NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
bipolar NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
NOS NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
manic NN O I-PAR
switch NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Current NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bipolar NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recommend NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
mood NN O O
stabilizer NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mood NN O O
stabilizer NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
re-uptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
SSRI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
recommendation NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
concern NN O O
over NN O O
antidepressant-induced NN O O
manic NN O O
switch NN O O
episodes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
recent NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
manic NN O O
switch NN O O
rate NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O O
II NN O O
MDE NN O O
during NN O O
SSRI NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
As NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
relapse-prevention NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
open-label NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O O
Depression NN O O
Rating NN O O
( NN O O
HAM-D NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
rating NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Young NN O O
Mania NN O O
Rating NN O O
( NN O O
YMR NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eleven NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
HAM-D NN O I-OUT
17 NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
HAM-D NN O O
17 NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
conservative NN O O
YMR NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=8 NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
identify NN O O
hypomanic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
YMR NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=8 NN O O
during NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
screen NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
symptoms NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
hypomania NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
stopped NN O O
treatment NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
swing NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
LIMITATIONS NN O O
Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
everyday NN O O
. NN O O

Fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
observations NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
manic NN O O
switch NN O O
rate NN O O
during NN O O
SSRI NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O O
II NN O O
MDE NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (14996351)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C. NN O O
The NN O O
on-treatment NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
interferon-based NN O O
therapies NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
systematically NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2b NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
412 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
open-label NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
206 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
2b/RBV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
206 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
180 NN O O
microg NN O O
once NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
2b/RBV NN O I-INT
at NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
MU NN O O
thrice NN O O
weekly NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
and NN O O
1000-1200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
orally NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
generic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
SF-36 NN O O
summary NN O O
and NN O O
Hepatitis NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HQLQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-specific NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
less NN O O
impairment NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
2b/RBV NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
between-treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
work NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
productivity NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O O
impairment NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
2b/RBV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hence NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
IFNalpha NN O I-INT
2b/RBV NN O I-INT
minimizes NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
pegIFNalpha NN O I-INT
2a NN O I-INT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treat NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14998846)

Reduced NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAELYX/Doxil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
efficacy NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CAELYX NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
is NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O O
in NN O O
first-line NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=509 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
( NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
cumulative NN O O
anthracycline NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
6.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
7.8 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
=1.00 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
0.82-1.22 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
than NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HR=3.16 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.58-6.31 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
HR=0.94 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.74-1.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Alopecia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
pronounced NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
than NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Palmar-plantar NN O I-OUT
erythrodysesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
than NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
MBC NN O O
, NN O O
PLD NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (14999992)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
Drawtex NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
dressings NN O I-INT
for NN O O
exuding NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
capillary NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Drawtex NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
now NN O I-INT
rebranded NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
Vibriant NN O I-INT
RCD NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
Vibriant NN O I-INT
Technology NN O I-INT
Services NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
exuding NN O I-INT
wounds NN O I-INT
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
target NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
recruitment NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
resulted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Wound NN O I-OUT
progress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
nurses NN O O
' NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
progress NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
objective NN O O
digital NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
digital NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
order NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
panel NN O O
of NN O O
nurses NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
otherwise NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
project NN O O
graded NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O O
's NN O O
progress NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
deconvolution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
( NN O O
nurse NN O O
perception NN O O
) NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
evaluation NN O O
determined NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
dressing NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
12.7 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
blinded NN O O
assessment NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
digital NN O O
images NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
by NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
progress NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
clearly NN O O
difficult NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O O
nature NN O O
makes NN O O
us NN O O
favour NN O O
novelty NN O O
if NN O O
we NN O O
believe NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
going NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
. NN O O

Making NN O O
interpretation NN O O
more NN O O
objective NN O O
removed NN O O
that NN O O
bias NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
unblinded NN O O
assessment NN O O
by NN O O
trial NN O O
nurses NN O O
is NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
. NN O O

Blinded NN O O
assessments NN O O
may NN O O
miss NN O O
finer NN O O
nuances NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
result NN O O
lies NN O O
somewhere NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
middle NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
dressing NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15002089)

Retrograde NN O O
tracing NN O O
and NN O O
electrophysiological NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
collateral NN O O
sprouting NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
end-to-side NN O I-PAR
neurorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
seek NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
evidences NN O O
of NN O O
collateral NN O O
sprouting NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
motor NN O O
and NN O O
sensory NN O O
nerve NN O O
fibres NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
end-to-side NN O I-PAR
neurorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
double-labelling NN O O
retrograde NN O O
tracing NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
regenerated NN O O
motor NN O O
axons NN O O
with NN O O
electrophysiological NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=4 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
end-to-end NN O I-INT
coaptation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
end-to-side NN O I-INT
coaptation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
fluorescent NN O I-INT
tracers NN O I-INT
( NN O O
true NN O O
blue NN O O
and NN O O
diamidino NN O O
yellow NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
ends NN O O
of NN O O
tibial NN O O
and NN O O
common NN O O
peroneal NN O O
nerves NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
or NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
nerve NN O O
coaptation NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
only NN O O
found NN O O
single-labelled NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
neurons NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
and NN O O
end-to-end NN O O
coaptation NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
some NN O O
dual-labelled NN O O
neurons NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
end-to-side NN O O
coaptation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
conduction NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
end-to-side NN O I-OUT
coaptation NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
slower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
end-to-side NN O I-INT
neurorrhaphy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
induce NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
collateral NN O O
sprouting NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
motor NN O O
and NN O O
sensory NN O O
axons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nerve NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15012924)

Does NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Due NN O O
to NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
and NN O O
fatigue NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
often NN O O
restricted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
everyday NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
gradually NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
hypoactivity NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved 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
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NYHA NN O I-PAR
II/III NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=18 NN O O
; NN O O
3-month NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=16 NN O O
; NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
everyday 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
novel NN O I-OUT
accelerometry-based NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
monitor NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Training NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6-min NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13-15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-1.3 NN O O
unit NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
everyday NN O O
PA NN O O
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
Vo NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.58 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r=0.48 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
group NN O O
level NN O O
training NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
training-related NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
parameters NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
aerobic NN O O
training NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
everyday NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CHF NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15013543)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intraoperative NN O I-INT
positioning NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
condyle NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
centre NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
articular NN O O
fossa NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disc NN O O
in NN O O
orthognathic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporomandibular NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TMJ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-INT
sagittal NN O I-INT
split NN O I-INT
osteotomy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mandible NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
orthognathic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
positioning NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
condylar NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
centre NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
articular NN O O
fossa NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TMJ NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
retrognathism NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-INT
sagittal NN O I-INT
split NN O I-INT
osteotomies NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
mandibular NN O I-INT
advancement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
TMJ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
condyles NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
centre NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
articular NN O I-INT
fossa NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Differences NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
magnetic NN O I-OUT
resonance NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
15/28 NN O I-PAR
TMJs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
positioned NN O I-PAR
changed NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disc NN O O
from NN O O
physiological NN O O
to NN O O
anterior NN O O
disc NN O O
derangement NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
reduction NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
positioned NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
TMJs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fixing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
condylar NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
centre NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
articular NN O I-INT
fossa NN O I-INT
intraoperatively NN O I-INT
before NN O O
bilateral NN O O
sagittal NN O O
split NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O O
structural NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporomandibular NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15025886)

Strength NN O O
of NN O O
vital NN O O
force NN O O
in NN O O
classical NN O O
homeopathy NN O O
: NN O O
bio-psycho-social-spiritual NN O O
correlates NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
systems NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
rating NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
classical NN O O
homeopathic NN O O
construct NN O O
of NN O O
vital NN O O
force NN O O
and NN O O
clinician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
ratings NN O O
on NN O O
previously NN O O
validated NN O O
bio-psycho-social-spiritual NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
community-recruited NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fibromyalgia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
individualized NN O O
homeopathy NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
homeopaths NN O I-PAR
jointly NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
case-taking NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
provider NN O I-PAR
independently NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Homeopaths NN O O
rated NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
vital NN O O
force NN O O
( NN O O
five-point NN O O
Likert NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
very NN O O
weak NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
= NN O O
very NN O O
strong NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Homeopaths NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
medical NN O O
provider NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
normal NN O O
; NN O O
7 NN O O
= NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
extremely NN O O
ill NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
completed NN O O
self-rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
style NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
locus NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
multidimensional NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spirituality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
states NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
desirability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Greater NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
2.9 NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
correlated NN O O
moderately NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
homeopaths NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
=-0.59 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
patient-rated NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
confusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
=-0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
vigor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
states NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vital NN O O
force NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
correlations NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
medical NN O O
provider NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
=-0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
selfrated NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.33 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lesser NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
=-0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
powerful-others NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
locus NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
desirability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
illness NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Homeopathic NN O O
vital NN O O
force NN O O
ratings NN O O
reflect NN O O
better NN O O
perceived NN O O
mental NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
energy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
, NN O O
beyond NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15037334)

Correlates NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
documented NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
questions NN O O
remain NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
this NN O O
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
If NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
relationships NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
clearly NN O O
observable NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
institutionalization NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
confound NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
307 NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
psychopathology NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
untreated NN O O
psychosis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Approximately NN O I-PAR
two-thirds NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
untreated NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DUI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
exists NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
relationship NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
10-15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
potentially NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
provides NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
theory NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
processes NN O O
that NN O O
give NN O O
rise NN O O
to NN O O
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
partially NN O O
overlapping NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15039684)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
seizures NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
blunt NN O O
head NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
early NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
seizures NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
blunt NN O O
head NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
blunt NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
within NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
presentation NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
pediatric NN O O
trauma NN O O
centers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
neurologic NN O O
outcome NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Bayesian NN O O
decision-theoretic NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
remaining NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
seizure NN O O
free NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
48-hour NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
that NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
the NN O O
originally NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
0.0053 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probability NN O O
that NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
any NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
0.383 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
-0.015 NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
seizure NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
phenytoin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
probability NN O O
interval NN O O
-0.127 NN O O
to NN O O
0.091 NN O O
( NN O O
12.7 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
seizures NN O O
with NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
seizures NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
much NN O I-PAR
lower NN O O
than NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Phenytoin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
substantially NN O O
reduce NN O O
that NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15051597)

LDL NN O O
cholesterol-raising NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Long-chain NN O O
n-3 NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
have NN O O
variable NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
0.7 NN O O
g NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
as NN O O
triacylglycerol NN O O
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
40-65 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
0.7 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
DHA/d NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
DHA NN O O
supplementation NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Values NN O O
for NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
0.22 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
0.23 NN O O
mmol/L 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
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
DHA NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggested NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
lathosterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plant NN O I-OUT
sterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.7 NN O O
g NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
down-regulates NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LDL NN O O
receptor NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15055365)

Reflexive NN O I-OUT
orienting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
arrow NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
another NN O O
person NN O O
's NN O O
social NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
non-social NN O O
directional NN O O
cue NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
arrow NN O O
, NN O O
triggered NN O O
reflexive NN O I-OUT
orienting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
experiments NN O O
involved NN O O
the NN O O
localization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
appeared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
appeared NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
participant NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
cued NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
arrow NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
direction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
gaze NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
slower NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
respond NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
disregard NN O O
the NN O O
cue NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
was NN O O
correctly NN O O
cued NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
responded NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
to NN O O
cued NN O O
targets NN O O
than NN O O
to NN O O
uncued NN O O
targets NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cue NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
opposite NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cues NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
was NN O O
correctly NN O O
cued NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Typically NN O O
developed NN O O
children NN O O
located NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
cued NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
quickly NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
arrow NN O O
cue NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
trigger NN O O
such NN O O
reflexive NN O I-OUT
orienting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
non-social NN O O
cues NN O O
shifted NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
cued NN O O
location NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
attracted NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
arrow NN O O
in NN O O
typically NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
shifted NN O O
their NN O O
attention NN O O
equally NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
and NN O O
arrow NN O O
direction NN O O
, NN O O
failing NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
preferential NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
cue NN O O
. NN O O

Difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
shifting NN O O
controlled NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
instructed NN O O
side NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15055890)

Perispinal NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
labour NN O I-PAR
followed NN O O
by NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sufentanil NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
spinal-epidural NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
labour NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
benefits NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
involving NN O O
113 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
obstetric NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analgesia NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
spinal-epidural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
54 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
59 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
sufentanil NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Duration NN O O
of NN O O
labour NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
faster NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bupivacaine NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
11.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
unilateral NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
40.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
presentation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pruritus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hypotension 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
somnolence 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
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
meningitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O O
technique NN O O
provided NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesia NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
alone NN O O
but NN O O
offered NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
induced NN O O
more NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
before NN O O
routinely NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
spinal-epidural NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15068403)

Cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
childhood-onset NN O O
disorder NN O O
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
aetiologies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
are NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
neurotransmitters NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
5-HT NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
in NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
disorders NN O O
and NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
platelet NN O O
5-HT NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
hyperserotonaemia NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
pathologic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5-HT2 NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
8-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialty NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Roozbeh NN O I-PAR
Psychiatric NN O I-PAR
Teaching NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chief NN O I-PAR
complaint NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
0.05 NN O O
and NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
third-year NN O O
resident NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatry NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
relating NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
systematically NN O O
recorded NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
checklist NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Extrapyramidal NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
resident NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatry NN O O
during NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 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
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
with NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
behaviour NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
across NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
groups-by-time NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
Greenhouse-Geisser NN O O
correction NN O O
; NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
7.30 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
1.68 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
; NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
8.21 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
1.19 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
between-subjects NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.17 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
; NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.29 NN O O
, NN O O
d.f NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
need NN O O
confirmation NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15080019)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
on NN O O
post-operative 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
during NN O O
opioid NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
analgesia NN O O
( NN O O
PCA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
374 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
PCA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
added NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
PCA NN O O
pump NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PONV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
graded NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
anti-emetics NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
48-h NN O O
post-operative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
PCA NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headaches NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
opioid NN O O
PCA NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15088136)

Bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GOALS NN O O
OF NN O O
WORK NN O O
We NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
preference NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
either NN O O
pamidronate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Z NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
their NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
clinic NN O O
or NN O O
home NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
their NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
clinic NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
P NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Z NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
184 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
received NN O O
initial NN O O
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Z NN O I-INT
( NN O O
so NN O O
any NN O O
first NN O O
infusion NN O O
reactions NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
confound NN O O
preferences NN O O
for NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
their NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
infusions 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
Z NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
Z NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
questioned NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
preferences NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
they NN O O
continued NN O O
on NN O O
Z NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
every NN O O
3-4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
their NN O O
renal NN O O
safety NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

Where NN O O
practical NN O O
, NN O O
later NN O O
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
( NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
questioned NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
preferred NN O O
infusion NN O O
location NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
convenience NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
43 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
clinic NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
Z NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
timing NN O O
infusions NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
144 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
138 NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
questions NN O O
on NN O O
bisphosphonate NN O O
preference NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
138 NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
127 NN O O
) NN O O
preferred NN O O
Z NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
, NN O O
because NN O O
shorter NN O O
infusions NN O O
caused NN O O
less NN O O
disruption NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16/138 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
home NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
13/14 NN O O
questioned NN O O
preferred NN O O
this NN O O
location NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
184 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

obstructive NN O O
uropathy NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
Z NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
receive NN O I-OUT
Z NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
concomitant NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
about NN O O
half NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
vs NN O O
161 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
prefer NN O O
shorter NN O O
bisphosphonate NN O I-OUT
infusions-and NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
practical NN O O
. NN O O

Regular NN O O
Z NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
Z NN O I-INT
rather NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
could NN O O
save NN O O
busy NN O O
cancer NN O O
centres NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15091267)

Should NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
intramedullary NN O O
nails NN O O
for NN O O
tibial NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
reaming 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
with NN O O
3.8 NN O O
years NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
unreamed NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tibial NN O I-PAR
shaft NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Level NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
displaced NN O I-PAR
closed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
Gustilo NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I-IIIA NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
thirds NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
tibia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Stabilization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
fractures NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
slotted NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stainless NN O I-INT
steel NN O I-INT
reamed NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
solid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
titanium NN O I-INT
unreamed NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Nonunions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malunions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
25.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
nonunions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
all NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
fractures NN O O
healed NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
dynamization NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
removing NN O I-OUT
static NN O I-OUT
interlocking NN O I-OUT
screws NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
third NN O O
nonunion NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
heal NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
exchange NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
nailing NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
dynamization NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fibular NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
malunions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
malunions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
outcome NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Unreamed NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tibial NN O I-PAR
shaft NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
operations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
malunions NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
reamed NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
unreamed NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15093843)

Calcium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AFF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
rapid NN O O
ventricular NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
RVR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
reported NN O O
diltiazem-induced NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
from NN O O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
totaling NN O O
over NN O I-PAR
450 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
complicate NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CaCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
would NN O O
blunt NN O O
a NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

diltiazem NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
allowing NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy 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
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AFF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
/= NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
beats NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
minute NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Half NN O O
received NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

CaCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
then NN O O
received NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
weight-based NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
CaCl NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
if NN O O
clinically NN O O
indicated NN O O
for NN O O
additional NN O O
rate NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
CaCl NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
equal NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
study NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
became NN O O
paradoxically NN O O
more NN O O
tachycardic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apneic NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

CaCl NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O O
safe NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
AFF NN O O
with NN O O
RVR NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
blunting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
CaCl NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

pre-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
determines NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
exists NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

CaCl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
before NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
AFF NN O O
with NN O O
RVR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15098782)

Improved NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results 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

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
polymeric NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CoSeal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Gelfoam/thrombin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
managing NN O I-INT
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Dacron NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
reconstruction NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
nonruptured NN O I-INT
aneurysms NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
directly NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
confirmation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anastomotic NN O I-INT
bleeding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
suture NN O O
line NN O O
sites NN O O
that NN O O
achieved NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
sealing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
sealed NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
among NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
suture NN O O
line NN O O
sites NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
polymeric NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
sealing NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
reestablishment NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control-treated NN O O
sites NN O O
[ NN O O
48 NN O O
of NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
with NN O O
approximately NN O O
85 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
of NN O O
59 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
CoSeal NN O I-INT
sites NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
just NN O O
over NN O O
one-half NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
ultimate NN O I-OUT
sealing 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
polymeric NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
novel NN O O
sealant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anastomotic NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15101027)

The NN O O
reversibility NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
airways NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
measured NN O O
by NN O O
impulse NN O O
oscillometry NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND 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
complain NN O O
of NN O O
breathlessness NN O O
and NN O O
fatigue NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Airways NN O O
resistance NN O O
is NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
lung NN O O
compliance NN O O
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
are NN O O
reversible NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
any NN O O
improvements NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
or NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
repeated NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
airways NN O O
resistance NN O O
using NN O O
impulse NN O O
oscillometry NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
metabolic NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
after NN O O
receiving NN O O
nebulized NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
steeper NN O O
slope NN O O
relating NN O O
ventilation NN O O
to NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
production NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Bronchodilators NN O O
reduced NN O O
peripheral NN O O
airways NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
0.53 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.38 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
0.21 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
slope NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
slope NN O O
relating NN O O
symptoms NN O O
to NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
Borg/VE NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-8 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

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
VT NN O O
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
gradient NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Borg/VE NN O I-OUT
slope NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
r=.40 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nebulized NN O O
bronchodilators NN O O
improve NN O O
airways NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
reactance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
peak NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
do NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breathlessness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15119720)

Bitewing NN O I-PAR
film NN O I-PAR
quality NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
loop NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
holder NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
bitewing NN O O
film NN O O
quality NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
holder NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
bitewing NN O I-PAR
films NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
premolar NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
bitewing NN O I-INT
holder NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
360 NN O I-PAR
films NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taken NN O O
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
experienced NN O O
practitioner NN O O
not NN O O
apprised NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bitewing NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
used NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
overlaps NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
teeth NN O O
showing NN O O
the NN O O
alveolar NN O O
crest NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
proper NN O O
film NN O O
positioning NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
cone NN O O
cutting NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Poisson NN O O
regression NN O O
using NN O O
generalized NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
( NN O O
GEEs NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
overlap NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
proper NN O O
positioning NN O O
and NN O O
cone NN O O
cutting NN O O
, NN O O
logistic NN O O
regressions NN O O
using NN O O
GEEs NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
horizontal NN O I-OUT
overlaps NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
loop NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
holder NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
premolar NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
molar NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O O
premolar NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
molar NN O O
were NN O O
1.64 NN O O
, NN O O
2.11 NN O O
, NN O O
2.16 NN O O
, NN O O
2.78 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.64 NN O O
, NN O O
2.00 NN O O
, NN O O
2.00 NN O O
, NN O O
2.18 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
loop NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
was NN O O
1.11 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
overlapping NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
holder NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
showing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
crest NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
loop NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
97.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mandibular NN O O
second NN O O
premolar NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
molar NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
film NN O O
positioning NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
loop NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
was NN O O
1.12 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
improper NN O I-OUT
positioning NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
holder NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
techniques NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
cone NN O I-OUT
cutting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
loop NN O O
versus NN O O
0 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
holder NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
bitewing NN O O
films NN O O
taken NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
loop NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
holder NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15141043)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
colectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
, NN O O
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
was NN O O
first NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
1990 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
colectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Concern NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
would NN O O
compromise NN O O
survival NN O O
by NN O O
failing NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
proper NN O O
oncologic NN O O
resection NN O O
or NN O O
adequate NN O O
staging NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
altering NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
frequent NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrences NN O O
within NN O O
surgical NN O O
wounds NN O O
) NN O O
prompted NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
872 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
colectomy NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
credentialed NN O I-PAR
surgeons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
4.4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
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
16 NN O O
percent NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
underwent NN O O
laparoscopically NN O O
assisted NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
percent NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-colectomy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
two-sided NN O O
P=0.32 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
0.86 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.63 NN O O
to NN O O
1.17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
wounds NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
very 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
86 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic-surgery NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-colectomy NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.51 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic-surgery NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.91 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.68 NN O O
to NN O O
1.21 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Perioperative NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic-surgery NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-colectomy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
six NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
briefer NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O O
narcotics NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
four NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
analgesics NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
day NN O O
vs. NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
30-day NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reoperation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
multi-institutional NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopically NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
colectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
open NN O I-INT
colectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
open NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15154956)

ROMEO NN O O
: NN O O
rethink NN O O
organization NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Scarcity NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
, NN O O
expertise NN O O
and NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
models NN O O
have NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
limited NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
patient-centred NN O O
diabetes NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
validated NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
care NN O O
approach NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
applicable NN O O
to NN O O
everyday NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
ROMEO NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
applicability NN O O
and NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
outpatients NN O O
facilities NN O O
and NN O O
assess NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
Type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Training NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
physicians NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dietitians NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
operating NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
videos NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
facilities NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
resources NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
PRIMARY NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
3-monthly NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist-hip NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
yearly NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bi-yearly NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SECONDARY NN O O
OUTCOMES 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 I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QT NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-hypertensive NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
by NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
If NN O O
ROMEO NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
group NN O O
care NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
successfully NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
clinics NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
clinico-pedagogic NN O O
tool NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
acquired NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
patient-centred NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
team NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
enhance NN O I-OUT
providers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
competencies NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
diabetes NN O O
care NN O O
organization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15160783)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
in NN O O
evaluating NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15162076)

A NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Carvedilol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Metoprolol NN O I-INT
European NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COMET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
& NN O O
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
adrenergic NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
beta-1-selective NN O I-INT
agent 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
and NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
that NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
subgroups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O O
detail NN O O
the NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
particular NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
descriptive NN O O
report NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
entered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
COMET NN O I-INT
study NN O O
data-base NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
. NN O O

Almost NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
diuretics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
few NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
angiotensin NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
co-morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Older NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
reported NN O O
worse NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
poorer NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
similar NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
NT-proBNP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
NT-proBNP NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
confounded NN O O
by NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
, NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
'well-being NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1516345)

Double NN O O
blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Iomeprol NN O I-INT
350 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Iopamidol NN O I-INT
340 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-ionic NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
Iomeprol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
commonly NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
Iopamidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O O
and NN O O
densitometric NN O O
comparison NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
digital NN O O
subtraction NN O O
angiograms NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
media NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
similar NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
imaging NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ninety-eight NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
angiograms NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
management NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
vascular NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15165532)

Mouth NN O O
closing NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
) NN O O
reduces NN O O
mouth NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
nasal NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Mouth NN O O
leak NN O O
occasionally NN O O
complicates NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
discomfort NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
a NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
prevents NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
from NN O O
opening NN O O
during NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
diminishing NN O O
mouth NN O O
leak NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mouth NN O I-PAR
leak NN O I-PAR
complaining NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mouth NN O I-PAR
dryness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
two NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
overnight NN O I-INT
polysomnographies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
chinstrap NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cephalometry NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
chinstrap NN O I-INT
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
the NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
mouth NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
arousal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
( NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
) NN O O
42.9+/-23.5 NN O O
to NN O O
23.8+/-13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TST NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
33.4+/-18.6 NN O O
to NN O O
23.6+/-9.3/sleep NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
snoring NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
increase NN O O
from NN O O
6.7+/-14.3 NN O O
to NN O O
24.0+/-13.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
TST NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
arousal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
leak NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
changes NN O O
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
mouth NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cephalometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
closing NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
during NN O O
CPAP NN O O
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
mouth NN O O
leak NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
arousal NN O O
index NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O O
remained NN O O
unacceptably NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
increase NN O O
snoring NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
rare NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
worsen NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
disturbance NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Consideration NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
before NN O O
instituting NN O O
regular NN O O
home NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chinstrap NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15167457)

Gender NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
descent NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
diuretic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
descent NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
determined NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
AB/BA NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Hypertensive NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
descent NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Seychelles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included.Main NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
ABP NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LIS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
The NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
ABP NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
HCT NN O O
was NN O O
4.9 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
1.2-8.6 NN O O
] NN O O
/3.6 NN O O
( NN O O
1.0-6.2 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
12.9 NN O O
( NN O O
9.2-16.6 NN O O
) NN O O
/6.3 NN O O
( NN O O
3.7-8.8 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
LIS NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18.8 NN O O
( NN O O
15.0-22.5 NN O O
) NN O O
/14.6 NN O O
( NN O O
12.0-17.1 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
12.4 NN O O
( NN O O
8.7-16.2 NN O O
) NN O O
/7.7 NN O O
( NN O O
5.1-10.2 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
night-time NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
5.0 NN O O
( NN O O
0.6-9.4 NN O O
) NN O O
/2.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
-5.7 NN O O
] NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
11.5 NN O O
( NN O O
7.1-16.0 NN O O
) NN O O
/5.7 NN O O
( NN O O
2.6-8.8 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
LIS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
18.7 NN O O
( NN O O
14.2-22.1 NN O O
) NN O O
/15.4 NN O O
( NN O O
12.4-18.5 NN O O
) NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
3.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
-7.9 NN O O
] NN O O
/2.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
-0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
-5.4 NN O O
] NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

Linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
gender NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
predictor NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ABP NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
LIS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O O
descent NN O O
responded NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
LIS NN O I-INT
than NN O O
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Men NN O I-OUT
responded NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
LIS NN O O
than NN O O
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
women NN O I-OUT
responded NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15169706)

Weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
risperidone-treated NN O I-INT
youths NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O O
prospective NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
developmental NN O O
impact NN O O
and NN O O
temporal NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone-associated NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
final NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mixed NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
that NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Age- NN O O
and NN O O
gender-standardized NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
gross NN O O
: NN O O
mean=5.6 NN O O
kg NN O O
[ NN O O
SD=3.9 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
standardized NN O O
: NN O O
mean=0.6 NN O O
z NN O O
[ NN O O
SD=0.5 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gained NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
mean=-0.3 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
SD=6.2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
N=48 NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
final NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Chronic NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
causes NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
excess NN O O
of NN O O
developmentally NN O O
expected NN O O
norms NN O O
that NN O O
follows NN O O
a NN O O
curvilinear NN O O
trajectory NN O O
and NN O O
decelerates NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
reliably NN O O
predict NN O O
risperidone-associated NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15172423)

Comparative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
reactive NN O O
oxygen NN O O
species NN O O
formation NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin 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
valsartan NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reactive NN O O
oxygen NN O O
species NN O O
( NN O O
ROS NN O O
) NN O O
formation NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
, NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
mass NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
104 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
ARBs NN O I-INT
have NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
-independent NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
LV NN O O
mass NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
LV NN O O
mass NN O O
by NN O O
ARBs NN O I-INT
is NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
ROS NN O O
formation NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
understood NN O O
yet NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
and NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
80-mg NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
5-mg NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
eight NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
LVMI NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
two-dimensional NN O O
M-mode NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
. NN O O

Formation NN O O
of NN O O
ROS NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
gated NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
CRP NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
renin NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
aldosterone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
traditional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
LVMI NN O O
and NN O O
ROS NN O O
formation NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
LVMI NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Valsartan NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
LVMI NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
eight NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ROS NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Valsartan NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ROS NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LVMI NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LVMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
has NN O O
BP-independent NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
LVH NN O O
, NN O O
ROS NN O O
formation NN O O
by NN O O
monocytes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LVH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15175435)

Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
promising NN O O
preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
813 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
402 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
every NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
411 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20.3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
15.6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
death NN O O
of NN O O
0.66 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
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
6.2 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
0.54 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
corresponding NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
were NN O O
44.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
34.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.4 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
7.1 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
0.62 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
IFL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
easily NN O O
managed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
to NN O O
fluorouracil-based NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15176685)

Clarithromycin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
semisynthetic NN O I-INT
macrolide NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
methacholine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adult NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
budesonide NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-PAR
microg NN O I-PAR
b.i.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
salbutamol NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-PAR
microg NN O I-PAR
p.r.n NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Arm NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
males/six NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
b.i.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
males/12 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.id NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
arm NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
six NN O O
males/15 NN O O
females NN O O
, NN O O
aged NN O O
41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
yrs NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
. NN O O

Bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
quantified NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
provocative NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
causing NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD20 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
interquartile NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
PD20 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
: NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
0.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.6-2 NN O O
) NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
0.4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1-0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
2-2 NN O O
) NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
0.4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1-0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.1-0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clarithromycin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15180835)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
diode-laser NN O O
and NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
prethreshold NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
indirect NN O O
diode NN O O
laser NN O O
photocoagulation NN O O
and NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
prethreshold NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prematurity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1600 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prethreshold NN O I-PAR
ROP NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
indirect NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prethreshold NN O O
ROP NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
any NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
ROP NN O O
in NN O O
zone NN O O
I NN O O
with NN O O
plus NN O O
disease NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
stage NN O O
3 NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
contiguous NN O O
clock NN O O
hours NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
total NN O O
clock NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
retina NN O O
in NN O O
zone NN O O
II NN O O
with NN O O
plus NN O O
disease NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
threshold NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ROP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Regression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ROP NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Excellent NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
achieved NN O O
if NN O O
ROP NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
treated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
prethreshold NN O O
stage NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
indirect NN O O
laser NN O O
photocoagulation NN O O
and NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
laser NN O O
has NN O O
definite NN O O
advantages NN O O
, NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
modality NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
economic NN O O
reasons NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15181401)

[ NN O O
Cardiac NN O O
protection NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
Anaesthetics NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
against NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
administration NN O O
could NN O O
exert NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
following NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

b NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
operative NN O I-PAR
theatre NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
c NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
42 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 I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INCLUSION NN O I-PAR
CRITERIA NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
descending NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
collateral NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
normokinetic NN O I-PAR
segments NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
supplied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
vessel NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
bypassed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Transoesophageal NN O I-INT
Tissue NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
echocardiographic NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
systolic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
diastolic NN O I-INT
velocities NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
basally NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
surgeon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
e NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MEASURES NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
registered NN O O
by NN O O
Tissue NN O O
Doppler NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
long-axis NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interventricular NN O O
septum NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
wall NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
intramyocardial NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
during NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
before NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusion NN O O
seem NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15182139)

Predicting NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
among NN O O
foreign-born NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
latent NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Los NN O I-PAR
Angeles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Los NN O I-PAR
Angeles NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
among NN O O
foreign-born NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
latent NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LTBI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
766 NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
610 NN O I-PAR
foreign-born NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
prospective NN O O
face-to-face NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
, NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
on NN O O
socio-demographic NN O O
and NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
clinic-related NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O I-INT
chart NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
abstracted NN O I-INT
regarding NN O O
clinic NN O O
appointment NN O O
keeping NN O O
and NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multivariate NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Foreign-born NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
US-born NN O O
adolescents NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.26 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.15-1.39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
living NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.74 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.02-2.97 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
intercourse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
0.66 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.36-1.19 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
speaking NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
English NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.15-1.03 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
why NN O O
some NN O O
adolescents NN O O
complete NN O O
care NN O O
whereas NN O O
others NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
provide NN O O
supportive NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
tailored NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
foreign-born NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15188980)

Analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
expressed NN O O
breast NN O O
milk NN O O
in NN O O
procedural NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
term NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
expressed NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EBM NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
venepuncture NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
term NN O O
neonates NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
full-term NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postnatal NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
needed NN O I-PAR
venepuncture NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
investigations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
venepuncture NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
babies NN O O
received NN O O
5 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
EBM NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
41 NN O O
babies NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
distilled NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DW NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
observers NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
recorded NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Neonatal NN O I-OUT
Facial NN O I-OUT
Coding NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NFCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
venepuncture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS 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
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neonates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
babies NN O O
fed NN O O
EBM NN O O
[ NN O O
median NN O O
38.5 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
) NN O O
9.5-57.5 NN O O
s NN O O
] NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
fed NN O O
DW NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
90 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
IQR NN O O
28-210 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
EBM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
by NN O O
70.7 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
36.6-104.9 NN O O
) NN O O
s. NN O O
The NN O O
modified NN O I-OUT
NFCS NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EBM NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DW NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EBM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
sooner NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DW NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Feeding NN O O
5 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
EBM NN O I-INT
before NN O O
venepuncture NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15189781)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelium NN O O
in NN O O
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statins NN O O
and NN O O
fibrates NN O O
influence NN O O
endothelial NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
atherogenesis NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyslipidemia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
3 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
wash-out NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated 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
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
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
N-acetyl-beta-glucosaminidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PAI-1 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
vonWillebrand NN O I-OUT
factor 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
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fenofibrate NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
and NN O O
fenofibrate NN O O
interact NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
Type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15189800)

Chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
versus NN O O
neuroendocrineimmune NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
syndrome NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
differential NN O I-INT
attributions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Since NN O O
1988 NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
term NN O O
chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
CFS NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
coined NN O O
, NN O O
considerable NN O O
discussion NN O O
has NN O O
occurred NN O O
about NN O O
stigma NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
term NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CFS NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
felt NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
term NN O O
trivializes NN O O
the NN O O
serious NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Name NN O O
Change NN O O
Work NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
appointed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
CFS NN O O
Coordinating NN O O
Committee NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
an NN O O
umbrella NN O O
term NN O O
: NN O O
chronic NN O O
neuroendocrineimmune NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
CNDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
sub-types NN O O
under NN O O
this NN O O
term NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
being NN O O
CFS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
attributions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
umbrella NN O O
term NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CFS NN O O
. NN O O

Nurses NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
assistants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CFS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
neuroendocrineimmune NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
neuroendocrineimmune NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
had NN O O
formerly NN O O
been NN O O
called NN O O
chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
different NN O O
terms NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
attributions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
PA NN O O
respondents NN O O
rating NN O O
the NN O O
CNDS NN O O
label NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
sounding NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
CNDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
attributions NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
this NN O O
syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disabling NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
policy NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15191260)

Is NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
a NN O O
promising NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Peer NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
effectively NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
trained NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
mentor NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
low NN O O
proportion NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
perceived NN O O
support NN O I-OUT
reciprocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
5.94 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
readmissions 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
or NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evident NN O O
at NN O O
90-days NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
enrollment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Including NN O O
additional NN O O
self-care NN O O
education NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
professional NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
leaving NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mentor NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
strengthen NN O O
the NN O O
peer NN O O
support NN O O
intervention NN O O
trialed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Small NN O O
group NN O O
meetings NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
intrusive NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
desirable NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15191587)

Mandibular NN O O
overdentures NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
Br?nemark NN O O
, NN O O
IMZ NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ITI NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
5-year NN O O
prospective NN O O
study 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
prospective NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
peri-implant NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
IMZ NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
system NN O O
( NN O O
two-stage NN O O
cylindertype NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Br?nemark NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two-stage NN O O
screwtype NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ITI NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O O
one-stage NN O O
screwtype NN O O
) NN O O
supporting NN O O
a NN O O
mandibular NN O O
overdenture NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
endosseous NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
interforaminal NN O O
region NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mandible NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
radiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prosthetic NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after 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
and NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
loading NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
98.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
IMZ NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
98.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Br? NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ITI NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingiva NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
very NN O O
low NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
evaluation NN O O
periods NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
IMZ NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Br? NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ITI NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
two NN O O
implants NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interforaminal NN O O
region NN O O
, NN O O
connected NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
bar NN O O
, NN O O
supply NN O O
a NN O O
proper NN O O
base NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mandibular NN O I-PAR
overdenture NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
years NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
radiographic NN O O
changes NN O O
had NN O O
developed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
implant NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15193471)

An NN O O
open NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
danazol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
triptorelin NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
danazol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
triptorelin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Decapeptyl NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O O
Ferring NN O O
, NN O O
Kiel NN O O
, NN O O
Germany NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
revised NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
Fertility NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
triptorelin NN O I-INT
every NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Open NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Kwong NN O I-PAR
Wah NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
location NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Hong NN O I-PAR
Kong NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
conservative NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
confirmation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
revised NN O I-PAR
AFS NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
danazol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
triptorelin NN O I-INT
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
postmedical NN O O
therapy NN O O
second-look NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Symptom NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
posttherapy NN O I-OUT
revised NN O I-OUT
AFS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
triptorelin NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
danazol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
breakthrough NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
More NN O O
patients NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
danazol NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
revised NN O I-OUT
AFS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
second-look NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

Adequate NN O I-OUT
pituitary NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Lengthening NN O O
of NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
intervals NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
a NN O O
hypoestrogenic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
compliant NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
than NN O O
danazol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
triptorelin NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15193939)

Brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O I-PAR
differentially NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
increasing NN O I-PAR
temporal NN O I-PAR
complexity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rhythms NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
initialisation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
synchronisation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
continuation NN O I-PAR
phases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
paced NN O I-INT
finger NN O I-INT
tapping NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
performed NN O O
motor NN O O
sequences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
limbs NN O O
moved NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
movements NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
trajectories NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
searched NN O O
for NN O O
activity NN O O
correlating NN O O
with NN O O
temporal NN O O
complexity NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
intervals NN O O
produced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
overlearned NN O O
tapping NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
task NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
phases NN O O
: NN O O
movement NN O I-INT
selection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
initiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
initiate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
synchronisation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
finger NN O I-INT
tapping NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
cue NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
synchronise NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O I-INT
tapping NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
absence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
pacer NN O I-INT
( NN O O
continue NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
between NN O O
synchronisation NN O O
and NN O O
continuation NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
pattern NN O O
in NN O O
keeping NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
neuroimaging NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
paced NN O O
finger NN O O
tapping NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
SMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
ganglia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
continuation NN O I-INT
tapping NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
synchronisation NN O I-INT
tapping NN O O
. NN O O

Parametric NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
correlating NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
complexity NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
initiate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
supplementary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pre-supplementary NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preSMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rostral NN O I-OUT
dorsal NN O I-OUT
premotor NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
ganglia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dorsolateral NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DLPFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
synchronise NN O O
, NN O O
correlated NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
bilateral NN O O
SMA NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
caudal NN O O
dorsal NN O O
and NN O O
ventral NN O O
PMC NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
primary NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
correlated NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
continue NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
( NN O O
corrected NN O O
, NN O O
cluster NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
left NN O O
angular NN O O
gyrus NN O O
was NN O O
active NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
preSMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rostral NN O I-OUT
dorsal NN O I-OUT
PMC NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
initiate NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
selection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
centromedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
initiate NN O O
and NN O O
synchronise NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
temporal NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
complexity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
continue NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
an NN O O
overlearned NN O O
timed NN O O
movement NN O O
sequence NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
selected NN O O
and NN O O
initiated NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
further NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
control NN O O
processes NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
continued NN O O
production NN O O
in NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O O
cues NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15196300)

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glyceryltrinitrate NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
glyceryltrinitrate NN O O
( NN O O
GTN NN O O
) NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
was NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
used 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
prophylactic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
chose NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
well NN O O
documented NN O O
effect NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
migraine NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
compound NN O O
would NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
in NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antimigraine NN O O
drug NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
aura NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
blind NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Valproate NN O I-INT
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
treatment NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
GTN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.25 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Headache NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
registered NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
. NN O O

Fulfillment NN O O
of NN O O
IHS NN O O
criteria NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
transcranial NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GTN NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
fulfilling NN O I-OUT
IHS NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
1.1 NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.125 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Including NN O O
additionally NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
who NN O O
felt NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
suffered NN O O
a NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
as NN O O
associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
photophobia NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
phonophobia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-9 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
4.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-8 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.120 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
velocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
GTN NN O O
( NN O O
left NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.781 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.367 NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
GTN NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
GTN NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
probably NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
valproate NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
testing NN O O
new NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antimigraine NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15198767)

Needle NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
diathermy NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
transformation NN O O
zone NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O O
or NN O O
incomplete NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
needle NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
transformation NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NETZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LLETZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
West NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CIN NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
LLETZ NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
NETZ NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
demostrate NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
clear NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LLETZ NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
NETZ NN O O
with NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
significance NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
for NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
CIN NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
specimen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
ineligible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
forty-seven NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
CIN NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
specimen NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
excision NN O O
margins NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NETZ NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
had NN O O
clear NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
84.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
NETZ NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
739 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
larger NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.33 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
likely NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
removed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
pieces NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
29.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.04 NN O O
to NN O O
0.20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Needle NN O O
excision NN O O
took NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
210 NN O O
vs NN O O
90 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
surgeons NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
'difficult NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
3.17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.33 NN O O
to NN O O
7.58 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
peri-operative NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
NETZ NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
specimen NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
piece NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
clear NN O O
margins NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
LLETZ NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15200727)

Patterning NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
Martha NN O O
Rogers NN O O
' NN O O
science NN O O
of NN O O
unitary NN O O
human NN O O
beings NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
modality NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
MANCOVA NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O I-INT
4-day NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
power NN O I-OUT
emerged NN O O
. NN O O

Guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
nursing NN O I-PAR
modality NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
sufferers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15200998)

Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Big NN O O
Lung NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
meta-analysis NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
cisplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
when NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
radical NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
'best NN O O
supportive NN O O
care NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
included NN O O
many NN O O
small NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
differing NN O O
eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Big NN O O
Lung NN O O
Trial NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
to NN O O
run NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
setting NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
381 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
192 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
NoC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
189 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
C NN O O
was NN O O
three NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin/vindesine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mitomycin/ifosfamide/cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mitomycin/vinblastine/cisplatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vinorelbine/cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
whilst NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
received NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
median NN O O
age NN O O
61 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
male NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
squamous NN O O
cell NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
WHO NN O O
PS NN O O
0-1 NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
prescribed NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
delays NN O O
or NN O O
modification NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

30 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mainly NN O I-OUT
haematological NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenic NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
198 NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
HR NN O O
1.02 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.77-1.35 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
following NN O O
complete NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O O
I-III NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
large NN O O
recently NN O O
reported NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15217131)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
transrectal NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsies NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
periprostatic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O O
transrectal NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
intra-rectally NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
biopsies NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
p?riprostatique NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
anaesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
biopsies NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
them NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
308 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
156 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
experienced NN O O
statistically NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.1 NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.8 NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
1.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significative NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.8 NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Rectal NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
during NN O O
prostatic NN O O
biopsies NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Lidoca?ne NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
both NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
tends NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
comfort NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15220012)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glimepiride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
Mexican NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pioglitazone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

Pioglitazone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
thiazolidinedione NN O O
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
sulfonylurea NN O O
insulin NN O O
secretagogue NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
Mexican NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
glimepiride NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
52-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
initially NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
initially NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Doses NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
( NN O O
maximal NN O O
doses NN O O
: NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
45 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
glycemic NN O O
targets NN O O
( NN O O
fasting NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=7 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
and NN O O
1-hour NN O O
postprandial NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=10 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Homeostasis NN O O
Model NN O O
Assessment NN O O
for NN O O
Insulin NN O O
Sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
HOMA-S NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Quantitative NN O O
Insulin NN O O
Sensitivity NN O O
Check NN O O
Index NN O O
( NN O O
QUICKI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fasting NN O O
serum NN O O
insulin NN O O
( NN O O
FSI NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

Glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
glycosylated NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
HbA NN O O
( NN O O
1c NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
( NN O O
FPG NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
their NN O O
individual NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
regimens NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
121 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
123 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
glimepirede NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
comparable NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
-0.78 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-0.68 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
group NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
8.66 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
7.80 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
values NN O O
after NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
7.46 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
7.77 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pioglitazone NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
FPG NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pioglitazone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

HOMA-S NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
18.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
-7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
QUICKI NN O O
values NN O O
changed NN O O
a NN O O
respective NN O O
0.013 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.007 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
FSI NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
-21.1 NN O O
and NN O O
15.1 NN O O
pmol/L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
treatment-emergent NN O O
cases NN O O
: NN O O
35/121 NN O O
[ NN O O
28.9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
17/123 NN O O
[ NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19 NN O O
[ NN O O
15.7 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
38 NN O O
[ NN O O
30.9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
glimepiride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Mexican NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
sustained NN O O
antihyperglycemic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15223738)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aquatics NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fitness NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
pre-test-post-test NN O O
randomized-groups NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
aquatic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
fitness NN O O
measured NN O O
included NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscular NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-programme NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Increases NN O O
in NN O O
fitness NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
successfully NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
aquatic NN O O
exercise NN O O
may NN O O
positively NN O O
impact NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15223814)

Intravenously NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenously NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
both NN O O
retinal NN O O
and NN O O
choroidal NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
two-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
in NN O O
stepwise NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
0.08 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
0.16 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.32 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Retinal NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
retinal NN O O
vessel NN O O
analyzer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
bi-directional NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
velocimetry NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
retinal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Subfoveal NN O O
and NN O O
pulsatile NN O O
choroidal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
flowmetry NN O O
and NN O O
laser NN O O
interferometry NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
pulsatile NN O I-OUT
choroidal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subfoveolar NN O I-OUT
choroidal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Retinal NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.047 NN O O
, NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
, NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
veins NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
by NN O O
-9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Calculated NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
changed NN O O
by NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
, NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravenous NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
selected NN O O
doses NN O O
increased NN O O
choroidal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Retinal NN O O
vessels NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
unchanged NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
local NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
receptor NN O O
distribution NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15223903)

Predicting NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-INT
sibling NN O I-INT
stem-cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
French NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Allogeneic NN O I-INT
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
stem-cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
cost-intensive NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
determine NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
data NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prospective NN O I-INT
French NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
comparing NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
immunoglobulins NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Resource NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem-cell NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
posttransplant NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
inpatient NN O O
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
costs NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
costed NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
retrieved NN O O
. NN O O

Protocol-driven NN O O
costs NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariable NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
pretransplant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transplant-related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
randomization NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
patient NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
76,237 NN O O
Euros NN O O
; NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
32,565 NN O O
Euros NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
69,516 NN O O
Euros NN O O
; NN O O
range NN O O
183,758 NN O O
to NN O O
14,761Euros NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
major NN O O
cost NN O O
driver NN O O
was NN O O
hospital NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
higher NN O O
costs NN O O
( NN O O
adding NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
20,000 NN O O
Euros/patient NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
transplant-related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
unpredictable NN O O
before NN O O
transplant NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
homogeneous NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
discrepancy NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
Diagnosis NN O O
Related NN O O
Group NN O O
prospective NN O O
payment NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
geno-identical NN O O
stem-cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
posttransplant NN O O
complications NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
predicted NN O O
prospectively NN O O
and NN O O
require NN O O
ex NN O O
post NN O O
cost NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15224298)

Retroinfusion-supported NN O I-INT
stenting NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
myoprotect NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
retroinfusion-supported NN O I-INT
stenting NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
increasing NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
main-stem NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
main-stem-equivalent NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. 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
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
here NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-center NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
main-stem NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
main-stem-equivalent NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
substantially NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
where NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
either NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty/stent NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
were NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
pressure-regulated NN O I-INT
retroinfusion NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
cardiac NN O O
vein NN O O
during NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
differ NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
Parsonnet NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-eight-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bypass NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
52.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
target NN O O
lesion NN O O
revascularization NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
stent NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
favorably NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bypass NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
9,346 NN O O
+/- NN O O
807 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26,874 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3,985 NN O O
euro NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
retroinfusion-supported NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Though NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stent NN O O
group NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
lesion NN O O
revascularization NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
retroinfusion-supported NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
substantially NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
selected NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15238023)

Why NN O O
distinctive NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
false NN O I-OUT
memories NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
impoverished NN O I-PAR
relational-encoding NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
distinctiveness NN O I-PAR
heuristic NN O I-PAR
accounts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
accounts NN O O
explain NN O O
why NN O O
studying NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
false NN O I-OUT
memories NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
Deese-Roediger-McDermott NN O O
paradigm NN O O
( NN O O
J. NN O O
Deese NN O O
, NN O O
1959 NN O O
; NN O O
H. NN O O
L. NN O O
Roediger NN O O
& NN O O
K. NN O O
B. NN O O
McDermott NN O O
, NN O O
1995 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impoverished NN O O
relational-encoding NN O O
account NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
studying NN O I-OUT
pictures NN O I-OUT
interferes NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
encoding NN O O
of NN O O
relational NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
false NN O O
memories NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
paradigm NN O O
. NN O O

Alternatively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
distinctiveness NN O O
heuristic NN O O
assumes NN O O
that NN O O
critical NN O I-OUT
lures NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
actively NN O O
withheld NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
retrieval NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-INT
recall NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
studied NN O I-INT
items NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
related NN O I-INT
items NN O I-INT
, NN O O
they NN O O
still NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
critical NN O I-OUT
lures NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
often NN O O
after NN O O
picture NN O O
encoding NN O O
than NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
after NN O O
word NN O O
encoding NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
impoverished NN O O
relational-encoding NN O O
account NN O O
suggests NN O O
, NN O O
critical NN O I-OUT
lures NN O I-OUT
appear NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
come NN O O
to NN O O
mind NN O O
after NN O O
picture NN O I-INT
encoding NN O I-INT
than NN O O
they NN O O
do NN O O
after NN O O
word NN O I-INT
encoding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
postrecall NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distinctiveness NN O O
heuristic NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1524884)

Severe NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inoperable NN O I-PAR
non-metastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
oesophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
-- NN O O
early NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1525112)

The NN O O
implications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
introducing NN O O
the NN O O
symphyseal-fundal NN O I-INT
height-measurement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15260182)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
two-month NN O I-INT
vocal NN O I-INT
exercising NN O I-INT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
spectral NN O I-INT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
on NN O O
student NN O I-PAR
actors NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
speaking NN O O
voice NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
student NN O I-PAR
actors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
voice NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
, NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
way NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
with NN O O
real-time NN O O
spectrum NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
ringing NN O I-OUT
voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
strong NN O I-OUT
overtones NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3-5 NN O I-OUT
kHz NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Text NN O O
samples NN O O
read NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
loudness NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Fundamental NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SPL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term-average NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LTAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

Voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
voice NN O O
trainers NN O O
. NN O O

Sound NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3-5 NN O I-OUT
kHz NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
3-4 NN O I-OUT
dB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5-14.5 NN O O
dB NN O O
) NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
larger NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
( NN O O
BF NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
SPL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
F0 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
BF NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
dB NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fundamental NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BF NN O O
group NN O O
probably NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
tighter NN O O
adduction NN O O
. NN O O

Voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Visual NN O O
feedback NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
add NN O O
some NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
voice NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
danger NN O O
of NN O O
hyperfunctional NN O O
voice NN O O
production NN O O
if NN O O
other NN O O
sensory NN O O
feedback NN O O
is NN O O
neglected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1526697)

Dihydroergocryptine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
senile NN O I-PAR
psycho-organic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
ergot NN O O
alkaloid NN O O
, NN O O
dihydroergocryptine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
organic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neurophysiological NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
alkaloid NN O O
improved NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
dihydroergocryptine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
alterations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15267097)

Herpesvirus-like NN O O
particles NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
saltwater NN O I-PAR
crocodile NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Crocodylus NN O I-PAR
porosus NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1527133)

The NN O O
A-V NN O I-INT
Impulse NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
deep-vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
swelling NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
A-V NN O I-INT
Impulse NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
in NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
subcapital NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
deep-vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
Doppler NN O I-INT
ultrasonography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
device 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

Calf NN O O
and NN O O
thigh NN O O
circumferences NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
seven NN O O
to NN O O
ten NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thigh NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
3.27 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calf NN O O
by NN O O
1.55 NN O O
cm 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
A-V NN O O
Impulse NN O O
System NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
deep-vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15272537)

Human NN O O
achaete-scute NN O O
homologue NN O O
( NN O O
hASH1 NN O O
) NN O O
mRNA NN O O
level NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
marker NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
esthesioneuroblastoma NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
poorly NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
arising NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sinonasal NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Distinction NN O O
of NN O O
high-grade NN O I-PAR
esthesioneuroblastomas NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
other NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
arising NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
cavity NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
challenge NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
determines NN O O
patient NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
human NN O O
achaete-scute NN O O
homologue NN O O
( NN O O
hASH1 NN O O
) NN O O
gene NN O O
is NN O O
critical NN O O
in NN O O
olfactory NN O O
neuronal NN O O
differentiation NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
immature NN O O
olfactory NN O O
cells NN O O
; NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
potential NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
marker NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
hASH1 NN O O
messenger NN O O
RNA NN O O
( NN O O
mRNA NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
differentiating NN O O
esthesioneuroblastoma NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
poorly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
real-time NN O I-INT
polymerase NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
, NN O O
permitting NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
hASH1 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
triplicate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
including NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
frozen NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
esthesioneuroblastoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
4 NN O O
positive NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
esthesioneuroblastomas NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
19 NN O O
poorly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
tumors NN O O
were NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
inverse NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
esthesioneuroblastomas NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hASH1 NN O O
mRNA NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hASH1 NN O O
mRNA NN O O
level NN O O
might NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
distinguishing NN O O
esthesioneuroblastoma NN O O
from NN O O
poorly NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sinonasal NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15274666)

Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
a NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
6-day NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
two NN O O
simplified NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
alternatives NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Study NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunoblot NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
screening NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
10-21 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
olds NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
offered NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tinidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lansoprasole NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATL-group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATP-group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Urea NN O I-OUT
Breath NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
inclusion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
minimum NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
end NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
131 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Full NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
of NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
of NN O O
65 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ATL- NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ATP-group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
identify NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O O
, NN O O
successful NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
PPI NN O O
) NN O O
-based NN O O
triple NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
remain NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
, NN O O
powerful NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15274670)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
motilin NN O O
agonist NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
gastroparesis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
motilin NN O O
agonist NN O O
without NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
accelerates NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
gastroparesis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastroparesis NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
solid/liquid NN O O
meal NN O O
using NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
glycaemic NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
measurement NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
upper NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
and NN O O
'meal-related NN O O
' NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
t.d.s. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
or NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
intragastric NN O O
retention NN O O
at NN O O
100 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
T100 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
liquid NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
emptying NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
T50 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
meal NN O O
. NN O O

KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
slightly NN O O
worsened NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
upper NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
solid NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
KC NN O I-INT
11458 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.d.s NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
accelerate NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diabetic NN O O
gastroparesis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
may NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hyperglycaemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15275765)

Gabapentin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gabapentin NN O I-INT
alleviates NN O O
and/or NN O O
prevents NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
nociceptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
especially NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
trauma NN O O
. NN O O

Gabapentin NN O I-INT
might NN O O
also NN O O
reduce NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
postoperative NN O O
opioid NN O O
sparing NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
gave NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
oxazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
h NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Gabapentin NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
additional NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PCA NN O O
boluses NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
microg NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
20 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
worst NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
0-100 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
gabapentin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting/retching NN O I-OUT
possibly NN O O
either NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diminished NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
opioids NN O O
or NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
itself NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
preoperative 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
encountered NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
premedication NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
oxazepam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
preoperative NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15279417)

[ NN O O
Structural NN O O
and NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
topical NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
medication NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
line NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
open NN O O
angle NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
structural NN O O
and NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
glaucoma NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
For NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
40 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
epidemiological-operational NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
enrolling NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recently 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
The NN O O
eyes NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
non-selective NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
analogues NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
carbonic NN O I-INT
anhydrase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
instilled NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-INT
tears NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
preservative NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
the NN O O
cytology NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
biopsy NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
histological NN O O
exams NN O O
and NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
using NN O O
different NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibodies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
collaboration NN O O
with NN O O
The NN O O
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Development NN O O
in NN O O
Pathology NN O O
and NN O O
Biomedical NN O O
Sciences- NN O O
V. NN O O
Babes NN O O
-Bucharest NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
morphometric NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
histological NN O O
sections NN O O
of NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
changes NN O O
: NN O O
squamous NN O I-OUT
metaplasia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thickness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
layers NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibroblasts NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subconjunctival NN O I-OUT
fibrosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
subepithelial NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degenerative NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extracellular NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
up-regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
According NN O O
to NN O O
structural NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
tendency NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
important NN O O
structural NN O O
and NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
glaucoma NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
category NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sort NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
benzalkonium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
most NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
preservative NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
antiglaucoma NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15283485)

Long-term NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
after NN O O
functional NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
sinus NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Chronic NN O I-PAR
rhinosinusitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
disease NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
significant 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
( NN O O
QOL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
longer-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
medical NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
CRS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
overall NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
QOL NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
utilized NN O O
the NN O O
Short-Form NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
Survey NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
post-functional NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
sinus NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
visitfrom NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
150 NN O O
respondents NN O O
completed NN O O
follow-up NN O O
surveys NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-nine NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
40.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
men 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

Baseline NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CRS NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
published NN O O
norms NN O O
in NN O O
6/8 NN O O
subscale NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bodily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
six NN O O
categories NN O O
was NN O O
maintained 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
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
published NN O O
norms NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
sinus NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
appropriate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
maintaining NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
general NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
surgical NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
scores NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
normative NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15294387)

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adaptive NN O I-INT
automation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
vigilance NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adaptive NN O I-INT
automation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O O
vigilance NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
responded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
green NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
array NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nine NN O I-INT
distractor NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
40-min NN O I-INT
vigil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
array NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
stimulus NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
once NN O O
each NN O O
minute NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
EEG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
engagement NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EI NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
x NN O O
beta/ NN O O
( NN O O
alpha NN O O
+ NN O O
theta NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
derived NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
feedback NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EI NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
array NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EI NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
feedback NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
array NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
array NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Each NN O O
experimental NN O O
participant NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
yoked NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
array NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
engagement NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
vigilance NN O O
decrement NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
feedback NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15299181)

Concomitant NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Hellenic NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
3-yr NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
fractionated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
concomitantly NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cb NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
From NN O O
January NN O O
1995 NN O O
until NN O O
July NN O O
1999 NN O O
, NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
70 NN O O
Gy NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
concomitantly NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
DDP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
on NN O O
d NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
Cb NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
AUC NN O O
on NN O O
d NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
RT NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.3 NN O O
, NN O O
45.2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17.7 NN O O
mo NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.2 NN O O
, NN O O
48.6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24.5 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
yr NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
alive NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
nausea/vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
clearly NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
platinum NN O I-INT
analogs NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
prolongs NN O O
3-yr NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
RT NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15304592)

Minocycline NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Huntington NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Minocycline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
with NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
antiapoptotic NN O O
properties NN O O
that NN O O
prolongs NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
transgenic NN O O
Huntington NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
mouse NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
minocycline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
determined NN O O
that NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
minocycline NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15304616)

IV NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
chorea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
acute NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15305197)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
UK NN O I-INT
genetic NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
attendees NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-INT
genetic NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
represented NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Scotland NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
ranked NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
genetics NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Questionnaires NN O O
assessed NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
pre-consultation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
attendees NN O O
and NN O O
referring NN O O
doctors NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
256 NN O I-PAR
unaffected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
five NN O O
centres NN O O
varied NN O O
widely NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
service NN O O
organisation NN O O
and NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
all NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
unaffected NN O O
attendees NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
61-91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
bowel NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
0-33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
3-25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
centres NN O O
pre-counselling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
centres NN O O
for NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
centres NN O O
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
worry NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
mammographic NN O O
surveillance NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
received NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
mammography NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
screened NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
attendance NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
GP NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
risk NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
centres NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
centres NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
: NN O O
14 NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
provision NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
: NN O O
17 NN O O
items NN O O
concerning NN O O
communication NN O O
; NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
overall NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
referring NN O O
doctors NN O O
were NN O O
moderately/very NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
service NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
dissatisfied NN O O
with NN O O
waiting NN O O
times NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
centres NN O O
for NN O O
doctor NN O O
's NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
referral NN O O
criteria NN O O
and NN O O
prescribing NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
relatively NN O O
few NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
centres NN O O
, NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
wide NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
service NN O O
organisation NN O O
and NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
centres NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
specific NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
provision NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15307010)

Once-daily NN O O
versus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
efavirenz NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral-naive NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
equivalence NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
that NN O O
involved NN O O
554 NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral-naive NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus-infected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=400 NN O I-PAR
copies/mL NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
cells/mm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
300-mg NN O I-PAR
once-daily NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
q.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3TC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
150-mg NN O I-PAR
twice-daily NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
b.i.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3TC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
efavirenz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
q.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
48-week NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
equivalent NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
the NN O O
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
400 NN O I-OUT
copies/mL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
bound NN O O
of NN O O
-12 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
missing NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
3TC NN O I-INT
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
3TC NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

regimens NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
( NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
RNA NN O O
level NN O O
< NN O O
400 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
, NN O O
178 NN O O
[ NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
278 NN O O
vs. NN O O
174 NN O O
[ NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
276 NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
RNA NN O O
level NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
, NN O O
165 NN O O
[ NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
278 NN O O
vs. NN O O
168 NN O O
[ NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
276 NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
above NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

group NN O O
, NN O O
+144 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

group NN O O
, NN O O
+146 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HIV-associated NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1530836)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
2-agonist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
respiratory NN O O
impedance NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
bronchodilators NN O I-INT
on NN O O
spirometry NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
impedance NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
forced NN O O
oscillations NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
three NN O O
trial NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
inhaled NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
hydrobromide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
fenoterol NN O I-INT
from NN O O
a NN O O
powder NN O O
inhaler NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
drug NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
inhalation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Rrs NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
ipratropium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O I-OUT
Rrs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
fenoterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
studied NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reactance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
resonant NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-OUT
fenoterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
34 NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
38 NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
ipratropium NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
17 NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fenoterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
120 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ipratropium NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
qualitatively NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
regimens NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
terms NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
fenoterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
ipratropium NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reactance NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
explained NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
capacitance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
assuming NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15309442)

Rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
bread NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
elevates NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ferulic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Rye NN O I-INT
bread NN O I-INT
contributes NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
grain NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Scandinavian NN O I-PAR
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
phenolic NN O O
compound NN O O
in NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
cardioprotective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
grain NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Firstly NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
antioxidative NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
of NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
from NN O O
rye NN O O
. NN O O

Secondly NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ferulic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
biomarker NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ordinary NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ferulic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inert NN O I-INT
wheat NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
washout NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
potential NN O O
antioxidative NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
ex NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
ingested NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
enriched NN O O
breads NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
approximately NN O O
10.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ferulic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
averaged NN O O
approximately NN O O
4.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
during NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
breads NN O I-INT
and NN O O
approximately NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
breads NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
propagation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
from NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
is NN O O
bioavailable NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
hydroxycinnamic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
elevated NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
measurable NN O O
antioxidative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
LDL NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
ferulic NN O O
acid NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
biomarker NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ferulic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15310639)

Caudal NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
a NN O O
dose-independent NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
varying NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
genito-urinary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypospadias NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
only NN O I-INT
caudal NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
plain NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-PAR
mL.kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mL.kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Groups NN O I-PAR
II-IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
microg.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hr NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
hr NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
II NN O O
-16.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.9 NN O O
hr NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
- NN O O
17.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.5 NN O O
hr NN O O
; NN O O
IV NN O O
- NN O O
17.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.8 NN O O
hr NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
697.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
240.7 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
caudal NN O O
neostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
II NN O O
- NN O O
248.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
178.4 NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
- NN O O
270.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
180.8 NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
-230.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
166.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regards NN O O
to NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption 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

Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
alteration NN O O
in NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Caudal NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
microg.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
a NN O O
dose-independent NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
16-17 NN O O
hr NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
caudal NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
five NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15312096)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
amine NN O I-INT
fluoride/stannous NN O I-INT
fluoride-containing NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
during NN O O
supportive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AmF/SnF2 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
supragingival NN O O
plaque NN O O
accumulation NN O O
and NN O O
gingival NN O O
inflammation NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
32.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One-half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
either NN O O
prescribed NN O O
an NN O O
AmF/SnF2-containing NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
( NN O O
test NN O O
mouthrinse NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
mechanical NN O I-INT
plaque NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PlI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angulated NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AngBI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tongue NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Test NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
PlI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
GI NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
PlI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
test NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
mouthrinse NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GMSI NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
score NN O O
being NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
12-week NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
AmF/SnF2-containing NN O I-INT
mouthrinse NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
mechanical NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
procedures NN O O
in NN O O
GAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
supragingival NN O O
plaque NN O O
deposits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15324531)

Oxaprozin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
NSAID-refractory NN O O
periarthritis NN O O
pain NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
shoulder 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 O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periarthritis NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
unsuccessfully NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonsteroidal NN O I-PAR
anti-inflammatory NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
diclofenac NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oxaprozin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
1200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
49 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
47 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
equivalence NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
15 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient-assessed NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
investigator-assessed NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient-assessed NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Short-Form-36 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Acute NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
investigators NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
-5.85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
4.62 NN O O
and NN O O
-5.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
4.41 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Investigator-assessed NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
so NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxaprozin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
favourable NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
'mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
oxaprozin NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
diclofenac-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0202 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
investigators NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
at NN O O
visit NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0067 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
overall NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
superior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diclofenac NN O I-INT
at NN O O
visits NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0235 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0272 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
six NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
in NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
once-daily NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variable NN O O
of NN O O
patient-assessed NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
previous NN O O
treatments NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
NSAIDs NN O O
. NN O O

Oxaprozin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
by NN O O
investigators NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
greater NN O O
overall NN O O
efficacy NN O O
than NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
superior NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
better NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
oxaprozin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15327617)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
termination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
second NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
abortion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Tertiary NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
every NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
woman NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
abort NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
induction-to-abortion NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
sublingual NN O O
: NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
vaginal NN O O
: NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sublingual NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% 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
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
induction-to-abortion NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
sublingual NN O O
: NN O O
13.8 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
vaginal NN O O
: NN O O
12.0 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sublingual NN O O
group NN O O
preferred NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
route NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assigned NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sublingual NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
second NN O O
trimester NN O O
medical NN O O
abortion NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
sublingual NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
abortion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Vaginal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
but NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
also NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15346745)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
allograft NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
putty NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bovine-derived NN O I-INT
xenograft NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
ridge NN O O
preservation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
histologic NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
ridge NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ridges NN O I-OUT
preserved NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
graft NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nonmolar NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
placement NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ridge NN O I-INT
preservation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
allograft NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
putty NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
barrier NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bovine-derived NN O I-INT
xenograft NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Horizontal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vertical NN O I-OUT
ridge NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
caliper NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
template NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
postextraction NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trephine NN O O
core NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
histologic NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O O
ridge NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
0.50 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
midbuccal NN O I-OUT
vertical NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
PUT NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
0.3+/-0.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
of NN O O
0.7+/-1.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
BDX NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Histologic NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-9 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-20 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
BDX NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Greater NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
fill NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
earlier NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
vascular NN O O
invasion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carrier NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
putty NN O O
material NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
ease NN O O
of NN O O
handling NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
placement NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
graft NN O O
particle NN O O
containment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Allograft NN O O
mixed NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
putty NN O O
carrier NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
vital NN O O
bone NN O O
fill NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
xenograft NN O I-INT
with NN O O
no NN O O
carrier NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

Ridge NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
dimensions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
preserved NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
graft NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15356085)

Flutamide-metformin NN O O
plus NN O O
ethinylestradiol-drospirenone NN O O
for NN O O
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antiatherogenesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
hyperandrogenism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
key NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
low-dose NN O O
flutamide NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
low-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
flutamide-metformin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ethinylestradiol-drospirenone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recently NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
excess NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
diminish NN O O
the NN O O
deficit NN O O
in NN O O
lean NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
dysadipocytokinemia NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
hyperandrogenism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
questioned NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
flutamide NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
androgen NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
that NN O O
contains NN O O
drospirenone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
progestin NN O O
claimed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
antiandrogen NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
additive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
flutamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
hyperandrogenism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
yr 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
approximately NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
started NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
850 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fourth-generation NN O I-PAR
contraceptive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
ethinylestradiol NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
drospirenone NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
d/month NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
flutamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
dual NN O O
x-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
Doppler NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
arterial NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
start NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pulsatility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
arteries NN O O
were NN O O
elevated NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
3-month NN O O
changes NN O O
between NN O O
randomized NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
flutamide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
consistently NN O O
( NN O O
more NN O O
) NN O O
normalizing NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ovaries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
low-dose NN O O
flutamide NN O O
is NN O O
herewith NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
pivotal NN O O
component NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
hypoadiponectinemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
hyperresistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
polycystic NN O O
ovary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
challenge NN O O
any NN O O
claim NN O O
that NN O O
drospirenone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
currently NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
antiandrogen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15356657)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
etoposide-based NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relapsed NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
ALL NN O O
R15 NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
epipodophyllotoxins NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
frontline NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
started NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
L-asparaginase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Etoposide NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
Day NN O I-INT
22 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
consolidation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
continuation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
single-agent NN O O
etoposide NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blast NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
blasts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
( NN O O
84.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
attained NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
estimates NN O O
( NN O O
+/-se NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
52.0+/-9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
late NN O O
relapse NN O O
and NN O O
20.0+/-8.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
early NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
cytoreductive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
relapsed NN O O
ALL NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15358441)

Estradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
neurosteroid NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
neuroactive NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
different NN O O
hormonal NN O O
settings NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
natural NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
second NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cyclicity NN O O
in NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
climacteric NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
administered NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
women NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
continuously NN O O
during NN O O
two NN O O
28-day NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
sequentially NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3alpha-hydroxy-5beta-pregnan-20-one NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
saccadic NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SEV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
saccade NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
saccade NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-rated NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
kept NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
variance NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
cyclicity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
cyclical NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+progesterone NN O I-INT
the NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
saccadic NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
self-rated NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
pregnanolone NN O O
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SEV NN O O
, NN O O
saccade NN O I-OUT
acceleration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
expressing NN O O
cyclicity NN O O
in NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
cyclical NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
negative NN O O
mood NN O O
during NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+progesterone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pregnanolone NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
expressing NN O I-PAR
cyclicity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
pregnanolone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
women NN O O
without NN O O
symptom NN O O
cyclicity NN O O
during NN O O
HRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15358853)

Peripheral NN O O
arterial NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
confidence NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
and NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
additional NN O O
imaging NN O O
recommendations NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
multi-detector NN O I-INT
row NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomographic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
revascularization NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
additional NN O O
imaging NN O O
and NN O O
physician NN O O
confidence NN O O
ratings NN O O
for NN O O
chosen NN O O
therapy 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
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
73 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Physician NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
outcome NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
of NN O O
0-10 NN O O
( NN O O
uncertain NN O O
to NN O O
certain NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
dichotomous NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
further NN O O
imaging NN O O
recommended NN O O
, NN O O
yes NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
recommendations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
DSA NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-diagnose-and-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
detect NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
confidence NN O O
, NN O O
confidence NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
plotted NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
detect NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
recommendations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
eligible NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
between NN O O
randomized NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

CT NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
8.2 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
imaging NN O O
was NN O O
recommended NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
after NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
71 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
66 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
trends NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
increasing NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stable NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
between NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
8.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.26 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
With NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
, NN O O
physician NN O O
confidence NN O O
decreases NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
associated NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
additional NN O O
imaging NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
revascularization NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Given NN O O
that NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
less NN O O
invasive NN O O
than NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
may NN O O
replace NN O O
DSA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
selected NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15358872)

Parent NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
parental NN O O
competence NN O O
in NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
problem NN O O
behaviours NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
formats NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
workshop NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measures NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
: NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
parents NN O O
reporting NN O O
fewer NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
held NN O O
across NN O O
formats NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
parent NN O O
management NN O O
training NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Asperger NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Group NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
strategies NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15374792)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
race NN O I-INT
with NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
following NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
489 NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6,890 NN O I-PAR
non-black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Important NN O O
racial NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
independent NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
race NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1-year NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
non-black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.93 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1541306)

Absorption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
phenobarbitone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
phenobarbitone NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
Karen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1.7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comatose NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
unconscious NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
convulsions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
died NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
admission NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remainder NN O O
made NN O O
an NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
convulsions NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
anticonvulsant NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
observable NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
phenobarbitone NN O O
recipients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
deepen NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coma NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O I-OUT
sleepy NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Phenobarbitone NN O O
was NN O O
rapidly NN O O
absorbed NN O O
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
peak NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
34.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
29.3-42.6 NN O O
] NN O O
mumol.l-1 NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
2.5-12 NN O O
) NN O O
h. NN O O
These NN O O
values NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
convulsions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intramuscular NN O O
phenobarbitone NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
absorbed NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
anticonvulsant NN O O
dose NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15446660)

Faulty NN O O
Japanese NN O O
sentences NN O O
are NN O O
judged NN O O
more NN O O
grammatical NN O I-INT
when NN O O
punctuation NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
: NN O O
negative NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
Chomsky NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
principle NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Full NN O I-INT
Interpretation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
88 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
speakers NN O I-PAR
judged NN O O
the NN O O
grammaticality NN O O
of NN O O
isolated NN O O
simple NN O O
bitransitive NN O O
sentences NN O O
involving NN O O
an NN O O
uninterpretable NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
argument NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
legitimate NN O I-INT
arguments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sentences NN O O
thus NN O O
violated NN O O
Chomsky NN O O
's NN O O
principle NN O O
of NN O O
Full NN O O
Interpretation NN O O
which NN O O
prohibits NN O O
the NN O O
structure NN O O
building NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sentence NN O O
including NN O O
uninterpretable NN O O
elements NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
variable NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
punctuation NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
commas NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
enclosed NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
argument NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
sentences NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
punctuation NN O O
were NN O O
judged NN O O
more NN O O
grammatical NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O O
ones NN O O
without NN O O
punctuation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
judged NN O O
grammaticality NN O O
exceeding NN O O
3 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
7-point NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
=least NN O O
grammatical NN O O
; NN O O
7=most NN O O
grammatical NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
score NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
speakers NN O O
possess NN O O
and NN O O
judge NN O O
the NN O O
sentences NN O O
in NN O O
conformity NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
principle NN O O
of NN O O
Full NN O O
Interpretation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15449150)

Enhanced NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
apoptosis NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
preoperative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
tegafur NN O I-INT
and NN O O
uracil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
UFT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
tegafur NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
uracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
induce NN O O
apoptosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
UFT NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
apoptotic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
terminal NN O O
deoxynucleotidyl NN O O
transferase-mediated NN O I-OUT
deoxyuridine NN O I-OUT
triphosphate NN O I-OUT
biotin NN O I-OUT
nick NN O I-OUT
end-labeling NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TUNEL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
. NN O O

Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Ki-67 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5-FU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
chemical NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
adenocarcinoma NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UFT-treated NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
5-FU NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
continuous NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
UFT NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
enhanced NN O O
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
5-FU NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
adenocarcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
AI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15453848)

Position NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
capsule NN O O
opacification NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
continuous NN O O
curvilinear NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
capsule NN O I-OUT
opacification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
61-86 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
phacoemulsification NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
surgeon NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
implantation NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
intraocular NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SI40NB NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Allergan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
AcrySof NN O I-INT
IOL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MA60BM NN O O
, NN O O
Alcon NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O O
capsule NN O O
opacification NN O O
computer NN O O
software NN O O
( NN O O
EPCO NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
retroillumination NN O O
photograph NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
If NN O O
the NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
located NN O O
partially NN O O
or NN O O
completely NN O O
off NN O O
the NN O O
optics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
totally NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
PCO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
comparing NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
IOL NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AcrySof NN O O
IOLs NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
PCO NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O O
was NN O O
totally NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
optic NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
silicone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
relatively NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
capsulorhexis NN O O
allowing NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
covering NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IOL NN O I-INT
optics NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
rhexis NN O O
edges NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
PCO NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cataract NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
round-edged NN O O
silicone NN O O
IOLs NN O O
and NN O O
sharp-edged NN O O
hydrophobic NN O O
acrylic NN O I-INT
IOLs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15463829)

Creon NN O I-INT
10,000 NN O I-INT
Minimicrospheres NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
8,000 NN O I-INT
microspheres NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
open NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
preference NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Creon NN O I-INT
10,000 NN O I-INT
Minimicrospherestrade NN O I-INT
mark NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
10,000 NN O I-INT
MMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
enzyme NN O O
formulation NN O O
that NN O O
contains NN O O
smaller NN O O
spheres NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatin NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
smaller NN O O
capsule NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
microspheres NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
8,000 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
three-centre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
these NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
3-17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
Creon NN O O
8,000 NN O O
ms NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
8,000 NN O I-INT
ms NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
10,000 NN O I-INT
MMS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vice NN O I-INT
versa NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dosing NN O O
was NN O O
lipase NN O O
for NN O O
lipase NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
labelled NN O O
declaration 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
second NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
expressed NN O O
a NN O O
preference NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
Creon NN O O
10,000 NN O O
MMS NN O O
( NN O O
47/51 NN O O
; NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
Creon NN O O
8,000 NN O O
ms NN O O
( NN O O
4/51 NN O O
; NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stool NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
g/day NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CFA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Creon NN O I-INT
10,000 NN O O
: NN O O
8.4 NN O O
g/day NN O O
, NN O O
91.3 NN O O
% NN O O
CFA NN O O
; NN O O
Creon NN O O
8,000 NN O O
: NN O O
6.7 NN O O
g/day NN O O
, NN O O
93.5 NN O O
% NN O O
CFA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
CF NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
Creon NN O O
10,000 NN O O
MMS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Creon NN O O
8,000 NN O O
ms NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

Creon NN O I-INT
10,000s NN O O
smaller NN O O
capsules NN O O
are NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
aid NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15464783)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
morphology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
polycystic NN O I-OUT
ovaries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15466792)

In-hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
self-expanding NN O I-INT
nitinol NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoropopliteal NN O O
artery NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
VascuCoil NN O O
Trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Although NN O O
several NN O O
prospective NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
femoropopliteal NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
procedures NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
estimate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PTA NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
peripheral NN O O
arterial NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Intracoil NN O O
Femoropopliteal NN O O
Stent NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
VascuCoil NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O O
May NN O O
1997 NN O O
and NN O O
December NN O O
1999 NN O O
, NN O O
266 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stenotic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
occluded NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
popliteal NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
IntraCoil NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
or NN O O
PTA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Detailed NN O O
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
initial NN O O
revascularization NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
ensuing NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
procedure NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
equipment NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
approximately NN O O
3,500 NN O O
dollars NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
IntraCoil NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PTA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8,435 NN O O
dollars NN O O
vs NN O O
4,980 NN O O
dollars NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
As NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VascuCoil NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
primary NN O O
stent NN O O
placement NN O O
for NN O O
femoropopliteal NN O O
disease NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
3,000 NN O O
dollars NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
substantial NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
subsequent NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
increased NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
savings NN O O
in NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
femoropopliteal NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
optimal NN O O
on NN O O
economic NN O O
grounds NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
PTA NN O I-INT
with NN O O
provisional NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
preferred NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15468367)

Equivalence NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pennsaid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
, 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
double-dummy NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
622 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiological NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
capsules NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
applied NN O O
50 NN O O
drops NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
took NN O O
1 NN O O
study NN O O
capsule NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
Ontario NN O O
and NN O O
McMaster NN O O
Universities NN O O
( NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
) NN O O
VA NN O O
3.1 NN O O
OA NN O O
Index NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
global NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
PGA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Equivalence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
previously NN O O
defined NN O O
ranges NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
( NN O O
final NN O O
minus NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
13.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
-8.6 NN O O
to NN O O
35.2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
scale NN O O
500 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
71.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
to NN O O
144.5 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
scale NN O O
1700 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
-1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
9.8 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
PGA NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
scale NN O O
100 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variable NN O O
fell NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
equivalence NN O O
ranges NN O O
( NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
+/- NN O O
75 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
+/- NN O O
255 NN O O
mm NN O O
; NN O O
PGA NN O O
, NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
applying NN O O
topical NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
revealed NN O O
some NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O I-OUT
skin NN O O
dryness NN O O
in NN O O
83/311 NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
-- NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
incidence NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
dyspepsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
abnormal NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
elevation NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
creatinine NN O O
clearance NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
produced NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
minor NN O O
local NN O O
skin NN O O
irritation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diclofenac-related NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15472185)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
premenarcheal NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
co-twin NN O I-PAR
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
stage NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
bone NN O O
effects NN O O
remain NN O O
controversial 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
calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
accrual NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenarcheal NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
premenarcheal NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
twins NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
monozygotic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
dizygotic NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
sd NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
twin NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
pair NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1200-mg NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Caltrate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Areal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aBMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
within-pair NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Calcium NN O O
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
aBMD NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
: NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusted NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Calcium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
aBMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
regional NN O O
sites NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12-18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
maintained NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15472677)

Endoscopic NN O I-INT
sphincterotomy NN O I-INT
by NN O O
using NN O O
pure-cut NN O I-INT
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
post-ERCP NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pure-cut NN O O
electrosurgical NN O O
current NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
sphincterotomy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
post-ERCP NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
pure-cut NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
blend NN O O
current NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
sphincterotomy NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-conductive NN O I-INT
guidewire NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
W/sec NN O I-INT
pure-cut NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
W/sec NN O I-INT
blend-2 NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
blinded NN O I-INT
endoscopist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O O
amylase NN O O
and NN O O
lipase NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
ERCP NN O O
. NN O O

Post-ERCP NN O I-OUT
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
immediate NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
graded NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
3-point NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
balloon NN O I-OUT
tamponade NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stop NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
ERCP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
fashion 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
246 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
116 NN O I-PAR
pure-cut NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
blend NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
post-ERCP NN O I-OUT
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
pure NN O O
cut NN O O
, NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
blend NN O O
, NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
-4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
ERCP NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
two NN O O
required NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pure-cut NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Delayed NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
equal NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O I-INT
used NN O O
when NN O O
performing NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
sphincterotomy NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
post-ERCP NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
for NN O O
biliary NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
sphincterotomy NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
endoscopist NN O O
preference NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15473502)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
EORTC NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
scores NN O O
to NN O O
ratings NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Subjective NN O I-OUT
Significance NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
perceptions NN O O
of NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
changes NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Subjective NN O I-OUT
Significance NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SSQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
radical NN O I-PAR
external-beam NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall/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
by NN O I-OUT
completing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
seven-category NN O I-OUT
SSQ NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
SSQ NN O I-INT
ratings NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
calculation NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
SSQ NN O I-INT
category NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
Spearman NN O O
rank NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
' NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
and NN O O
SSQ NN O I-INT
exceeded NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
during NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
reporting NN O O
'a NN O O
little NN O O
' NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
SSQ NN O I-INT
, NN O O
absolute NN O O
mean NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
ranged NN O O
between NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
points NN O O
with NN O O
12/16 NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
between NN O O
2.5 NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
SSQ NN O I-OUT
patient NN O O
ratings NN O O
and NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
ranging NN O O
between NN O O
0.15 NN O O
and NN O O
0.24 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
when NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
producing NN O O
ceiling NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
omitted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
SSQ NN O I-INT
and NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O I-INT
may NN O O
measure NN O O
related NN O O
concepts NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
calibration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
relationship NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
elucidated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
samples NN O O
with NN O O
sufficient NN O O
variance NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
more NN O O
robust NN O O
conclusions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15474171)

Time NN O O
intervals NN O O
production NN O O
in NN O O
tapping NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-PAR
motion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
applied NN O O
spectral NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
on NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
intervals NN O O
produced NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
synchronization-continuation NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
condition NN O O
intervals NN O O
were NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
finger NN O I-PAR
tapping NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-PAR
motion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
tapping NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
discrete NN O O
, NN O O
event-based NN O O
timing NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
spectra NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
, NN O O
dynamic NN O O
timing NN O O
mechanism NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
effector NN O O
stiffness NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
oscillatory NN O I-PAR
character NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
movement NN O O
can NN O O
offer NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
resource NN O O
for NN O O
timing NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
event-based NN O O
timing NN O O
control NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
postulated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Wing-Kristoffersson NN O O
model NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
quite NN O O
limited NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
rhythmic NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
concatenation NN O O
of NN O O
discrete NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15476575)

Neridronate NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Today NN O O
, NN O O
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
cornerstone NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
it NN O O
presents NN O O
important NN O O
complications NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neridronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
relatively NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Androgen-deprivation NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
ADT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cornerstone NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
iatrogenic NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
neridronate NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
new NN O O
bisphosphonate NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
during NN O O
androgen NN O O
ablation NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
osteoporotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
depot NN O I-PAR
triptorelina NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cholecalciferol NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
elemental NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
IU NN O O
cholecalciferol NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cholecalciferol NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
neridronate NN O I-INT
given NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
every NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
bicalutamide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Lumbar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
DXA NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
; NN O O
moreover NN O O
, NN O O
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DPD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BALP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
, NN O O
midway NN O O
through NN O O
, 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

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
cholecalciferol NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DPD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BALP NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
also NN O O
with NN O O
neridronate NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
substantially NN O O
unchanged NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O O
calcium NN O O
and NN O O
cholecalciferol NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
skeletal NN O O
site NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
also NN O O
with NN O O
neridronate NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
relevant NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Neridronate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ADT NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15477492)

Recurrent NN O I-OUT
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O O
or NN O O
reinfection NN O O
? NN O O
Recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
strain NN O O
or NN O O
reinfection NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
strain NN O O
of NN O O
Mycobacterium NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
reinfection NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
varied NN O O
widely NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,075 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
twice-weekly NN O O
rifabutin-containing NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus-infected NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Isolates NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
positive NN O O
cultures NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
completion NN O O
underwent NN O O
genotyping NN O O
using NN O O
IS6110 NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
secondary NN O O
genotyping NN O O
for NN O O
isolates NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
six NN O O
copies NN O O
of NN O O
IS6110 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
culture NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
completing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
false-positive NN O O
cultures NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
review NN O O
committee NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
75 NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
recurrent NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
and NN O O
genotyping NN O O
data NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
( NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
88.8-99.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
paired NN O O
isolates NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
genotype NN O O
; NN O O
only NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.8-11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
reinfection NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
countries NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
rarely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
reinfection NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
strain NN O O
of NN O O
M. NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15477567)

Effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
brain-penetrating NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15481334)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cyclooxygenase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
synthase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gastroprotection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori-negative NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ibuprofen-arginate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
each NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/6 NN O O
hr NN O O
during NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopies NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
antrum NN O O
and NN O O
corpus NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E2 NN O O
( NN O O
PGE2 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cyclooxygenase NN O O
( NN O O
COX-1 NN O O
and NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
( NN O O
eNOS NN O O
and NN O O
iNOS NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
western NN O O
blot NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
gastric NN O O
lesion NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
individuals NN O O
taking NN O O
ibuprofen-arginate NN O O
. NN O O

Ibuprofen-arginate NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
with NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
PGE2 NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

COX-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
COX-2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eNOS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
iNOS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detectable NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
constitutive NN O O
enzymes NN O O
( NN O O
COX-1 NN O O
and NN O O
eNOS NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

COX-2 NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
corpus NN O O
than NN O O
antrum NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
ibuprofen NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

iNOS NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
mildly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
corpus NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
or NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
lesions 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
ibuprofen NN O O
and NN O O
ibuprofen-arginate NN O O
in NN O O
PGE2 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
enzymes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15482080)

Transitions NN O O
during NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine-abusing NN O I-PAR
homeless NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
establishing NN O O
abstinence NN O O
, NN O O
lapse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reestablishing NN O O
abstinence NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
cocaine-dependent NN O I-PAR
homeless NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
DT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
abstinent-contingent NN O I-INT
housing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
work NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
DT+ NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
toxicologies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
DT NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
DT+ NN O O
participants NN O O
established NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
marginally NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
lapse NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
established NN O O
abstinence NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
relapsed NN O O
, NN O O
DT+ NN O O
participants NN O O
relapsed NN O O
later NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
reestablish NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
analyses NN O O
yield NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
processes NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
changes NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
abstinent-contingent NN O I-INT
housing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
work NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1548248)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
often NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O I-PAR
hyperarousal NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
e.g. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
stereotyped NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
movements NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
self-stimulation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypervigilance NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
alpha NN O O
2-adrenergic NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
impulsivity NN O O
, NN O O
inattention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
attention NN O O
deficit NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transdermal NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
hyperarousal NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-crossover NN O I-INT
study NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.005 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
transdermal NN O O
patch NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
trial NN O O
lasted NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
phases NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
by NN O O
clinician NN O O
raters NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
subscales NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ritvo-Freeman NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
i.e. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
affectual NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
several NN O I-OUT
hyperarousal NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
relationships NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15482502)

A NN O O
new NN O O
social NN O I-INT
communication 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
: NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
suggesting NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Psychosocial NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
mainstay NN O O
of NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
notable NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
rare NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
essential NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
developmental NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
theoretically NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
targeting NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
design NN O O
against NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
existing NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O O
involved NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-INT
therapist NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
2-monthly NN O O
consolidation NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
educate NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
train NN O O
them NN O O
in NN O O
adapted NN O O
communication NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
individual NN O O
competencies NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
stratified NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
commencement NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
standardised NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
cases NN O O
studied NN O O
met NN O O
full NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Interview NN O O
( NN O O
ADI NN O O
) NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
classical NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
dropouts NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reciprocal NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Suggestive NN O O
but NN O O
non-significant NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Communication NN O I-OUT
Sub-domain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
restricted NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Trial NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
kind NN O O
in NN O O
classical NN O O
autism NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
significant NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
benefits NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
targeted NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
relatively NN O O
non-intensive NN O O
) NN O O
dyadic NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
needs NN O O
replication NN O O
on NN O O
larger NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
should NN O O
encourage NN O O
further NN O O
RCT NN O O
designs NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15486373)

Skin NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
corticosteroids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
Lung NN O O
Health NN O O
Study NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
cutaneous NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
easy NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICS NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
adrenal NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, 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
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1200 NN O O
microg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Lung NN O O
Health NN O O
Study NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ICS NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
1,116 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3.5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,116 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
ex-smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
56.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
37.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
elicit NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
bruising NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rashes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
slow NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cuts NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compliance NN O O
with NN O O
inhaler NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
canister NN O O
weighing NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
ICS NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
who NN O O
complied NN O O
with NN O O
using NN O O
their NN O O
inhaler NN O O
reported NN O O
easy NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
slow NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
cuts NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
ICS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
inhaler NN O O
compliance NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
those NN O O
participants NN O O
undergoing NN O O
serial NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
adrenal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
BMD NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adrenal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
systemic NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
ICS NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
moderate-to-high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ICSs NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
easy NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ICSs NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15490072)

[ NN O O
Long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
7-year NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
growth NN O I-PAR
hormone-deficient NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Subnormal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
GHD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
eleven NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
42.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
body NN O O
weight/week NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
age- NN O O
und NN O O
sex-matched NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
ICTP NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
collagen NN O O
carboxyterminal NN O O
cross-linked NN O O
telopeptide NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
parameter NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
and NN O O
PICP NN O O
( NN O O
carboxyterminal NN O O
propeptide NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
procollagen NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
formation NN O O
. NN O O

BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
by NN O O
dual-photon NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
( NN O O
DPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
by NN O O
single-photon NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
( NN O O
SPA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Apparent NN O I-OUT
phalangeal NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
parameter NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
quality NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
both NN O O
measuring NN O O
sites NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
GHD NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
about NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
months NN O O
which NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
building NN O O
up NN O O
a NN O O
plateau NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
ICTP NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
, NN O O
later NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

APU NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
subnormal NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
GHD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
stimulates NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
GHD NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
such NN O O
stimulation NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thereby NN O O
, NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
a NN O O
triphasic NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
initial NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
buildup NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
plateau NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
newly NN O O
formed NN O O
bone NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
elasticity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15491374)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
breve NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
intestinal NN O O
flora NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
flora NN O O
play NN O O
important NN O O
roles NN O O
in NN O O
mucosal NN O O
host NN O O
defense NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
infectious NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
bacterial NN O O
populations NN O O
develop NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
breve NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
breve NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
1489 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1.6 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
breve NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
commencing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
several NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
birth NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
birth NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
antibiotics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
starting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast-feeding NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Bifidobacterium-predominant NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
formed NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
isolated NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
infants NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
Enterobacteriaceae NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
very NN O O
early NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
B. NN O O
breve NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
the NN O O
colonization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
intestinal NN O O
flora NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15492789)

Single NN O I-INT
nucleotide NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypoxia-inducible NN O O
factor-1alpha NN O O
gene NN O O
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

Colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
malignancies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
incidence NN O O
has NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
hypoxia-inducible NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
HIF NN O O
) NN O O
-1alpha NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
tumor NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
lymphatic NN O O
invasion NN O O
, NN O O
venous NN O O
invasion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O O
metastasis NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
nucleotide NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
exon NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
HIF-1alpha NN O O
gene NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
and NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
squamous NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
C1772T NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
HIF-1alpha NN O I-INT
activation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exon NN O O
12 NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
sex NN O O
or NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
HIF-1alpha NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
controls NN O O
was NN O O
89 NN O O
C/C NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
C/T NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
T/T NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
HIF-1alpha NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
100 NN O O
C/C NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
C/T NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
T/T NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
genotype NN O O
distribution NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
C1772T NN O I-OUT
polymorphism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIF-1alpha NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
progression NN O O
or NN O O
metastasis NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15492949)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Limited NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum 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
and NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
triglyceride-rich NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
fibric NN O O
acid NN O O
derivatives NN O O
increase NN O O
serum NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
are NN O O
largely NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
CRI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Veterans NN O O
Affairs NN O O
High-Density NN O O
Lipoprotein NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2,531 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
HDL-C NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=1.0 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
140 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=3.6 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
triglyceride NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moderate NN O O
CRI NN O O
is NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
GFR NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
59.9 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m2 NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
estimated NN O O
GFR NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O O
administered NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
prospectively NN O O
determined NN O O
potential NN O O
confounders NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
calculated NN O O
in NN O O
1,981 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
399 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
399 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
61 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.49 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m2/y NN O O
faster NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.09 NN O O
slower NN O O
to NN O O
1.09 NN O O
faster NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diabetic NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
sustained NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=44 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
myocyte NN O O
toxicity NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
responsible NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
when NN O O
these NN O O
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
exert NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
loss NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
CRI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
HDL-C NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15506067)

[ NN O I-INT
Rilmenidine NN O I-INT
sympatholytic NN O O
activity NN O O
preserves NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Heightened NN O O
central NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
outflow NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
development NN O O
and NN O O
perhaps NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Acute NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
activation NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
proven NN O O
trigger NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
drugs NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
outflow NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
theoretically NN O O
attractive NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
sympatholytic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
imidazoline NN O O
binding NN O O
agent NN O O
rilmenidine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
reflex NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
HERA NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Hyperium NN O O
Effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
Reflex NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
Adrenaline NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
6-week NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
2-week NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O I-INT
rilmenidine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intervening NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
wash-out NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intra-arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
( NN O O
difficult NN O O
mental NN O O
arithmetic NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
head-up NN O O
tilting 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
2-week NN O O
dosing NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
noradrenaline NN O O
spillover NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
rilmenidine NN O O
at NN O O
rest 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
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
during NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
tilting NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
spillover NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
stimuli NN O O
were NN O O
preserved NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
intraarterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
ran NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
supine NN O O
resting NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
tilting NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
162 NN O O
+/- NN O O
27 NN O O
ng/min NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42 NN O O
ng/min NN O O
with NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
with NN O O
tilting NN O O
. NN O O

Rilmenidine NN O O
left NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
untouched NN O O
under NN O O
all NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
a NN O O
sympatholytic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rilmenidine NN O O
during NN O O
supine NN O O
rest NN O O
but NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
mental NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
tilting NN O O
are NN O O
preserved NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
underlying NN O O
a NN O O
perhaps NN O O
surprising NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
postural NN O O
hypotension NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
reflexive NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
responses NN O O
contrasts NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
rilmenidine NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
animals NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
emphasises NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
unique NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
of NN O O
suprabulbar NN O O
noradrenergic NN O O
neuronal NN O O
projections NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
brainstem NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
imidazoline NN O O
binding NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
regulating NN O O
tonic NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
inhibition NN O O
with NN O O
rilmenidine NN O O
contrasted NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secretion NN O O
of NN O O
adrenaline NN O O
affirming NN O O
that NN O O
here NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
elsewhere NN O O
, NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adrenal NN O I-OUT
medullary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
disconnected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15509022)

Total NN O O
anthelmintic NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
nematode NN O I-PAR
parasites NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
ruminants NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
government NN O I-PAR
breeding NN O I-PAR
farms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sabah NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
Malaysia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Government-owned NN O I-PAR
small-ruminant NN O I-PAR
breeding NN O I-PAR
farms NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Malaysia NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
sheep NN O O
and NN O O
goats NN O O
to NN O O
smallholder NN O O
farmers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
country NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
eastern NN O I-PAR
Malaysian NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Sabah NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
high-level NN O O
stock NN O O
losses NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
farms NN O O
for NN O O
several NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
frequently NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
indicating NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
infections NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nematode NN O I-PAR
parasite NN O I-PAR
Haemonchus NN O I-PAR
contortus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
dependence NN O O
on NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
parasite NN O O
infections NN O O
had NN O O
failed NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
tests NN O O
for NN O O
anthelmintic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
faecal NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FECRT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
nematode NN O O
parasites NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
government NN O O
small-ruminant NN O O
breeding NN O O
farms NN O O
in NN O O
Sabah NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
tests NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
benzimidazole NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
imidothiazole NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
macrocyclic NN O I-OUT
lactone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
salicylanilide NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anthelmintics NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
contortus NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
goats NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
farms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drastic NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
management NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
deal NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
situation NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
suggestions NN O O
are NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15509083)

Sustained NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
toothbrushes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
by NN O O
previous NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
materials NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Andhra NN O I-PAR
Pradesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dentifrices NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
economically NN O I-PAR
disadvantaged NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Andhra NN O I-PAR
Pradesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
materials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
original NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Examination NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
toothbrush NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
being NN O O
unsupported NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
sustained NN O O
since NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
sustained NN O O
, NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GBI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
comparing NN O O
users NN O O
and NN O O
non-users NN O O
of NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
and NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
PI NN O O
: NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
; NN O O
GBI 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
sustained NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
toothbrushes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentifrice NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
hygiene NN O I-OUT
indices NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
toothbrushes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dentifrices NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
using NN O O
traditional NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
materials NN O O
and NN O O
sustainability NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
materials NN O O
with NN O O
motivation NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
significant NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
and NN O O
toothpastes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
consequent NN O O
major NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
gingival NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
disadvantaged NN O O
population NN O O
hitherto NN O O
often NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
not NN O O
amenable NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
for NN O O
cultural NN O O
or NN O O
economic NN O O
reasons NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15523323)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
gene NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
on NN O O
neurohormonal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
high- NN O O
versus NN O O
low-dose NN O O
enalapril NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
( NN O O
ACE NN O O
) NN O O
gene NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
on NN O O
neurohormonal NN O O
dose NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
ACE NN O O
Insertion NN O O
( NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
Deletion NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
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
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Monthly NN O I-INT
pre-enalapril NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-enalapril NN O I-OUT
neurohormone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ACE NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sACE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A-II NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALDO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
genotype NN O O
subgroups NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
high- NN O O
or NN O O
low-dose NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
within NN O O
each NN O O
genotype NN O O
subgroup NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
predose/postdose NN O I-OUT
sACE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postdose NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DD NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
postdose NN O I-OUT
sACE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
fashion NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
genotypes 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
predose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postdose NN O I-OUT
ALDO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
A-II 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
each NN O O
genotype NN O O
subgroup NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
enalapril NN O O
dose NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
genotype NN O O
subgroup NN O O
. NN O O

ALDO NN O I-OUT
escape NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
A-II NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
ACE NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
enalapril NN O O
dosage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Predose NN O I-OUT
sACE NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DD NN O O
genotype NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ID NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sACE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
observed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
ALDO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
A-II NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
escape NN O O
with NN O O
escalating NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
subgroup NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15523393)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
resection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
resectable NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Though NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O O
for NN O O
locally NN O O
invasive NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
poor NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
gradually NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
Japan NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
now NN O O
about NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O I-INT
over NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
versus NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
without NN O O
resection NN O O
for NN O O
locally NN O O
invasive NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
invading NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
capsule NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
superior NN O I-PAR
mesenteric NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
laparotomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
operative NN O O
findings NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
our NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5040 NN O I-INT
cGy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
without NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemical NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
1 NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
17 NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.46 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
apart NN O O
from NN O O
increased NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Locally NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
major NN O O
arterial NN O O
invasion NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
best NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15528779)

Low-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
at-risk NN O I-PAR
elders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Among NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
account NN O O
for NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
fractures NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
contributing NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
admissions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
easily NN O O
implemented NN O O
, NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
community-based NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
no-intervention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
294 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exercise NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
were NN O O
scheduled NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
lasting NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
warm-up NN O O
and NN O O
cool-down NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
sessions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
included NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
participant NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Falls NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
tracked NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
's NN O O
baseline NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
baseline NN O O
physical NN O O
functioning NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
.51 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
baseline NN O O
physical NN O O
functioning NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
3.51 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
easily NN O O
implemented NN O O
, NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
recovering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
hospitalizations NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15528910)

Acid NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-PAR
subsurface NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
remineralized NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sugar-free NN O I-INT
chewing NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-PAR
casein NN O I-PAR
phosphopeptide-amorphous NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
phosphate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
acid NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
remineralized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sugar-free NN O I-INT
chewing NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-PAR
casein NN O I-PAR
phosphopeptide-amorphous NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
phosphate NN O I-PAR
nanocomplexes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CPP-ACP NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Recaldent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
utilized NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
sugar-free NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
18.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
CPP-ACP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
sugar-free NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
CPP-ACP NN O I-INT
as NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
wore NN O I-PAR
removable NN O I-PAR
palatal NN O I-PAR
appliances NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insets NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
enamel NN O I-PAR
containing NN O I-PAR
demineralized NN O I-PAR
subsurface NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chewed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
gum NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
enamel NN O O
slabs NN O O
were NN O O
removed NN O O
and NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
lesion NN O O
challenged NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
16 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remineralization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
microradiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
gum NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
CPP-ACP NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
approximately NN O O
twice NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remineralization NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
sugar-free NN O O
gum NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
8- NN O O
and NN O O
16-hour NN O O
acid NN O O
challenge NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O I-OUT
remineralized NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
65.4 NN O O
and NN O O
88.0 NN O O
% NN O O
reductions NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
deposited NN O O
mineral NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CPP-ACP-remineralized NN O O
lesions NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
30.5 NN O O
and NN O O
41.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
acid NN O O
challenge NN O O
after NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
remineralization NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
CPP-ACP-treated NN O O
lesions NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
demineralization NN O I-OUT
underneath NN O O
the NN O O
remineralized NN O O
zone NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
remineralized NN O O
mineral NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
subsequent NN O O
acid NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
sugar-free NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
CPP-ACP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
gum NN O I-INT
not NN O O
containing NN O O
CPP-ACP NN O O
in NN O O
remineralization NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O O
subsurface NN O O
lesions NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
with NN O O
mineral NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
subsequent NN O O
acid NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1553169)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
Interceed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
absorbable NN O I-INT
adhesion NN O I-INT
barrier NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
reformation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infertility NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Obstetrics NN O O
and NN O O
Gynecology NN O O
Adhesion NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Committee NN O O
. NN O O

Interceed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
fabric NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
oxidized NN O O
, NN O O
regenerated NN O O
cellulose NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
adhesions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
Interceed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
bilateral NN O O
pelvic NN O O
sidewall NN O O
adhesions NN O O
removed NN O O
at NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
pelvic NN O O
sidewall NN O O
was NN O O
covered NN O O
by NN O O
Interceed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
uncovered NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
deperitonealized NN O O
areas NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
205 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
sidewalls NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
72 NN O O
; NN O O
100-1000 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
95 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
1000 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Interceed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC7 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
10-98 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
adhesions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
pelvic NN O O
sidewalls NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
of NN O O
63 NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
sides NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
63 NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Interceed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC7 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-treated NN O I-OUT
sidewalls NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
adhesions NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
side NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
side NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
Interceed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adhesions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15533466)

Botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
a NN O O
has NN O O
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
interstitial NN O O
cystitis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
present NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
with NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BTX-A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
suggesting NN O O
an NN O O
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interstitial NN O I-PAR
cystitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intriguing NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
somatic NN O O
pain NN O O
model NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
BTX-A NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
( NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Poland NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IC NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Digestive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Kidney NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Under NN O O
short NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
or NN O O
sedation NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
U NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Dysport NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Polish NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Botox NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
injected NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
cystoscope NN O O
into NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
sites NN O O
submucosally NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trigone NN O O
and NN O O
floor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
O'Leary-Sant NN O I-OUT
validated NN O I-OUT
IC NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
charts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
month NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
subsequent NN O O
3-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Polish NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
underwent NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
noted NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
BTX-A NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Interstitial NN O I-OUT
Cystitis NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Interstitial NN O I-OUT
Cystitis NN O I-OUT
Problem NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
by NN O O
71 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
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Daytime NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nocturia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
desire NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
void NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
cystometric NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
BTX-A NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
bladder NN O O
afferent NN O O
pathways NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
IC NN O O
, NN O O
producing NN O O
both NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
) NN O O
improvements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15534261)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidants NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognition NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Age-Related NN O I-PAR
Eye NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
daily NN O O
antioxidants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cupric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
antioxidants NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
cognitive NN O O
battery NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
2,166 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
harmful NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antioxidants NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15535495)

Gum NN O I-INT
elastic NN O I-INT
bougie-guided NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
ProSeal NN O O
Laryngeal NN O O
Mask NN O O
Airway 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
gum NN O I-INT
elastic-bougie-guided NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
ProSeal NN O O
Laryngeal NN O O
Mask NN O O
Airway NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
successful NN O O
than NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
guided NN O O
insertion NN O O
after NN O O
failed NN O O
digital NN O O
insertion NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
anaesthetized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
1-2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
attempt NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
gum NN O I-INT
elastic NN O I-INT
bougie-guided NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
introducer NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
bougie-guided NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
involved NN O O
priming NN O O
the NN O O
drain NN O O
tube NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bougie NN O O
, NN O O
placing NN O O
the NN O O
bougie NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oesophagus NN O O
using NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
guidance NN O O
, NN O O
digital NN O O
insertion NN O O
along NN O O
the NN O O
palato-pharyngeal NN O O
curve NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bougie NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
introducer NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
involved NN O O
attaching NN O O
the NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
, NN O O
single-handed NN O O
rotation NN O O
along NN O O
the NN O O
palatopharyngeal NN O O
curve NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Failed NN O O
insertion NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
failed NN O O
passage NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
pharynx NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
malposition NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
ineffective NN O O
ventilation NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

Insertion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
50/50 NN O O
vs NN O O
15/50 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
35+/-17 NN O O
s NN O O
vs NN O O
54+/-45 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bougie-guided NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
insertions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
technique NN O O
were NN O O
successful NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bougie-guided NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aetiology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
failed NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
digital NN O O
and NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
33/35 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
bougie NN O O
, NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
or NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
at NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ProSeal NN O O
Laryngeal NN O O
Mask NN O O
Airway NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
introducer NN O O
tool NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
9/50 NN O O
vs NN O O
2/50 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
gum NN O I-INT
elastic NN O I-INT
bougie-guided NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
causes NN O O
less NN O O
trauma NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
insertion NN O O
tool NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
after NN O O
failed NN O O
digital NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ProSeal NN O O
Laryngeal NN O O
Mask NN O O
Airway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15536093)

Syncope NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Emergency NN O O
Department NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
SEEDS NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
syncope NN O I-PAR
management NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
designated NN O O
syncope NN O O
unit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
improves NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS 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
single-center NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, 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
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
syncope NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chi2 NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
independence NN O O
of NN O O
categorical NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Wilcoxon NN O O
rank NN O O
sum NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
64+/-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-one NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
syncope NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
syncope NN O O
unit NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presumptive NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
22 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
patient-hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
140 NN O O
to NN O O
64 NN O O
. NN O O

Actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
syncope NN O O
unit NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
novel NN O O
syncope NN O O
unit NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
recurrent NN O O
syncope NN O O
and NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
intermediate-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Observations NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
provide NN O O
benchmark NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
utilizing NN O O
healthcare NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15545310)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cephalexin NN O I-OUT
monohydrate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Limited NN O O
data NN O O
characterize NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
data NN O O
exist NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cephalexin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
single- NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
ingesting NN O I-PAR
cephalexin NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
steady-state NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ranitidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Time-concentration NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
characterized NN O O
using NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
1-sided NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remain NN O I-OUT
above NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MIC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
MIC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Streptococcus NN O I-OUT
pyogenes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Staphylococcus NN O I-OUT
aureus NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
or NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
relatively NN O O
minor NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
infinity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1/2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CL/F NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
when NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
or NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
. NN O O

Suboptimal NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
MIC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
suppression NN O O
. NN O O

Delay NN O O
in NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
MIC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
certain NN O O
acid-suppressive NN O O
regimens NN O O
and NN O O
pathogen NN O O
combinations NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
cephalexin NN O O
and NN O O
ranitidine NN O O
or NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
. NN O O

Delayed NN O O
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
acid NN O O
suppression NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
diminished NN O O
T NN O O
> NN O O
MIC NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15548759)

Folate NN O O
levels NN O O
determine NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
micronuclei NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
modest NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
microg/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
chromosomal NN O O
damage NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
methylenetetrahydrofolate NN O O
reductase NN O O
( NN O O
MTHFR NN O O
) NN O O
genotype NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
end-points NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
differing NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
antioxidants NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Micronucleus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
seen NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
studied NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
relation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MTHFR NN O I-OUT
C677T NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ferric NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
assess NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
micronuclei NN O O
with NN O O
folate NN O O
, NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
or NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O O
levels NN O O
before NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Micronucleus NN O I-OUT
frequencies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
MTHFR NN O O
genotype NN O O
. NN O O

Homocysteine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
TT NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CT NN O O
or NN O O
CC NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
micronuclei NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
antioxidant-supplemented NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
found NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ferric NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Micronucleus NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
strongest NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
micronuclei NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
and NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.979 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.922 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
folate NN O O
deficiency NN O O
may NN O O
amplify NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
elevated NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
levels NN O O
or NN O O
variant NN O O
MTHFR NN O O
genotype NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
influencing NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
to NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
genetic NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15553821)

[ NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
iron-deficiency NN O O
anemia NN O O
by NN O O
shengxuening NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
shengxuening NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SXN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
iron-deficiency NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
its NN O O
molecular NN O O
mechanism NN O O
on NN O O
iron NN O O
metabolism NN O O
balance NN O O
regulation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IDA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SXN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ferrous NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Fe NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TIBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tf NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sTfR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
routine NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TCM NN O I-OUT
qi-blood NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O O
effective NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
reached NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
SXN NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
iron NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Fe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TIBC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Tf NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sTfR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
obvious NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
erythrocyte NN O O
generation NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
promote NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
leucocytes NN O O
and NN O O
platelets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
SXN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
IDA NN O O
and NN O O
qi-blood NN O O
deficiency NN O O
Syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
evident NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
iron NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
increase NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Fe NN O O
, NN O O
TS NN O O
, NN O O
SF NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
TIBC NN O O
, NN O O
Tf NN O O
, NN O O
sTfR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15562654)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pulpless NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
restored NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
reinforced NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O I-INT
kinds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
resistances NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pulpless NN O O
teeth NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
FRC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fiber NN O I-INT
Reinforced NN O I-INT
Composite NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O I-INT
kinds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
prefabricated NN O I-INT
glass-fiber NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Artglass NN O I-INT
polymer NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
B NN O O
with NN O O
prefabricated NN O I-INT
glass-fiber NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Charisma NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
with NN O O
prefabricated NN O I-INT
glass-fiber NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
AB NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
every NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
material NN O O
was NN O O
processed NN O O
by NN O O
hot-press NN O O
and NN O O
non NN O O
hot-press NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
posts NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
shape NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycarbonate NN O I-PAR
resin NN O I-PAR
crowns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fracture NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
applying NN O O
point NN O O
force NN O O
at NN O O
130 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
axis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
universal NN O O
testing NN O O
machine NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
505.4 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
42.0 NN O O
N NN O O
and NN O O
564.1 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
41.7 NN O O
N NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
411.3 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.3 NN O O
N NN O O
and NN O O
315.3 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.1 NN O O
N NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
358.4 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
36.1 NN O O
N NN O O
and NN O O
423.4 NN O O
N NN O O
+/- NN O O
47.5 NN O O
N NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
posts NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
polycarbonate NN O I-OUT
resin NN O I-OUT
crowns NN O I-OUT
fragmentation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
composite NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
FRC NN O I-INT
posts NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
crown NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
pulpless NN O O
roots NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
resin NN O O
core NN O O
material NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
hot-press NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15564950)

Intranasal NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
70-80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
report NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
nicotine NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
analgesic NN O O
properties NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
volunteer NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
administered NN O O
before NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
through NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-INT
transverse NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
but NN O O
before NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesiologist NN O O
administered NN O O
either NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Numerical NN O O
analog NN O O
pain NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
morphine NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nicotine NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
peak NN O O
numerical NN O O
analog NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
7.6 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
5.3 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
1.6 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
mg 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
who NN O O
received NN O O
nicotine NN O O
still NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
4.9 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
nicotine NN O O
( NN O O
105 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
122 NN O O
( NN O O
SD 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
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
reported NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decreased NN O O
pain 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
morphine NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
or NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15571443)

Abstinence NN O I-OUT
incentive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
outpatient NN O O
detoxification NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
being NN O O
widely NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
outpatient NN O O
detoxification NN O O
has NN O O
limited NN O O
efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
stand-alone NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
abstinence-contingent NN O I-INT
incentives NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
opiate NN O I-OUT
detoxification NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
211 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
100 NN O O
US NN O O
dollars NN O O
voucher NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
detoxification NN O I-INT
either NN O O
contingent NN O O
on NN O O
opiate NN O O
and NN O O
cocaine NN O O
abstinence NN O O
or NN O O
noncontingently NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
Wednesday NN O O
, NN O O
Friday NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
detoxification NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
Monday NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
contingent-voucher NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
drug-free NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Friday NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
noncontingent NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
Z NN O O
= NN O O
2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
( NN O O
12-13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
tested NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Monday NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
vouchers NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
modest NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
brief NN O O
detoxification NN O O
but NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
additional NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
sustain NN O O
improvements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15572491)

Buccal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
buccal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anticipated NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
200-mug NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
buccal NN O O
space NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
cord NN O O
clamping NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
continuous NN O O
dilute NN O O
intravenous NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placenta NN O O
. NN O O

Postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
exceeding NN O O
500 NN O O
mL NN O O
. NN O O

Sample NN O O
size NN O O
calculations NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
assumed NN O O
a NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,604 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
would NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
848 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
756 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
377 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
379 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Demographic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
antepartum NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intrapartum NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
0.65 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.33-1.29 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.22 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
322 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
329 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
third NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
6.7 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
6.9 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.52 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
third NN O I-OUT
uterotonic NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weights NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Buccal NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
cord NN O O
clamping NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15573541)

Not NN O O
Now NN O O
! NN O O
Supporting NN O O
interruption NN O O
management NN O O
by NN O O
indicating NN O O
the NN O O
modality NN O O
and NN O O
urgency NN O O
of NN O O
pending NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Operators NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
event-driven NN O I-PAR
domains NN O I-PAR
must NN O O
coordinate NN O O
competing NN O O
attentional NN O O
demands NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
tasks NN O O
and NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
this NN O O
requirement NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
supported NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
through NN O O
informative NN O O
interruption NN O O
cueing NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
case NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
pending NN O O
tasks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
visually NN O I-INT
demanding NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
traffic NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
differed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
request NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
automatically NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
about NN O O
the NN O O
urgency NN O O
and NN O O
modality NN O O
of NN O O
pending NN O O
interruption NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Within-subject NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
ATC-related NN O I-OUT
workload NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
modality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
priority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interruption NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
advance NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
pending NN O O
tasks NN O O
led NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
delay NN O O
visual NN O O
interruption NN O O
tasks NN O O
the NN O O
longest NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
allowed NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
intramodal NN O O
interference NN O O
and NN O O
scanning NN O O
costs NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
performing NN O O
these NN O O
tasks NN O O
concurrently NN O O
with NN O O
ATC NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3 NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
interruption NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
automatically NN O O
received NN O O
task-related NN O O
information NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O O
ATC NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
experiencing NN O O
a NN O O
net NN O O
performance NN O O
gain NN O O
. NN O O

Actual NN O O
or NN O O
potential NN O O
applications NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
interfaces NN O O
in NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
interruption NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
event-driven NN O O
environments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15587240)

Scent NN O O
and NN O O
mood NN O O
state NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
anxiety-provoking NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lavender NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rosemary NN O I-INT
scent NN O I-INT
on NN O O
physiology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
an NN O O
anxiety-provoking NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
18-30 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
information NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
external NN O I-PAR
temperature NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
taken NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
introduction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anxiety-eliciting NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
lavender NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rosemary NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
scents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Profile NN O O
of NN O O
Mood NN O O
States NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reassessed NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
pleasantness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scent NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
pleasantness NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
scent NN O O
were NN O O
covaried NN O O
, NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
scent NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
by NN O O
scent NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rosemary NN O O
condition NN O O
scored NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
tension-anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
confusion-bewilderment NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lavender NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lavender NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
vigor-activity NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rosemary NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
both NN O O
rosemary NN O O
and NN O O
lavender NN O O
scents NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fatigue-inertia NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
individual NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
scent NN O O
pleasantness NN O O
is NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
scent NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
different NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
mood NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
anxiety-provoking NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15591456)

Sialyl NN O I-INT
Lewisa NN O I-INT
expression NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
colon NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
metastatic NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
tumors NN O O
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cell NN O O
to NN O O
cell NN O O
adhesion NN O O
by NN O O
cell NN O O
surface NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
antigens NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
sialyl NN O O
Lewis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
molecules NN O O
of NN O O
cell NN O O
surface NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
aggressive NN O O
and NN O O
metastasizing NN O O
tumor NN O O
growth NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
sialyl NN O O
Lewis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sialyl NN O I-INT
Lewis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
233 NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
specimens NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
analyses NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sialyl NN O O
Lewis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
assumed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metastatic NN O O
preponderance NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
versus NN O O
low NN O O
sialyl NN O O
Lewis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
sialyl NN O O
Lewis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
levels NN O O
may NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metastatic NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
would NN O O
strongly NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15602505)

A NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
symptom NN O O
domain NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin-receptive NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
yet NN O O
no NN O O
published NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
document NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O I-PAR
phases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
design NN O O
included NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
8-week NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phases NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
washout NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Low-dose NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
final NN O O
dose NN O O
: NN O O
9.9+/-4.35 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
CY-BOCS NN O I-OUT
compulsion NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
used NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
slightly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
on NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
partially NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O I-OUT
order NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
marginally NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Liquid NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
emergent NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Liquid NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
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
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
childhood NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
include NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
replication NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15606733)

5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
and NN O O
reflectance-mode NN O I-INT
confocal NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunct NN O O
modalities NN O O
to NN O O
Mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Imiquimod NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
modifier NN O O
that NN O O
up-regulates NN O O
cytokines NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
or NN O O
clear NN O O
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O O
when NN O O
applied NN O O
topically NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
basal NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
preceding NN O O
excision NN O O
by NN O O
Mohs NN O O
micrographic NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
reflectance-mode NN O I-INT
confocal NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
intervention NN O O
after NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
applied NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
cream NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
biopsy-confirmed NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
x/week NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
vehicle-controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Confocal NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
tumor NN O O
area NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
interval NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
Mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
Mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
tissue NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
histologically NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
excision NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Confocal NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
readings NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
histologic NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Tumors NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
4- NN O O
and NN O O
6-week NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Confocal NN O I-OUT
microscopy NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
histologic NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Imiquimod NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
excision NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
vehicle NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
Mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Confocal NN O O
microscopy NN O O
assessments NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
confocal NN O O
microscopy NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15608043)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
caudal NN O I-PAR
route NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
replacing NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
s-enantiomers NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
wider NN O O
margin NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
caudal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-nine NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
sub-umbilical NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
caudal NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
among 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
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
onset NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Bupivacaine NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O O
or NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
at NN O O
wake-up NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
rescue NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
analgesic NN O O
block NN O O
lasted NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
During NN O O
sub-umbilical NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
caudal NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O O
, NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
provided NN O O
comparable NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bupivacaine NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15610252)

B-type NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
insights NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
reliably NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
elevated NN O O
BNP NN O O
levels NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
BNP NN O I-INT
testing NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
scrutinized NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-PAR
filtration NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GFR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
mL/min/1.73 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
dyspnea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
452 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
212 NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BNP NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BNP NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
rapid NN O I-INT
bedside NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
often NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
often NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-PAR
in-hospital NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
BNP NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
9.5 NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
7184 NN O O
dollars NN O O
to NN O O
4151 NN O O
dollars NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
discharge NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
applying NN O O
BNP NN O I-INT
cut-off NN O O
values NN O O
without NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
BNP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15612617)

Comparative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
of NN O O
terbinafine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
2 NN O O
periods NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
sequences NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
of NN O O
terbinafine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
78628-80-5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
+0.333 NN O O
; NN O O
0.667 NN O O
; NN O O
1.00 NN O O
; NN O O
1.33 NN O O
; NN O O
1.67 NN O O
; NN O O
2.00 NN O O
; NN O O
2.33 NN O O
; NN O O
2.67 NN O O
; NN O O
3.00 NN O O
; NN O O
3.50 NN O O
; NN O O
4.00 NN O O
; NN O O
6.00 NN O O
; NN O O
8.00 NN O O
; NN O O
12.0 NN O O
; NN O O
24.0 NN O O
; NN O O
36.0 NN O O
; NN O O
48.0 NN O O
and NN O O
72.0 NN O O
h NN O O
post-administration NN O O
. NN O O

Terbinafine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
liquid NN O I-OUT
chromatography NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
tandem NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HPLC-MS/MS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
quantification NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
9.99 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUClast NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUCinf NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
terbinafine NN O O
concentration NN O O
data NN O O
using NN O O
non-compartmental NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Classical NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
separately NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
overall NN O O
classical NN O I-OUT
90CI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
96.08-105.40 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
AUCinf NN O O
, NN O O
95.68-105.33 NN O O
for NN O O
AUClast NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
88.24-112.83 NN O O
for NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
ranges NN O O
for NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
acceptance NN O O
. NN O O

Separate NN O O
gender NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
analysed NN O O
independently NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
gender NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
model NN O O
effects NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
therefore NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
evaluated NN O O
formulations NN O O
are NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15616772)

Efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
following NN O O
curative NN O O
resection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
curative NN O O
resection NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
-90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
die NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
some NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bacille NN O I-INT
Calmette-Guerin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
156 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
death NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O I-INT
postsurgical NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
47.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.037 NN O O
vs NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
vs NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
vs NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pT2/T3 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
55.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
28.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
FAM 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
14.6 NN O O
% 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
< NN O O
0.00018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BCG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
intestinal-type NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
diffuse-type NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
BCG NN O O
+ NN O O
FAM NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
prolong NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
particular NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pT2/T3 NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intestinal-type NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15622265)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
evaluator-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
Zyplast NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
nasolabial NN O I-PAR
folds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bovine NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
dermal NN O O
filler NN O O
for NN O O
facial NN O O
soft-tissue NN O O
augmentation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
provides NN O O
only NN O O
temporary NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Nonanimal NN O I-INT
stabilized NN O I-INT
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
has NN O O
reduced NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
and NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
durable NN O O
aesthetic NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prominent NN O I-PAR
nasolabial NN O I-PAR
folds NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
intradermal NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nonanimal NN O I-INT
stabilized NN O I-INT
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Perlane NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bovine NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Zyplast NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
contralateral NN O O
sides NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
bilateral NN O O
retreatment NN O O
with NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
offered NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
or NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Responses NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 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
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Investigator-based NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient-based NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
correction NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
investigator-based NN O I-OUT
Wrinkle NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
50.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
48.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
10.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
14.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Investigator-based NN O O
Global NN O I-OUT
Aesthetic NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
48.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
14.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Optimal NN O I-OUT
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
than NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
versus NN O O
2.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
injection-site NN O O
reactions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
induration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
with NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Delayed-onset NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
rare NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reoccur NN O O
after NN O O
Perlane NN O I-INT
retreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Perlane NN O I-INT
has NN O O
acceptable NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
longer-lasting NN O O
aesthetic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
Zyplast NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15623221)

Rapeseed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
soybean NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
as NN O O
protein NN O O
sources NN O O
for NN O O
growing NN O I-PAR
turkeys NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Apparent NN O O
ileal NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
tract NN O O
protein NN O O
digestibilities NN O O
of NN O O
rapeseed NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cake NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
soybean NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cake NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
in NN O O
growing NN O I-PAR
turkeys NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
killing NN O O
technique NN O O
on NN O O
apparent NN O O
ileal NN O O
protein NN O O
digestibility NN O O
values NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
slaughter NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rapeseed NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
organs NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Protein NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
coefficients NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rapeseed NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mostly NN O O
0.10 NN O O
to NN O O
0.15 NN O O
units NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
soybean NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ileal NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
slightly NN O O
or NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
feed NN O O
processing NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
meal NN O O
vs NN O O
cake NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
ileal NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
Killing NN O O
the NN O O
birds NN O O
by NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
inhalation NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
ileal NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
mechanical NN O O
stunning NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
dislocation NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
for NN O O
soybean NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
and NN O O
rapeseed NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
for NN O O
soybean NN O I-INT
cake NN O I-INT
and NN O O
rapeseed NN O I-INT
cake NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
From NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
products NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
Feed NN O O
containing NN O O
rapeseed NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
enlargement NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
glands NN O O
and NN O O
hearts NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15623613)

Genetic NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
flavin NN O O
monooxygenase NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
sulindac-mediated NN O I-INT
primary NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
of NN O O
familial NN O I-PAR
adenomatous NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Sulindac NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
NSAID NN O O
) NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
regressing NN O O
adenomas NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
adenomatous NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
sulindac NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
adenomatous NN O O
polyps NN O O
in NN O O
genotypically NN O O
positive NN O O
but NN O O
phenotypically NN O O
negative NN O O
FAP NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
determined NN O O
whether NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gene NN O O
encoding NN O O
flavin NN O O
monooxygenase NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
FMO3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
hepatic NN O O
microsomal NN O O
enzyme NN O O
that NN O O
inactivates NN O O
sulindac NN O I-INT
, NN O O
played NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
sulindac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
polyposis NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
FAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Genotyping NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
seven NN O O
established NN O O
FMO3 NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
previously NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
functional NN O O
relevance-M66I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
P153L NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
E158K NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
V257M NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
E305X NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
E308G NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
R492W-in NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
FAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
sulindac NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
heterozygous NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
homozygous NN O I-OUT
M66I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
R492W NN O I-OUT
variant NN O I-OUT
alleles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
homozygous NN O I-OUT
P153L NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
V257M NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E305X NN O I-OUT
variant NN O I-OUT
alleles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
sulindac-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
develop NN O O
adenomas NN O O
( NN O O
responders NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
homozygous NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
E158K NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
homozygous NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
E308G NN O I-OUT
variant NN O I-OUT
alleles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
sulindac NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
developed NN O O
adenomas NN O O
( NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
) NN O O
exhibited NN O O
homozygosity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
variant NN O O
alleles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
E158K NN O O
or NN O O
E308G NN O O
allele NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
prostanoid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
sulindac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Polymorphisms NN O O
in NN O O
FMO3 NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
E158K NN O O
and NN O O
E308G NN O O
loci NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
catabolizing NN O O
sulindac NN O I-INT
and NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
polyposis NN O O
in NN O O
FAP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1562431)

Slotted NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
non-slotted NN O I-INT
locked NN O I-INT
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
for NN O O
femoral NN O O
shaft NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

Experimentally NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O I-INT
slotted NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Grosse-Kempf NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
AO/ASIF NN O I-INT
universal NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-slotted NN O I-INT
Grosse-Kempf NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
cadaver NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
osteotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
stiffnesses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
osteotomies NN O I-OUT
fixed NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
slotted NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
in NN O O
10-30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
torsion NN O O
were NN O O
6-8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
non-slotted NN O O
nails NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
bone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
moments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
14-18 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
torsion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
implant-bone NN O I-OUT
construct NN O I-OUT
never NN O O
failed NN O O
or NN O O
was NN O O
deformed NN O O
. NN O O

Clinically NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
shaft NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Gross-Kempf NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
slotted NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-slotted NN O I-INT
nails NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
slotted NN O O
nail NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-slotted NN O O
nail NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
nail NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
splinterings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
osteosynthesis NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
condylar NN O O
plate NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
stiffness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-slotted NN O O
nail NN O O
. NN O O

Osteosynthesis NN O O
of NN O O
femoral NN O O
shaft NN O O
fractures NN O O
using NN O O
slotted NN O O
nails NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
healing NN O O
disturbances NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
torsional NN O O
elasticity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nail NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
for NN O O
high-stiffness NN O O
nails NN O O
in NN O O
femoral NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15625713)

Group-based NN O O
HIV NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purposes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
community-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
small NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
girls 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
obtain NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
theoretically-guided NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
successfully NN O O
implementing NN O O
it NN O O
with NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
sexually-active NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
sexually-active NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
girls NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
HIV-related NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
improved NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
HIV-related NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
their NN O O
motivation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
girls NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
HIV NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
also NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
condom NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
giving NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Challenges NN O O
to NN O O
implementation NN O O
and NN O O
suggestions NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
enhancement NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15641975)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
apical NN O O
sealing NN O O
ability NN O O
and NN O O
adaptation NN O O
to NN O O
dentine NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
resin-based NN O I-INT
sealers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
apical NN O O
sealing NN O O
ability NN O O
and NN O O
adaptation NN O O
to NN O O
dentine NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
resin-based NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
canal NN O I-INT
sealers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
canals NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
step-back NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
smear NN O O
layer NN O O
removed NN O O
with NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
ethylenediaminetetraacetic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
teeth NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
five NN O O
teeth NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
prepared NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
obturated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gutta-percha NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
condensation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
AH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EndoRez NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O O
teeth NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
leakage NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
five NN O O
teeth NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
examination NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscope NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
apical NN O O
leakage NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
teeth NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
covered NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sticky NN O I-INT
wax NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
apical NN O I-INT
foramen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
methylene NN O I-INT
blue NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
teeth NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
sectioned NN O I-INT
longitudinally NN O I-INT
and NN O O
apical NN O O
leakage NN O O
measurements NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dye NN O I-OUT
penetration NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
AH NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.87 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.43 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
EndoRez NN O I-INT
was NN O O
4.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
dye NN O I-OUT
penetration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant 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
SEM NN O O
examination NN O O
showed NN O O
both NN O O
sealers NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
penetration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coronal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
thirds NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
apical NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
apical NN O O
third NN O O
, NN O O
AH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
was NN O O
adapted NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
adpated NN O O
to NN O O
dentine NN O O
than NN O O
EndoRez NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
AH NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
has NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
apical NN O I-OUT
sealing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
adaptation NN O O
to NN O O
dentine NN O O
than NN O O
EndoRez NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (15653006)

Low-dose NN O O
, NN O O
vaginally NN O O
administered NN O O
estrogens NN O I-INT
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
local NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
urogenital NN O I-PAR
atrophy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
When NN O O
genital NN O O
atrophy NN O O
exists NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
timing NN O O
until NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
vaginal NN O O
proliferation NN O O
and NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
relieve NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
a NN O O
prompt NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
therapy NN O O
acting NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
genital NN O O
epithelium NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE 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
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O O
estriol NN O O
with NN O O
transdermal NN O O
17-beta-estradiol NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
microg/day NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O O
acetate NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
in NN O O
shortening NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
uro-genital NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
climacteric NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atrophic NN O I-PAR
vaginitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
HT NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
estriol NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
medication NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
twice-weekly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
entering NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
HT NN O O
and NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
inclusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
electible NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
written NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-PAR
HT NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
estriol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
baseline NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
medical NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
urinary NN O O
and NN O O
genital NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
for NN O O
genital NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O O
and NN O O
colposcopic NN O O
complaints NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
minimum-100 NN O O
maximum NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
Blatt-Kuperman NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
every NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
climacteric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
16.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.1 NN O O
to NN O O
8.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
for NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
15.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.8 NN O O
to NN O O
8.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
for NN O O
P NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
versus NN O O
basal NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
women NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
reached NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
since NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
although NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Papanicolaou NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
reactive NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
reparative NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
karyopyknotic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adding NN O O
vaginal NN O O
estriol NN O O
to NN O O
HRT NN O O
may NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
latency NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
urinary NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15673801)

Etanercept NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Wegener NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
granulomatosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Wegener NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
granulomatosis NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
flares NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
tapered NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
consistently NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
at NN O O
eight NN O O
centers NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
180 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Wegener NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
granulomatosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
Birmingham NN O O
Vasculitis NN O O
Activity NN O O
Score NN O O
for NN O O
Wegener NN O O
's NN O O
Granulomatosis NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
scores NN O O
can NN O O
range NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
67 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
indicating NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tapered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
cohort NN O O
was NN O O
27 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
72.4 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49.4 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remainder NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
69.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
75.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sustained NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
low-level NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
86.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
90.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
those NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Disease NN O I-OUT
flares NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
118 NN O O
flares NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
severe NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
limited NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
134 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
severe NN O O
and NN O O
109 NN O O
limited NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
flares NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
0.89 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
56.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
57.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
life-threatening NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Solid NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Etanercept NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Wegener NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
granulomatosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Durable NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15673894)

Spinal NN O O
2-chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
added NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Preservative-free NN O O
2-chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2-CP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
being NN O O
investigated NN O O
for NN O O
short-acting NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
bupivacaine NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
traditional NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
1-2 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
it NN O O
produces NN O O
systemic NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
2-CP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
microg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pinprick NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thigh NN O I-OUT
tourniquet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
2-CP NN O O
( NN O O
T8 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
T6 NN O O
to NN O O
L2 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2-CP NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T8 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
T4 NN O O
to NN O O
T11 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.57 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
L1 NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
23 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
131 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O O
( NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
Bromage NN O O
score NN O O
: NN O O
65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
; NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
gastrocnemius NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
tourniquet NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
33 NN O O
to NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
131 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
subject NN O O
reported NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
small-dose NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2-CP NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15673999)

Pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
multivitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
dose NN O O
multivitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
3-month NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) 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 I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
Global NN O O
Impressions NN O O
parental NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
supplement NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
substantially NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
B6 NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
typical NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0000001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
levels NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
typical NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
supplement NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
near-average NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
recent NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pyridoxal-5-phosphate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
low NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pyridoxal NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
pyridoxal NN O O
is NN O O
only NN O O
poorly NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
pyridoxal-5-phosphate NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
enzymatically NN O O
active NN O O
form NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
high-dose NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
many NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15678729)

Postoperative NN O I-PAR
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
spinal NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
during NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
reduces NN O O
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
spinal NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Spinal NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
L3-4 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
L4-5 NN O I-INT
interspace NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
heavy NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
G NN O I-INT
Quincke NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
volumes NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
request NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
t- NN O O
and NN O O
U-tests NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
being NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

When 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
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
magnesium NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
meperidine NN O O
consumption NN O O
60.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
73.1 NN O O
mg NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
31.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
30.7 NN O O
mg NN O O
magnesium NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15681940)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
antithrombin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
heparin-resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
necessitating NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
antithrombin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
restoring NN O O
heparin NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heparin NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
heparin-resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heparin NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
activated NN O I-PAR
clotting NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
480 NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
U/kg NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
heparin-resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
cohort NN O O
received NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
rhAT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O O
the NN O O
activated NN O O
clotting NN O O
time NN O O
remained NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
480 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
units NN O O
fresh NN O O
frozen NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
transfused NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
fresh NN O I-OUT
frozen NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
their NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
fresh NN O I-OUT
frozen NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients 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
0.009 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
required NN O O
higher NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
increased NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
transfusions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
75 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
restoring NN O I-OUT
heparin NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
promoting NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
anticoagulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
heparin-resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treating NN O O
heparin-resistant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
rhAT NN O I-INT
may NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heparin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fresh NN O O
frozen NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15688961)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
additive NN O I-INT
to NN O O
toothbrushes NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
periodontal NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
the NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
residual NN O O
microbial NN O O
contamination NN O O
of NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
and NN O O
periodontal NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
additive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Microban NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
toothbrushes NN O O
on NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
periodontal NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODOLOGY NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
mouths NN O I-PAR
brushed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
toothbrush NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
toothbrush NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Toothbrushes NN O O
were NN O O
air-dried NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Toothbrush NN O O
heads NN O O
were NN O O
vortexed NN O O
and NN O O
cultured NN O O
for NN O O
Prevotella NN O O
species NN O O
( NN O O
Ps NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Porphyromonas NN O O
gingivalis NN O O
( NN O O
Pg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Actinobacillus NN O O
actinomycetemcomitans NN O O
( NN O O
Aa NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
non-specific NN O O
colony-forming NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plates NN O O
were NN O O
incubated NN O O
and NN O O
counted NN O O
. NN O O

Means NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
t-tests NN O O
( NN O O
paired NN O O
and NN O O
unpaired NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
matched-pairs NN O O
signed-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
inter- NN O O
or NN O O
intra-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
four-hour NN O O
and NN O O
24-hour NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
Aa NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Pg NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
NS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
39/50 NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
matched NN O O
pairs NN O O
( NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
signed-rank NN O O
test NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Toothbrushes NN O O
containing NN O O
the NN O O
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
additive NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
microbial NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
between-group NN O O
means NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15689804)

Primary NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
combined NN O I-PAR
rhegmatogenous NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
choroidal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
rhegmatogenous NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RRD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
uncommon NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
-4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
reports NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
primary NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
yields NN O O
better NN O O
anatomic NN O O
success NN O O
than NN O O
scleral NN O O
buckling NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
inflamed NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
intraocular NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
steroids NN O O
on NN O O
reattachment NN O O
rates NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
elucidated NN O O
yet NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
RRD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CD NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
lens NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
Snellen NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O O
detachment NN O O
, NN O O
CD NN O O
( NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachment NN O O
characteristics NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
extent NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
breaks NN O O
, NN O O
atrophic NN O O
or NN O O
tractional NN O O
retinal NN O O
break NN O O
, NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
break NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
break NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
distributed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Single-operation NN O I-OUT
anatomic NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
81.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9/11 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6/9 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
reoperation NN O O
, NN O O
anatomic NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100 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
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
20.1 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
before NN O O
primary NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O I-PAR
RRD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CD NN O I-PAR
improves NN O I-PAR
reattachment NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15691793)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
plasmakinetic NN O I-INT
vaporesection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Plasmakinetic NN O I-INT
vaporesection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PKVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
irrigation NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
avoiding NN O O
transurethral NN O O
resection NN O O
syndrome NN O O
and NN O O
minimizing NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
time NN O O
since NN O O
tissue NN O O
is NN O O
resected NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
just NN O O
vaporized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
advantages NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PKVP NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
regional NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
list NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
PKVP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Peri- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
outcome NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
PKVP NN O O
loop NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
fast NN O O
and NN O O
sharp NN O O
cutting NN O O
action NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
TURP NN O O
loop NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
resection NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
PKVP NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
were NN O O
0.52 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
and NN O O
3.35 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
mean NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
were NN O O
0.36 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
and NN O O
0.24 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
PKVP NN O O
and NN O O
TURP NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.326 NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.192 NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
sodium NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.757 NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.888 NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
achieved NN O O
comparable NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.862 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
quality-of-life NN O O
score NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.169 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O O
flow NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
PKVP NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
comparable NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
traditional NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
obvious NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
TURP NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
acute NN O O
regional NN O O
hospital NN O O
regular NN O O
TURP NN O O
list NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15695500)

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fludarabine-mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vindesine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
era NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
monoclonal NN O I-PAR
antibodies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fludarabine-mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mini-CHVP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vindesine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
End NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
failure-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
144 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
142 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
six NN O O
monthly NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
bimonthly NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

FM NN O O
comprised NN O O
fludarabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
1-5 NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

CHVP NN O O
cycles NN O O
comprised NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
vindesine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prednisone 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
) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-5 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
FM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
superior NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CR NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
FM NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
was NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
19 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CHVP NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
reached NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
CR NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
53 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
influencing NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
few NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
FM NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
CHVP NN O O
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
OR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
favorably NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15701493)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
mid-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
new NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
circular NN O O
stapler NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
shown NN O O
early NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
minimal NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quick NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
well-accepted NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
Milligan NN O I-INT
Morgan NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
fulfilling NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stapled NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
2 NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
46.02 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12.33 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stapled NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
48.64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14.57 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Grade NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ie NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
85.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stapled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
24.28 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
4.25 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
45.21 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
5.36 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Milligan-Morgan NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.24 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.76 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
1.01 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
and NN O O
open NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
returned NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
routine NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
8.12 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
2.48 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
17.62 NN O O
( NN O O
5.59 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
88.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
method NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
97.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
2-19 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
day-care NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
ensures NN O O
lesser NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
off NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
no NN O O
perianal NN O O
wound NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
such NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
deny NN O O
any NN O O
long-term NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15713151)

Reducing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
open NN O I-INT
myomectomy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
tourniquets NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
tourniquets NN O I-INT
in NN O O
controlled NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
leaving NN O O
a NN O O
semi-permanent NN O O
tourniquet NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
artery NN O O
reduces NN O O
post-operative NN O O
bleeding NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
incisions NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
sizes NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
myomectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
number NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
polyglactin NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
tied NN O I-INT
around NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cervix NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
occlude NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
uterine NN O I-INT
arteries NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
polythene NN O I-INT
tourniquets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
tied NN O I-INT
around NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
infundibulopelvic NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
obstruct NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O I-INT
vessels NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ovarian NN O O
ties NN O O
were NN O O
released NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
artery NN O O
suture NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Intra-operative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
tourniquet 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
difference NN O O
between NN O O
means NN O O
1870 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1159-2580 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
transfusion NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pelvic NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
20 NN O O
min NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance 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
0.10 NN O O
and NN O O
P= NN O O
0.165 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.47 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Day NN O O
two NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Triple NN O I-INT
tourniquets NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
appears NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15719741)

[ NN O O
Relationship NN O O
between NN O O
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
TCM NN O O
differentiation NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
weitai NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
TCM NN O O
type NN O O
with NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
CD44v6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
different NN O O
histologic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
Weitai NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WTC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
TCM NN O I-OUT
typing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3-4 NN O I-PAR
courses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
applied NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3-4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
WTC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
additionally NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
capsules NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
consecutive NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
positive NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
stasis NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pi-deficiency NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
damp-heat NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
After NN O O
ending NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
anti-metastasis NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
extent NN O O
with NN O O
TCM NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
stasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Pi-deficiency NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
WTC NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
could NN O O
further NN O O
inhibit NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
sCD44v6 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15730346)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
screening NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pramipexole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
presented NN O O
here NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pramipexole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
medications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
multi-arm NN O O
, NN O O
modified NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
studies NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Boston NN O I-PAR
VA NN O I-PAR
Healthcare NN O I-PAR
System NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Boston NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
Medication NN O I-PAR
Development NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDRU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2-week NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Following NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
active NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
paroxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
phosphodiesterase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
glutamate NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
pramipexole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Urine NN O I-OUT
benzoylecgonine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
served NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
medications NN O O
produced NN O O
greater NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
BE NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
trends NN O O
for NN O O
BE NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
become NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
Addiction NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
composite NN O O
scores NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pentoxyfylline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
end-point NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
within-group NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
reported NN O O
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pramipexole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
homogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1573044)

Comparative NN O O
drug NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
liability NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
secobarbital NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
nondependent NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
secobarbital NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
nontherapeutic NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
drugs NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
liked NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
secobarbital NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Lorazepam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
liked NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
tracking NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
steadiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Buspirone NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
unfamiliar NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
liked NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

Lorazepam NN O I-INT
also NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
liked NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
abuse-relevant NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15733631)

Is NN O O
successful NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
complex NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
due NN O O
to NN O O
sustained NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
limb NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
complex NN O O
regional NN O O
pain NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
CRPS1 NN O O
) NN O O
initiated NN O O
by NN O O
wrist NN O O
fracture NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
motor NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MIP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
hand NN O O
laterality NN O O
recognition NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
imagined NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
mirror NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Possibilities NN O O
include NN O O
sustained NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
limb NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
case NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
MIP NN O O
components NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sequential NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
motor NN O O
networks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
case NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
CRPS1 NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
wrist NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
satisfied NN O I-PAR
stringent NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
hand NN O I-INT
laterality NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imagined NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mirror NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RecImMir NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MIP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
imagined NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imagined NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ImRecIm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mirror NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RecMirRec NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RecImMir NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hand NN O O
laterality NN O O
recognition NN O O
imparted NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
in NN O O
magnitude NN O O
. NN O O

Imagined NN O O
movements NN O O
imparted NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
followed NN O O
hand NN O O
laterality NN O O
recognition NN O O
. NN O O

Mirror NN O O
movements NN O O
also NN O O
imparted NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
followed NN O O
imagined NN O O
movements NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
MIP NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
components NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
sustained NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
limb NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
sequential NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
motor NN O O
networks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15734707)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
coconut NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
Filipino NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
4-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
542 NN O I-PAR
Filipino NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
coconut NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
influence NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
ration NN O O
; NN O O
to NN O O
Control-1 NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
unfortified NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
ration NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
Control-2 NN O O
group NN O O
without NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
ration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
serum NN O O
retinol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
Experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
intake NN O O
coming NN O O
from NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
intake NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A-rich NN O O
foods NN O O
. NN O O

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
serum NN O O
retinol NN O O
concentration NN O O
included NN O O
baseline NN O O
serum NN O O
retinol NN O O
concentration NN O O
, NN O O
caregiver NN O O
's NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
capsule NN O O
, NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A-fortified NN O O
cooking NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A-rich NN O O
foods NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
households NN O O
purchasing NN O O
cooking NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
food NN O O
expenditure NN O O
. NN O O

Intake NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A-rich NN O O
foods NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
vigorously NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
cooking NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A-rich NN O O
sources NN O O
to NN O O
sustain NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15735119)

Multi-institutional NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epothilone NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
ixabepilone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMS-247550 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
castrate NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
epothilone NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ixabepilone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
castrate NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ixabepilone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
280 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ixabepilone NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EMP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O O
+ NN O O
EMP NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Post-treatment NN O O
declines NN O O
in NN O O
prostate-specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O O
+ NN O O
EMP NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
measurable NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone NN O O
+ NN O O
EMP NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
prostate-specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
3.1 NN O O
to NN O O
6.9 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ixabepilone-alone NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
5.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
4.5 NN O O
to NN O O
6.8 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ixabepilone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
castrate NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15738536)

Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
skeletal NN O O
complications NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
metastases NN O O
from NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
228 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
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
114 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
114 NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
15-minute NN O O
infusions NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
skeletal-related NN O O
event NN O O
( NN O O
SRE NN O O
) NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
SRE NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
pathologic NN O O
fracture NN O O
, NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
compression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O O
or NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
bone NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
SRE NN O O
, NN O O
time-to-first NN O O
SRE NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Andersen-Gill NN O O
multiple-event NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
SRE NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
excluding NN O O
HCM NN O O
and NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
prior NN O O
fracture NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
0.61 NN O O
( NN O O
permutation NN O O
test NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SRE NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
SRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
excluding NN O I-OUT
HCM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
29.8 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
49.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
time-to-first NN O I-OUT
SRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
v NN O O
364 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SREs NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
event NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.59 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.019 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
had NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
increase NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
skeletal NN O O
complications NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
across NN O O
multiple NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15741753)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
platinum NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone-refractory NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Satraplatin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
oral NN O O
platinum NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
complex NN O O
that NN O O
shows NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
hormone-refractory NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HRPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
cisplatin-resistant NN O I-INT
human NN O O
tumor NN O O
lines NN O O
in NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
380 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HRPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
closed NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
accrual NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
sponsoring NN O O
company NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
ad NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
available NN O O
data NN O O
is NN O O
reported NN O O
here NN O O
. NN O O

Eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
included NN O O
pathological NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
documented NN O O
progression NN O O
despite NN O O
prior NN O O
hormonal NN O O
manipulation NN O O
, NN O O
WHO NN O O
PS NN O O
0-2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
narcotic NN O I-INT
analgesics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
plus NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
BID NN O O
or NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Compliance NN O O
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
. NN O O

48/50 NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
progressed NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
42 NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mostly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
13.7-28.4 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
11.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
8.4-23.1 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.46-1.55 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
prostrate NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PSA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
9/27 NN O O
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
vs. NN O O
2/23 NN O O
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
2.8-13.7 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
2.1- NN O O
4.7 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.50 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.28-0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
minimal NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
satraplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
prednisone NN O O
alone NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
antitumor NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HPRC NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
elucidated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15741848)

Enjoyment NN O O
mediates NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O I-INT
physical-activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
targeted NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
education NN O O
( NN O O
PE NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
beliefs NN O O
about NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
mediated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Lifestyle NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Activity NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LEAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
High NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
racial NN O I-PAR
composition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
location NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
structure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
4044 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2087 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
component NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
1038 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1049 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
LEAP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
school-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
emphasizing NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
instruction NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
environment NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
among NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
organized NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Coordinated NN O O
School NN O O
Health NN O O
Program NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
objectives NN O I-INT
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
of NN O O
PE NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Latent NN O O
variable NN O O
structural NN O O
equation NN O O
modeling NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
direct NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
of NN O O
PE NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
subsequently NN O O
explained NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
increased NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
, NN O O
indirect NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
operated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Increases NN O O
in NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
partially NN O O
mediated NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LEAP NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
linking NN O O
increased NN O O
enjoyment NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
among NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15745138)

Online NN O I-INT
conductivity NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
validation NN O O
and NN O O
usefulness NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
conductivity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Relatively NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
conductivity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
sodium NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
dialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Excess NN O O
sodium NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
instability NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
13.6 NN O I-INT
mS/cm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
135 NN O I-INT
mmol/L NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
serial NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
steps NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mS/cm NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
guided NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sodium NN O O
removal NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postplasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
removal NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
conductivity NN O O
monitoring NN O O
as NN O O
ionic NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
0.66 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
, NN O O
6 NN O O
achieved NN O O
Cndi NN O O
13.4 NN O O
mS/cm NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
achieved NN O O
13.2 NN O O
mS/cm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
achieved NN O O
13.0 NN O O
mS/cm NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
disequilibrium NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Interdialytic NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
2.34 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
kg NN O O
to NN O O
1.57 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.11 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Predialysis NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
from NN O O
144 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
to NN O O
137 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg 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
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
convective NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
balanced NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
diffusive NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
mmol NN O O
cf NN O O
. NN O O

175 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
mmol NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Cndi NN O I-INT
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
IMB NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
practical NN O O
and NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
interdialytic NN O O
weight NN O O
gains NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
avoiding NN O O
excessive NN O O
sodium NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15746053)

Phase NN O O
I NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
, NN O O
food NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacogenetic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
given NN O O
as NN O O
semisolid NN O O
matrix NN O O
capsules NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
maximum-tolerated NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
recommended NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
dose-limiting NN O O
toxicities NN O O
( NN O O
DLT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
food NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
formulated NN O O
as NN O O
new NN O O
semisolid NN O O
matrix NN O O
capsules NN O O
. NN O O

EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Irinotecan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
in NN O O
fasted NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
repeated 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
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high-fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high-calorie NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
or NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Dosages NN O O
tested NN O O
were NN O O
70 NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
101 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
1-15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
DLTs NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Hematologic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonhematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
. NN O O

Exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
SN-38 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
accumulation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Food NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
confirmed NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
10 NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
stabilizations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
UGT1A1*28 NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
irinotecan-induced NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
For NN O O
oral NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
70 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
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Delayed NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
DLT NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
irinotecan NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
favorable NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15746480)

The NN O O
overt NN O I-INT
aggression NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
rating NN O I-INT
aggression NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Aggression NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
costly NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rating NN O O
scales NN O O
that NN O O
accurately NN O O
capture NN O O
and NN O O
measure NN O O
subtypes NN O O
of NN O O
aggression NN O O
phenomenology NN O O
, NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
are NN O O
urgently NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
Overt NN O I-OUT
Aggression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
valproate NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
' NN O O
OAS NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
already NN O O
validated NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
rated NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Community NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OAS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
outpatients NN O O
with NN O O
aggression NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
disabilities NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15749735)

Magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
only NN O O
slightly NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypothermia NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O O
or NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
provokes NN O O
vigorous NN O O
shivering NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
causes NN O O
potentially NN O O
dangerous NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
prevents NN O O
further NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
. NN O O

Magnesium NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
anti-shivering NN O O
agent NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
shivering NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models 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
magnesium NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
( NN O O
triggering NN O O
core NN O O
temperature NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
gain NN O O
of NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
substantial NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
muscle NN O O
weakness NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18-40 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
infusion NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
infused NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheter NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
tympanic NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
1.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
persistent NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O O
identified NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
slope NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O O
consumption NN O O
vs NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
regression NN O O
. NN O O

Sedation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
bispectral NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peripheral NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
dynamometry NN O O
and NN O O
spirometry NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
anova NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Magnesium NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
0.4 NN O O
] NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
vs NN O O
36.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.3 NN O O
] NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.040 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
437 NN O O
[ NN O O
289 NN O O
] NN O O
ml NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
magnesium NN O O
, NN O O
573 NN O O
[ NN O O
370 NN O O
] NN O O
ml NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.344 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
bolus NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
significant NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
appreciably NN O O
reduce NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Magnesium NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modest NN O O
absolute NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
unimportant NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1575174)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
sustained NN O O
release NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonist NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
separate NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
sustained-release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
388 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
3-6 NN O O
week NN O O
placebo NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
SR-20 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
278 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
5.9 NN O O
, NN O O
9.3 NN O O
, NN O O
9.2 NN O O
, NN O O
11.1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
20- NN O O
, NN O O
50- NN O O
, NN O O
100- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
150-mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reductions NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
SR NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
versus NN O O
baseline NN O O
values 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

All NN O O
nifedipine-SR NN O O
doses NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
linear NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
log NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction 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

Automated NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
in NN O O
221 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
evenly NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
24-hour NN O O
dosing NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
doses NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fewest NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15764256)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
glomerulonephritis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
renal NN O O
diseases NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
diabetic NN O O
and NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
origin NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
( NN O O
ACEIs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
( NN O O
ARBs NN O O
) NN O O
reduce NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
excretion NN O O
and NN O O
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ACEIs NN O O
and NN O O
ARBs NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
singly NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
scarce NN O O
and NN O O
usually NN O O
concern NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
or NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
9-month NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
biopsy-proven NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
glomerulonephritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
slightly NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
losartan NN O O
, NN O O
22.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
enalapril NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
63 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

This NN O O
anti-proteinuric NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
even NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
: NN O O
losartan NN O O
, NN O O
44.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
enalapril NN O O
, NN O O
49.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
losartan NN O O
and NN O O
enalapril NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Proteinuria NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
losartan NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O O
or NN O O
enalapril NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
renoprotective NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15764958)

Abacavir NN O I-INT
once NN O O
or NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
once-daily NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
efavirenz NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral-naive NN O I-OUT
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ziagen NN O I-INT
Once NN O O
Daily NN O O
in NN O O
Antiretroviral NN O O
Combination NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
long NN O O
intracellular NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
abacavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supports NN O O
its NN O O
once-daily NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
simplify NN O O
treatment NN O O
if NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
once-daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared 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
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
384 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
386 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3TC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
efavirenz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
antiretroviral-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.89 NN O O
log10 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
viral NN O O
load NN O O
> NN O O
100,000 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
CD4 NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
was NN O O
262 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
. NN O O

ABC NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
respective NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
achieving NN O O
a NN O O
confirmed NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
-8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O O
and NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
infrequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
emergence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
mutations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
188 NN O O
vs. NN O O
200 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ABC-related NN O I-OUT
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ABC NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
3TC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
EFV NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
schedule NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
3TC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
EFV NN O I-INT
over NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15769918)

Controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
IV NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
manifestations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
lupus NN O I-PAR
erythematosus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Severe NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
lupus NN O I-PAR
erythematosus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPSLE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
dreadful NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SLE NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ACR NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incident NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
NP NN O I-PAR
manifestations NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
optic NN O I-PAR
neuritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cranial NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
coma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
brainstem NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
transverse NN O I-PAR
myelitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MP NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
IV NN O O
monthly NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Cy NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
bimonthly NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
IV NN O O
Cy NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
MP NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
20 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
18/19 NN O O
receiving NN O O
Cy NN O O
and NN O O
7/13 NN O O
receiving NN O O
MP NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cy NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
MP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
NPSLE NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15769967)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Experimental NN O O
and NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
generally NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
benefits NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
relatively NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS 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
international NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
initial 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
conducted NN O O
between NN O O
December NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
April NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
1999 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HOPE-The NN O I-PAR
Ongoing NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
HOPE-TOO NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
267 NN O I-PAR
HOPE NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
9541 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HOPE-TOO NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
7030 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
916 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
deceased NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1382 NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3994 NN O I-PAR
continued NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
738 NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
passive NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
7.0 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
natural NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events 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
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
revascularizations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
all NN O O
HOPE 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
: NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
552 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs NN O O
586 NN O O
( NN O O
12.3 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
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.94 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.84-1.06 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.30 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
156 NN O O
( NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
178 NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.71-1.09 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.24 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1022 NN O O
( NN O O
21.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
985 NN O O
( NN O O
20.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.04 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.96-1.14 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.13 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-1.26 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
, NN O O
1.21 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.00-1.47 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
enrolled NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
centers NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HOPE-TOO NN O O
trial 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
cancer NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
prevent NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15778725)

Prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
cytoprotection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
myeloma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
conditioned NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
n=43 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
n=47 NN O O
) NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
910 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
regimen-related NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
engraftment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
supportive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
ASCT NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
disease NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
prior NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
pre-ASCT NN O O
disease NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Amifostine NN O I-INT
infusional NN O O
side-effects NN O O
were NN O O
frequent NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Amifostine NN O I-INT
use NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
vs NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
or NN O O
analgesic NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Conversion NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
post-ASCT NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
administered NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
high-dose NN O O
melphalan NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy-induced NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15781531)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
heparinized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nonheparinized NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
heparinized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nonheparinized NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two-hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
heparinized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
H NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonheparinized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Radial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ulnar NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flows NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
probe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
oximetry NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
just NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
decannulation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
investigator NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
cannulation NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
cannulations NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
378 NN O O
+/- NN O O
159.0 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
H NN O O
and NN O O
332 NN O O
+/- NN O O
154.6 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
S. NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
corrective NN O O
interventions NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
dampening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pressure NN O O
wave NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
positional NN O O
changes NN O O
[ NN O O
group NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
H NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.8 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
manual NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
group NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O O
H NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
decannulation NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
group NN O O
H NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
group NN O O
S NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
occlusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hematoma NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
decannulation NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
long NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cannulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
heparinized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nonheparinized NN O I-INT
flush NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15781835)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
levetiracetam NN O I-INT
on NN O O
essential NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
levetiracetam NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
tremor NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
hand NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1578953)

DNA NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
carrier NN O O
for NN O O
anthracyclines NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-OUT
myelocytic NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AML NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15793648)

Stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
Harmonic NN O I-INT
Scalpel NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
excisional NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
Harmonic NN O O
Scalpel NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
employed NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Harmonic NN O I-INT
Scalpel NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
operations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
doughnut NN O O
obtained NN O O
was NN O O
sent NN O O
for NN O O
histopathologic NN O O
examination NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscles NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
specimen NN O O
. NN O O

Operative NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
pro NN O O
forma NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
independent NN O O
assessor NN O O
was NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
administered NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
continence NN O O
functions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
20-month NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
distribution NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
parenteral NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score 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
these NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay 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
and NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
resumed NN O O
work NN O O
nine NN O O
days NN O O
earlier NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Harmonic NN O O
Scalpel NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
15.6 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
88 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
doughnuts NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
contained NN O O
some NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
fibers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
incorporation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
continence NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
the NN O O
continence NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
after NN O O
Harmonic NN O O
Scalpel NN O O
hemorrhoidectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
Grade NN O O
III NN O O
hemorrhoidal NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
derive NN O O
greater NN O O
short-term NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shorter 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
earlier NN O I-OUT
resumption NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
initial NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
lasting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15800226)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
intracranial NN O O
arterial NN O O
stenosis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Atherosclerotic NN O O
intracranial NN O O
arterial NN O O
stenosis NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Warfarin NN O O
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
preference NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
therapies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
transient NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
caused NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
verified NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
international NN O I-INT
normalized NN O I-INT
ratio NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
multicenter NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
vascular NN O O
causes NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O I-PAR
569 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
stopped NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
concerns NN O I-PAR
about NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1.8 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
included NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
9.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.23 NN O O
to NN O O
0.90 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.39 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.18 NN O O
to NN O O
0.84 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.40 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.18 NN O O
to NN O O
0.91 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
vascular NN O O
causes NN O O
was NN O O
3.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
5.9 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
nonvascular NN O O
causes NN O O
was NN O O
1.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
22.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
21.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.04 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.73 NN O O
to NN O O
1.48 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Warfarin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
provided NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
aspirin NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
preference NN O O
to NN O O
warfarin NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15810908)

B-domain NN O I-INT
deleted NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
are NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
purified NN O O
plasma-derived NN O O
factor NN O O
VIII NN O O
concentrate NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
three-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Deletion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
B-domain NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O O
blood NN O O
coagulation NN O O
factor NN O O
VIII NN O O
( NN O O
BDDrFVIII NN O O
) NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
manufacturing NN O O
yield NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
impair NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
functionality NN O O
. NN O O

BDDrFVIII NN O O
( NN O O
ReFacto NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
formulated NN O O
without NN O O
human NN O O
albumin NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
three-way NN O O
crossover-design NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
BDDrFVIII NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
reconstituted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
reconstituted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
USP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
plasma-derived NN O O
, NN O O
full-length NN O I-INT
FVIII NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hemofil NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
haemophilia NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
FVIII NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
FVIII NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
chromogenic NN O O
substrate NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
FVIII NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
PK NN O O
parameter NN O O
estimates NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
parameter NN O O
estimates NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUCs NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
window NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
125 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS/CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
each NN O O
BDDrFVIII NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
bioequivalent NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
Hemofil NN O O
M NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
of NN O O
BDDrFVIII NN O O
are NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15814479)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
WAIS-III NN O O
general NN O O
ability NN O O
index NN O O
estimate NN O O
( NN O O
GAI-E NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
WAIS-III NN O O
General NN O O
Ability NN O O
Index NN O O
( NN O O
GAI NN O O
; NN O O
Tulsky NN O O
, NN O O
Saklofske NN O O
, NN O O
Wilkins NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Weiss NN O O
, NN O O
2001 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
recently NN O O
developed NN O O
, NN O O
6-subtest NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
global NN O O
intellectual NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GAI NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
premorbid NN O O
functioning NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
index 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
develop NN O O
regression NN O O
equations NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
GAI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
demographic NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
WAIS-III NN O I-OUT
subtest NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
WAIS-III NN O I-PAR
standardization NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=2,401 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=1,200 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
Development NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
n=1,201 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
validate NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prediction NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
Validation NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Demographic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ethnicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
country NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subtest NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
reasoning NN O I-OUT
raw NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ten NN O O
regression NN O O
algorithms NN O O
were NN O O
generated NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
GAI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
GAI-Estimate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GAI-E NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
algorithms NN O I-OUT
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
estimate NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
6.44 NN O O
to NN O O
9.57 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
actual NN O O
and NN O O
estimated NN O O
GAI NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
r=.76 NN O O
to NN O O
r=.90 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
algorithms NN O O
provided NN O O
accurate NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
GAI NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WAIS-III NN O O
standardization NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
estimating NN O O
GAI NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15816586)

Stress NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
calming NN O O
music NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
intra- NN O O
or NN O O
postoperative NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
response NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
music NN O O
intra- NN O O
or NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
intraoperative NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
silence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anaesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
surgeon NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Stress NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
determining NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Immune NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
studying NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
studied NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
music NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
206 NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
mmol NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
decreases NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O O
music NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
required NN O O
less NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
music NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
requirement NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower 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

The NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
music NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit 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
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
music NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
postoperative NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15817848)

Dairy NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
young NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
1-y NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
dairy NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
long-term NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
dairy NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
alter NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
young NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
1-y NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
dairy NN O O
calcium NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
155 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-30 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
< NN O I-PAR
800 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
energy NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
/= NN O I-PAR
2200 NN O I-PAR
kcal/d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
continue NN O I-INT
established NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
medium NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
achieve NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
approximately NN O I-INT
1000-1100 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintain NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
high NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
achieve NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1300-1400 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintain NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
1-y NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
kg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
kg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirty-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O O
intakes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
742.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
321.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1026.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
311.3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1131.29 NN O O
+/- NN O O
337.2 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
medium-dairy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dairy NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 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
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
1-y NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
medium-dairy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dairy NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.45 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
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
1-y NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
medium-dairy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dairy NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
0.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Increased NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
dairy NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
young NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
y NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15821644)

Combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iloprost NN O I-INT
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
platelet NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Thrombocytopenia NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
are NN O O
major NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass-induced NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iloprost NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
prostacyclin NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
combination NN O O
administered NN O O
directly NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
oxygenator NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
platelet-leukocyte NN O O
interactions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Blood NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
ppm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
iloprost NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
ng NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
-1 NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
iloprost NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Platelets NN O O
and NN O O
leukocytes NN O O
were NN O O
enumerated NN O O
. NN O O

Platelet NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
Ib NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
IIb/IIIa NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet-derived NN O I-OUT
microparticles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
CD11b/CD18 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Mac-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
platelet-leukocyte NN O I-OUT
aggregate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
. NN O O

Collagen NN O O
and NN O O
thrombin NN O O
receptor-activating NN O O
peptide-induced NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
in NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
aggregometry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
or NN O O
iloprost NN O O
attenuated NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass-induced NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
Ib NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
IIb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
translocation NN O O
of NN O O
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
microparticle NN O O
formation NN O O
, NN O O
Mac-1 NN O I-OUT
upregulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
collagen-induced NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
plus NN O O
iloprost NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
microparticle NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
translocation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
preserved NN O O
thrombin NN O O
receptor-activating NN O O
peptide-induced NN O O
aggregation NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
rescued NN O O
by NN O O
single NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
and NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
plus NN O O
iloprost NN O O
attenuated NN O O
postoperative NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
plus NN O O
iloprost NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet-leukocyte NN O I-OUT
aggregate NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregative NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reduced NN O O
postoperative NN O O
bleeding NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
feasible NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15824212)

Simvastatin NN O I-INT
blunts NN O O
endotoxin-induced NN O O
tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Beyond NN O O
lipid NN O O
lowering NN O O
, NN O O
various NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
ascribed NN O O
to NN O O
statins NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl NN O O
coenzyme NN O O
A NN O O
reductase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
lipopolysaccharide NN O O
( NN O O
LPS NN O O
) NN O O
-induced NN O O
monocyte NN O O
tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
TF NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
endotoxemia NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
procoagulant NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
LPS NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
high-sensitive NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MCP-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sCD40L NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sCD40 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragment NN O I-OUT
F1+2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F1.2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
ELISAs NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
LPS NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Monocyte NN O I-OUT
TF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
monocyte-platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
whole-blood NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MCP-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
known NN O O
inducers NN O O
of NN O O
TF NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
suppressed NN O O
by NN O O
statin NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
LPS NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Statin NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
blunted NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
monocyte NN O I-OUT
TF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
LPS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
endotoxin-induced NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
F1.2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
after NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

LPS NN O O
infusion NN O O
affected NN O O
neither NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
monocyte-platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregates NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sCD40 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sCD40L NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
suppresses NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
blunts NN O O
monocyte NN O I-OUT
TF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15829494)

Temozolomide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
temozolomide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Hellenic NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Temozolomide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
alkylating NN O O
agent NN O O
that NN O O
produces NN O O
methyl NN O O
adducts NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
0.6 NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
guanine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
methyl NN O O
adducts NN O O
are NN O O
removed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
DNA NN O O
repair NN O O
enzyme NN O O
AGAT NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
down-regulate NN O O
the NN O O
AGAT NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
could NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TMZ NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
single-agent NN O I-INT
TMZ NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
TMZ NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/day NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
for NN O O
five NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
TMZ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-5 NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Tumor NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
complete NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
responses NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.8 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
5.8 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
regarding NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
for NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arthralgias/myalgias NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O I-OUT
clear NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
OS NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
TMZ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15837967)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Eastern NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
ECOG NN O O
2597 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
qdRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
naive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
0/1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
organ NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
area NN O O
under NN O O
time-concentration NN O O
curve NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/mL NN O O
. NN O O

min NN O O
plus NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
225 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

RT NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
qdRT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
Gy/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
HART NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
57.6 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
Gy NN O O
tid NN O O
for NN O O
2.5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
from NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
21 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
accrual NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
closed NN O O
prematurely NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
141 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
59 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20.3 NN O O
and NN O O
14.9 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
and NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
and NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
v NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
pneumonitis NN O O
in NN O O
0 NN O O
v NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
and NN O O
qdRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Any NN O O
subsequent NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
must NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
issues NN O O
that NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
closure NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
slow NN O I-OUT
accrual NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
logistics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HART NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O O
now NN O O
seems NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
sequential NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
After NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
carboplatin-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
closed NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
statistical NN O O
trend NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
advantage NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15838684)

Loss NN O O
of NN O O
tooth NN O O
substance NN O O
during NN O O
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
with NN O O
various NN O O
periodontal NN O O
instruments NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ultrasonic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
power-driven NN O I-INT
instrumentation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
gaining NN O O
in NN O O
significance NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
manual NN O O
periodontal NN O O
root NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
question NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
remove NN O O
too NN O O
much NN O O
tooth NN O O
substance NN O O
. NN O O

Various NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
scalers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
instruments NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
power-driven NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
root NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
instruments NN O O
used NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
freshly NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
non-periodontally NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
scaler NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Periopolisher NN O I-INT
diamond-coated NN O I-INT
inserts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
US-POL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
instruments NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MANUAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Perioplaner-Periopolisher NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPL-POL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Periokit NN O I-INT
ultrasonic-designed NN O I-INT
scalers NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PERIOKIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
scaler NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
instruments NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
allocated NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
teeth NN O O
( NN O O
small NN O O
root NN O O
fragments NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
unpaired NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or=0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
experimental NN O O
trials NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reveal NN O O
obvious NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
manual NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
or NN O O
power-driven NN O O
root NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
power-driven NN O O
inserts NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
scalers NN O O
tested NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
remove NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
hand NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
may NN O O
thus NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
debridement NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15839875)

Topical NN O O
quinolone NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
antiseptic NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
suppurative NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1584260)

Combined NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
survive NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
square NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
body-surface NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
square NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
5000 NN O I-INT
cGy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
6400 NN O I-INT
cGy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
squamous-cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
or NN O O
adenocarcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
thoracic NN O O
esophagus NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
accumulated NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
advantage NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.9 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
radiation-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
12.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
33 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
50 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
combined-therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
alive NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
distant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Severe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
life-threatening NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
44 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
radiation NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Concurrent NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
distant NN O O
metastases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15845130)

Outcome NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
assessments NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
at NN O O
ages NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
outcome NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
re-assessed NN O O
at NN O O
ages NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
each NN O O
age NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
varied NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
domain NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
moved NN O O
across NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
boundaries NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
instrument NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Interview-Revised NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADI-R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

On NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
group NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
scores NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
non-verbal NN O O
IQ NN O O
( NN O O
NVIQ NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
was NN O O
stable NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
masked NN O O
considerable NN O O
individual NN O O
instability NN O O
. NN O O

Standard NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
2 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
outcome NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
7 NN O O
even NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
domain NN O O
of NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
3 NN O O
did NN O O
predict NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
play-based NN O O
assessment NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
age NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
trajectory NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
symptoms NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
differed NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
separable NN O O
. NN O O

Variability NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NVIQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Caution NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
when NN O O
interpreting NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
this NN O O
age NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
non-verbal NN O O
communication NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
informative NN O O
than NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
standard NN O O
psychometric NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15857741)

Acustimulation NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
bands NN O I-INT
are NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
experiment NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
acustimulation NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
band NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
three-arm NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
acustimulation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
acustimulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-INT
acustimulation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
nausea NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Five NN O O
outcomes NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
wrist NN O I-OUT
band NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
five NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
separately NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
study NN O O
measures NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.1 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
acustimulation NN O I-INT
bands NN O I-INT
are NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
antiemetics NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15861942)

Problem-based NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
is NN O O
anatomy NN O O
a NN O O
casualty NN O O
? NN O O
INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
teaching NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
anatomy NN O O
is NN O O
changing NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O O
schools NN O O
worldwide NN O O
are NN O O
moving NN O O
away NN O O
from NN O O
dissection NN O O
and NN O O
lectures NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
integrated NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
basic NN O O
science NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
taught NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
these NN O O
integrated NN O O
courses NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
confidence NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
basic NN O O
science NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
concerning NN O O
anatomy NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
anatomical NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
second-year NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
taught NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
integrated NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Testing NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
True/False NN O O
format NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
penalty NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
incorrect NN O O
answer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
under NN O O
examination NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Papers NN O O
were NN O O
marked NN O O
under NN O O
blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Those NN O O
students NN O O
taught NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
course NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
basic NN O I-OUT
anatomical NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
taught NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
integrated NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
students NN O O
taught NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
integrated NN O O
course NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Students NN O O
taught NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
course NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
anatomical NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
taught NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
integrated NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
Europe NN O O
which NN O O
show NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15877748)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peri-implantitis NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Vector NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
peri-implantitis NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Vector NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
subgingival NN O O
debridement NN O O
with NN O O
carbon NN O O
fiber NN O O
curettes 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 O
, NN O O
comprising NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
screw NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
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
, 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 I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=5 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
threads NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
one NN O O
randomly NN O O
chosen NN O O
implant NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Vector NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
implant NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
submucosal NN O O
debridement NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
curette NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
. NN O O

Plaque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BOP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
implant NN O O
surfaces NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
radiographs NN O O
taken NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Oral NN O I-OUT
hygiene NN O I-OUT
around NN O O
both NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
implants NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Vector-treated NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
site NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
curettes NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
stopped NN O O
to NN O O
bleed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
neither NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
nor NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
there NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
regarding NN O O
PPD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
BOP NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Vector NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
than NN O O
following NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
with NN O O
carbon NN O O
fiber NN O O
curettes NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15889546)

Automatic NN O I-PAR
detection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
red NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
digital NN O I-PAR
color NN O I-PAR
fundus NN O I-PAR
photographs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
robust NN O O
detection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
red NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
digital NN O I-INT
color NN O I-INT
fundus NN O I-INT
photographs NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
step NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
automated NN O O
screening NN O O
systems NN O O
for NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
lesion NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
is NN O O
presented NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
hybrid NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
combining NN O O
prior NN O O
works NN O O
by NN O O
Spencer NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
1996 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Frame NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
1998 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
important NN O O
new NN O O
contributions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
contribution NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
red NN O I-INT
lesion NN O I-INT
candidate NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
pixel NN O O
classification NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
this NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
vasculature NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
separated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
background NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
image NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
connected NN O O
vasculature NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
objects NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
possible NN O O
red NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
extensive NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
features NN O O
are NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
proposed NN O O
by NN O O
Spencer-Frame NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
detected NN O O
candidate NN O O
objects NN O O
are NN O O
classified NN O O
using NN O O
all NN O O
features NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
k-nearest NN O O
neighbor NN O O
classifier NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
extensive NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
set NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
images NN O O
representative NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
normally NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
set NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
determining NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
image NN O O
contains NN O O
red NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
system NN O O
achieves NN O O
a NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
different NN O O
automatic NN O O
systems NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
outperform NN O O
them NN O O
all NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
close NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
expert NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
images NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
red NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15890448)

Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
ivermectin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
field NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
only NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chorioptic NN O I-PAR
mange NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
alpacas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
single-centre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
treatment-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
single-centre NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
un-controlled NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chorioptic NN O O
infestation NN O O
in NN O O
naturally NN O I-PAR
infested NN O I-PAR
alpacas NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
alpacas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Chorioptes NN O I-PAR
sp NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
mite NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
topical NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
500mug/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
administrations NN O O
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
400mug/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
periodic NN O I-OUT
mite NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
alpacas NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
administrations NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
topical NN O I-PAR
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
500mug/kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
monitored NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
mite NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
localised NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
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
trial 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
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mite NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
treatment NN O O
Groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
of NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
mite NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
again NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
Study NN O O
2 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
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mite NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mite NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
remainder NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eprinomectin NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
weekly NN O O
topical NN O O
administrations NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
500mug/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
proved NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
Chorioptes NN O I-OUT
mite NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
alpacas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15891326)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
inspiratory NN O I-INT
impedance NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
facemask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
intrathoracic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
decompression NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-PAR
compression-decompression NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
resuscitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
inspiratory NN O I-INT
impedance NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ITD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increases NN O O
coronary NN O O
perfusion NN O O
pressures NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ETT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-INT
compression-decompression NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ITD NN O I-INT
could NN O O
lower NN O O
intratracheal NN O O
pressures NN O O
when NN O O
attached NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
facemask NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ETT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
An NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
ITD NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
applied NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
facemask NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
ETT NN O I-INT
during NN O O
active NN O I-INT
compression-decompression NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
out-of-hospital NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
compression-to-bag-valve NN O O
ventilation NN O O
ratio NN O O
was NN O O
15:2 NN O O
. NN O O

Airway NN O O
pressures NN O O
( NN O O
surrogate NN O O
for NN O O
intrathoracic NN O O
pressure NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pressure NN O O
transducer NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
ITD NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
each NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
facemask NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
ETT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
Friedman NN O O
's NN O O
and NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
's NN O O
rank-sum NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
sd NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
intrathoracic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
decompression NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
resuscitation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.73 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
-4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
ITD NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
facemask NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-1.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
ITD NN O O
vs. NN O O
-7.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
ITD NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
ETT NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Decompression NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
facemask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ETT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
ITD NN O I-INT
attached NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
facemask NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ETT NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
intratracheal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
decompression NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
compression-decompression NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Airway NN O O
pressures NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ITD NN O I-INT
on NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O I-INT
facemask NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ETT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ITD-facemask NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
was NN O O
practical NN O O
and NN O O
enables NN O O
rapid NN O O
deployment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
life-saving NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15894770)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
soluble NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-valvar NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
further NN O O
the NN O O
relations NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vWf NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
soluble NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sP-sel NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
CHF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
SPAF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vWf NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sP-sel NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme NN O O
linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
ELISA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
1321 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
SPAF NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
CHF NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
1321 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
331 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
occurring NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preceding NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
vWf NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
and NN O O
CHF NN O O
( NN O O
154 NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
144 NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/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
particularly NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
or NN O O
recent NN O O
decompensated NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
dimensional NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
fractional NN O I-PAR
shortening NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
vWf NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
LV NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

CHF NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
-- NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
156 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/dl NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
152 NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/dl NN O O
) NN O O
LV NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
-- NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
vWf NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
LV NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
( NN O O
146 NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/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

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
mitral NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CHF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
vWf NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
sP-sel NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
presence NN O O
, NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
CHF NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
hypercoagulability NN O O
and NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
AF NN O O
through NN O O
increased NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
vWf NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15894964)

Cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
circulating NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
procoagulant NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Smoking NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

Cytokines NN O O
released NN O O
by NN O O
injured NN O O
endothelium NN O O
promote NN O O
vascular NN O O
interactions NN O O
with NN O O
leukocytes NN O O
and NN O O
platelets NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
is NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
cytokine NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
mediate NN O O
platelet NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
thrombin NN O O
generation NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CAD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
aspirin NN O O
treatment NN O O
inhibits NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
platelets NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thrombin NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O O
macrophage-colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
M-CSF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prothrombin NN O O
fragments NN O O
1+2 NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
11-dehydro-thromboxane NN O O
B2 NN O O
( NN O O
TXB2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
additionally NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Smokers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
, NN O O
smokers NN O O
had NN O O
3-fold NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
M-CSF NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1499 NN O O
vs NN O O
476 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2-fold NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
11-dehydro-TXB NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
2.1 NN O O
ng/mg NN O O
creatinine NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
aspirin NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
M-CSF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
11-dehydro-TXB NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
fragments NN O I-OUT
1+2 NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
smokers NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
markers NN O O
by NN O O
aspirin NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

M-CSF NN O O
remained NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
11-dehydro-TXB NN O O
2 NN O O
excretion NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
phases NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
cytokine-mediated NN O O
thromboxane NN O O
A NN O O
2 NN O O
production NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
aspirin NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Smoking NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
M-CSF NN O O
, NN O O
CRP NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
procoagulant NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
abolish NN O O
the NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15895329)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
home NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
disk NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
disk NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Departments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
orthopedics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Finnish NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=126 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
STG NN O O
, NN O O
n=65 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CG NN O O
, NN O O
n=61 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
STG NN O O
was NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
and NN O O
CG NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stabilization NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Pain NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Oswestry NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Million NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
trunk NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
straight-leg NN O I-OUT
raising NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CG NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
1.5 NN O O
to NN O O
0.6 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
stretching NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
3.7 NN O O
to NN O O
1.6 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
between NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Million NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Oswestry NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
between NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
points NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
trunk NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=.016 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
12-month NN O O
training NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
dynamic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
mobility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
squat-test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
and NN O O
CG NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
STG NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
adherence NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
training NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
remained NN O O
too NN O O
low NN O O
to NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
specific NN O O
training-induced NN O O
adaptations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Progressive NN O O
loading NN O O
, NN O O
supervision NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
support NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
long-term NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
programs NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
patient NN O O
motivation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15897310)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
of NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
multimodal NN O I-INT
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
benefits NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
; NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Physiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
physiotherapists NN O O
in NN O O
private NN O O
practices NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Physiotherapy NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mobilisation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-therapeutic NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
an NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
-2.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
-2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
-2.2 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
51/73 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
43/73 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
48/67 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
33/67 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
tested NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
regular NN O O
contact NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
therapist NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
disability NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15897822)

Cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stabilizing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stabilizing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
cLBP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
An NN O O
obvious NN O O
gap NN O O
exists NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O O
concerning NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
manipulative NN O O
treatment NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cLBP NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
Oswestry NN O I-PAR
Disability NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ODI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
consultation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
examined NN O O
, NN O O
informed NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
stay NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
specific NN O O
instructions NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
included NN O O
4 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stabilizing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
correcting NN O O
the NN O O
lumbopelvic NN O O
rhythm NN O O
. NN O O

Questionnaires NN O O
inquired NN O O
about NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ODI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
15D NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Instrument NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
every NN O O
self-rated NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
clearly NN O O
higher NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
Pearson NN O O
chi2 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
consultation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Incremental NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
combined NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
consultation NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
one-point NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
$ NN O O
512 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Physician NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
work NN O O
absenteeism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
equal NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
disability NN O O
and NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
seems NN O O
obvious NN O O
that NN O O
encouraging NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
advice NN O O
are NN O O
major NN O O
elements NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cLBP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15909709)

Uterine NN O O
incision NN O O
closure NN O O
at NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
temporary NN O I-INT
exteriorisation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
uterine NN O I-INT
exteriorization NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
caesarean NN O I-INT
section NN O I-INT
though NN O O
popular NN O O
among NN O O
obstetricians NN O O
, NN O O
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
exteriorization NN O O
of NN O O
uterus NN O O
during NN O O
uterine NN O O
repair NN O O
on NN O O
caesarean NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
136 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Havana NN O I-PAR
Specialist NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
Lagos NN O I-PAR
Nigeria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
operation NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O O
morbidities NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
analysed NN O O
with NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
chi NN O O
square NN O O
, NN O O
Fischer NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
t-test NN O O
as NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exteriorized NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
, NN O O
0.009,0.048 NN O O
0.038 NN O O
and NN O O
0.028 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
With NN O O
shorter NN O O
operative NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
morbidity NN O O
profile NN O O
exteriorization NN O O
of NN O O
uterus NN O O
during NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
preferred NN O O
except NN O O
where NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
adhesions NN O O
and NN O O
surgeons NN O O
inexperience NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15914128)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
combined NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
microg NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
drospirenone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lipids NN O O
, NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
metabolism 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
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
microg/drospirenone NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EE NN O O
20 NN O O
microg/DRSP NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
24/4 NN O O
regimen NN O O
with NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
microg/desogestrel NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
microg NN O O
( NN O O
EE NN O O
20 NN O O
microg/DSG NN O O
150 NN O O
microg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
21/7 NN O O
regimen NN O O
on NN O O
lipid NN O O
, NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
and NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
EE NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
microg/DRSP NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
EE NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
microg/DSG NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
microg NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
cycle NN O O
7 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemostatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
increased NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
slightly NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
during NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
normal NN O O
reference NN O O
ranges NN O O
at NN O O
cycle NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemostatic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
EE NN O O
20 NN O O
microg/DRSP NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
EE NN O O
20 NN O O
microg/DSG NN O O
150 NN O O
microg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15915547)

Enhancement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
sulfonylurea NN O I-INT
when NN O O
coadministered NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
glucose-clamp NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
alters NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
by NN O O
employing NN O O
an NN O O
euglycemic NN O O
glucose-clamp NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
23.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.0 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
3-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
volunteers NN O O
orally NN O O
received NN O O
3.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
fall NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
fasting NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
kept NN O O
constant NN O O
thereafter NN O O
by NN O O
employing NN O O
a NN O O
Biostator-based NN O I-INT
euglycemic NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril-compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
placebo-resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
temporarily NN O O
higher NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glibenclamide NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
GIR NN O O
( NN O O
0-120 NN O O
) NN O O
229 NN O O
+/- NN O O
173 NN O O
vs NN O O
137 NN O O
+/- NN O O
44 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
lasted NN O O
from NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
240 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glibenclamide NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GIR NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glibenclamide NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
between NN O O
volunteers NN O O
taking NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
GIR NN O O
( NN O O
0-600 NN O O
) NN O O
1267 NN O O
+/- NN O O
334 NN O O
vs NN O O
1286 NN O O
+/- NN O O
249 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
glibenclamide NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
when NN O O
taking NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
sulfonylureas NN O I-INT
or NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
may NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
temporary NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
these NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15916851)

Association NN O O
between NN O O
platelet NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
platelet NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinolyis NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stroke NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
markers NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
much NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
within NN O O
72 NN O O
h. NN O O
In NN O O
stroke NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.8433 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
tPA NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.1752 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
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.2465 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
47.052 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Increased NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15922817)

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
Korea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
studies NN O O
found NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Korean NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
sitting NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
109 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
washout 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
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks 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
medications NN O O
were NN O O
initiated NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
QD NN O O
if NN O O
sitting NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
SiDBP NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
29 NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
women NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
49.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
11.4 NN O O
] NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
61 NN O O
received NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
women NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
51.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
9.4 NN O O
] NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
sitting NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
152.0 NN O O
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
98.1 NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
153.4 NN O O
( NN O O
14.0 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
98.1 NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
lower NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2-sided NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
-4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
adequate NN O O
SiDBP NN O O
reductions NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
: NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42/49 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
91.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
45/49 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O O
besylate NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Compliance NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
97.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
97.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
drug-related NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
were NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
flushing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
paresthesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
amlodipine NN O O
maleate NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
amlodipine NN O O
besylate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1592650)

[ NN O O
Final NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
SAKK NN O I-PAR
40/81 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
curatively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Between NN O I-PAR
1981 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
533 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
469 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
revealed NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
recurrences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
recurrences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Estimated NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1:0.75 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.57-0.99 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjuvant NN O O
portal NN O O
infusion NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15929820)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
213 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
from NN O O
100 NN O O
microg/min NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
200 NN O O
- NN O O
300 NN O O
microg/min NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
microg/min NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
largest NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
80 NN O O
- NN O O
100 NN O O
microg/min NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
over NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
refractory NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
pectoris NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
PTCA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CABG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
intravenous NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
lowered NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
systolic NN O O
pressure NN O O
x NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
extent NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
onsets NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
refractory NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
pectoris NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
0.32 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.11 NN O O
- NN O O
0.96 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

( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
50 NN O O
beats NN O O
per NN O O
minute NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
could NN O O
tolerate NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
very NN O O
well NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
beta NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
or NN O O
calcium NN O O
antagonists NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem 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
nitroglycerin NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
may NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
refractory NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15930233)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
liberal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
restrictive NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transfusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Although NN O O
many NN O O
centers NN O O
have NN O O
introduced NN O O
more NN O O
restrictive NN O O
transfusion NN O O
policies NN O O
for NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
allowing NN O O
lower NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
levels NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
systematically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
restrictive NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
adverse NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weights NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1300 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
2 NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
RBC NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
liberal- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
restrictive-transfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
transfusions NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
level NN O O
fell NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O O
threshold NN O O
levels NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
improving NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
We NN O O
recorded NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
donor NN O I-OUT
exposures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiologic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
liberal-transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
more NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
3.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
restrictive-transfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
donors NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
whom NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
2.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
avoided NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
altogether NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
liberal-transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
restrictive-transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
restrictive-transfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
intraparenchymal NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
periventricular NN O I-OUT
leukomalacia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
both NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
both NN O O
transfusion NN O I-INT
programs NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
restrictive NN O I-INT
RBC-transfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
restrictive NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
harmful NN O O
to NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1593244)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
contact NN O O
sensitization NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nicoderm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Transdermal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
aid NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
questions NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
contact NN O O
sensitization NN O O
potential NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
topical NN O O
safety NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
raised NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
contact NN O O
sensitization NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Nicoderm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Marion NN O I-PAR
Merrell NN O I-PAR
Dow NN O I-PAR
Inc NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Kansas NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Mo NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ALZA NN O I-PAR
Corporation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Palo NN O I-PAR
Alto NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Calif NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allowed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
continue NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
two NN O O
phases NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
rest NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
42-day NN O O
open-label NN O O
induction NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
wore NN O O
only NN O O
active NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
4-day NN O O
double-blind NN O O
challenge NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
wore NN O O
active NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
concurrently NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Upon NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
patch NN O O
, NN O O
skin NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
burning NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
186 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
exhibited NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O O
contact NN O O
sensitization NN O O
manifested NN O O
as NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
confined NN O O
solely NN O O
to NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
application NN O O
. NN O O

Nonallergic NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
applications NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
reactions NN O O
resolved NN O O
without NN O O
incident NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
subjects NN O O
developed NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
contact NN O O
sensitization NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
topically NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
irritation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15937606)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Caesarean NN O I-PAR
births NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Caesarean NN O I-INT
section NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
episiotomy NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
Montreal NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1990-1991 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
999 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
135 NN O I-PAR
delivered NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Caesarean NN O I-INT
section NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
864 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-INT
birth NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
stratifying NN O O
for NN O O
parity NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
postpartum NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
VB NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
CS NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Primiparous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
unspecified NN O O
UI NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
postpartum NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
( NN O O
17.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VB NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
remained NN O O
significant NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
UI NN O O
. NN O O

Multiparous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
UI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VB NN O O
17.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
CS NN O O
16.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
UI NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Stress NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
primiparous NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VB NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
34.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
CS NN O O
12.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
UI NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
whose NN O O
UI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
severe NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
wear NN O O
a NN O O
pad NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
primiparous NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
16.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
multiparous NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
primiparous NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
vaginal NN O O
birth NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
70.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
54.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
multiparous NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
64.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dyspareunia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
primiparous NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
30.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
31.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
primiparous NN O O
and NN O O
multiparous NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
intact NN O O
perineums NN O O
after NN O O
VB NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
dyspareunia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
undergoing NN O O
CS NN O O
( NN O O
VB NN O O
26.2 NN O O
, NN O O
CS NN O O
40.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
experiencing NN O O
dyspareunia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greatest NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
episiotomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
forceps NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15937908)

Fulvestrant NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
breast NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospectively NN O O
planned NN O O
combined NN O O
survival NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Fulvestrant NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
agonist NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
breast NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
fulvestrant NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
previously NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
third-generation NN O O
aromatase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
anastrozole NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
reported NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospectively NN O O
planned NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trials NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fulvestrant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
428 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
423 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
receipt NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
27.0 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-66.9 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
319 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
74.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fulvestrant NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
322 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
anastrozole NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Prolonged NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
10-20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
still NN O O
alive NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
27.4 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
27.7 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
fulvestrant NN O I-INT
and NN O O
anastrozole-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazards NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.84-1.15 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.809 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fulvestrant NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
anastrozole NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0234 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
fulvestrant NN O I-INT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
anastrozole NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15940774)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
celecoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
combined NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VACT NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
efficacy NN O O
among NN O O
1578 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
4000 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n=269 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n=523 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n=259 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n=527 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
trial NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
Vioxx NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Celecoxib NN O I-INT
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
VACT2 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
pooled NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
similarly NN O O
designed NN O O
VACT1 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
evaluated NN O O
over NN O O
Days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
Patient NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGART NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
VACT2 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
excellent NN O I-OUT
PGART NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
celecoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
vs NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or=0.035 NN O O
; NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

WOMAC NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
than NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
and NN O O
celecoxib NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
Week NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
provided NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
. NN O O

Good NN O O
or NN O O
excellent NN O O
PGART NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
numerically NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
55.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
6 NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
at NN O O
Weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
6.9 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
5 NN O O
PGART NN O I-OUT
categories NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
provided NN O O
greater NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pooled NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
VACT1/VACT2 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
PGART NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
56.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
49.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
PGART NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
confirmed NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
to NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
medications NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuations NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
rofecoxib NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Discontinuation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
edema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
all NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Rofecoxib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
superior NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
rofecoxib NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
than NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Rofecoxib NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
study NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15947531)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Orlistat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O O
failure NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Obesity NN O O
is NN O O
increasingly NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
losing NN O O
weight NN O O
via NN O O
an NN O O
orlistat-assisted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Orlistat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
45.8 NN O O
m NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
5.2-86.4 NN O O
m NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.6+/-0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-8.55 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-13.0 NN O O
to NN O O
-4.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
orlistat NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Orlistat NN O I-INT
can NN O O
promote NN O O
significant NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
6-minute NN O O
walk NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Orlistat NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15948916)

Lessons NN O O
learnt NN O O
in NN O O
conducting NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
in 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
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
conducting NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
drug NN O O
trial NN O O
in 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
including NN O O
the NN O O
pitfalls NN O O
encountered NN O O
and NN O O
lessons NN O O
learnt NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
barrier NN O I-OUT
encountered NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recruitment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
it NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
recruit NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
recruitment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
often NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
barrier NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
progress NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Conducting NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
drug NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
greatly NN O O
facilitated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
experienced NN O O
clinical NN O O
pharmacology NN O O
staff NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15955950)

TENS NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
dystonia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

Manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
afferent NN O O
inputs NN O O
may NN O O
temporarily NN O O
modulate NN O O
dystonic NN O O
spasms NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
four NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dystonic NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15956086)

Acute NN O O
pressor NN O O
and NN O O
hormonal NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
role NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonism NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
The NN O O
opioid NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
regulation NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-dose NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O O
peptide NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
mediation NN O O
played NN O O
by NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonism NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
According NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
38.9 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40.4 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
1-h NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
beta-endorphin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mug/h NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
occasion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
preceded NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
established NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
beta-endorphin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
GH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
raised NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
annulled NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
individuals NN O O
when NN O O
naloxone NN O O
preceded NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
High NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O I-INT
induce NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
and NN O O
beneficial NN O O
hormonal NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1595776)

Combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
obese NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
suppertime NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
daytime NN O I-INT
sulfonylurea NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Combined NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sulfonylurea NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
postponing NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
multiple NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
concept NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
imperfectly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
glyburide NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double NN O O
masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
16-week NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Premixed NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NPH/30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
Regular NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
supper NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
adjusted NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
seeking NN O I-INT
nearly NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
fasting NN O I-INT
glycemia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
glyburide NN O I-INT
before NN O O
breakfast NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O O
fasting NN O O
glucose NN O O
at NN O O
10-16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
subjects NN O O
using NN O O
insulin NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
; NN O O
5.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
7.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 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
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decrement NN O O
of NN O O
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
A1 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

After NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
half NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
insulin-only NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
versus NN O O
101 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
units/d 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

Fasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
after NN O O
insulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
insulin-only 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
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
this NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
no NN O O
longer NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15960148)

Lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fosrenol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperphosphatemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
end-stage NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
High NN O O
serum NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fosrenol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-aluminum NN O O
, NN O O
non-calcium NN O O
phosphate NN O O
binder NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperphosphatemia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
end-stage NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ESRD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
assessed 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
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ESRD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Following NN O O
a NN O O
one- NN O O
to NN O O
three-week NN O O
washout NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
dose-titration NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameter NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=1.8 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
[ NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
5.6 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
titration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ca NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lanthanum NN O I-OUT
carbonate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
monitoring NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
washout NN O O
was NN O O
2.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
; NN O O
n=73 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
levels NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
pre-randomization NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
[ NN O O
5.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
n=30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
2.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
[ NN O O
7.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
n=31 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
controlled NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 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

Ca NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
one NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O O
binder NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperphosphatemia NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ESRD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
finding NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
US NN O O
and NN O O
European NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
lanthanum NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
effectively NN O O
controls NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15963401)

Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
awake NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
obstructive NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OSA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
vasoconstrictor NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Daytime NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coexisting NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
our NN O O
recent NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
, NN O O
abolition NN O O
of NN O O
OSA NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
medically NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EF NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
OSA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-OUT
apnea-hypopnea NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=20/h NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
overnight NN O I-INT
polysomnography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
again NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
nocturnal NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, 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
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
OSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
CPAP-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
OSA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
attenuated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
bursts/min NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
bursts/min NN O O
; NN O O
84 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
bursts/100 NN O O
heart NN O O
beats NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
bursts/100 NN O O
heart NN O O
beats 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
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg 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
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
69 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
66 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coexisting NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
lowers NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
central NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
vasoconstrictor NN O O
outflow NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
awake NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (15965311)

Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
amyloid NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
gamma-secretase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Amyloid NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
Abeta NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
functional NN O O
gamma-secretase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
LY450139 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
that NN O O
inhibits NN O O
Abeta NN O O
formation NN O O
in NN O O
whole NN O O
cell NN O O
assays NN O O
, NN O O
transgenic NN O O
mice NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
beagle NN O O
dogs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
wished NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
Abeta NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebrospinal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Volunteer NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
using NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LY450139 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1-40 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1-X NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
LY450139 NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
2.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Cmax NN O O
of NN O O
828 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.2 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
50-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-hour NN O O
interval NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
returning NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
Abeta NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
transiently NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

CSF NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
taking NN O O
5-mg NN O O
, NN O O
20-mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
40-mg NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
subjects NN O O
taking NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
experienced NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
drug NN O O
related NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
volunteer NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
after NN O O
taking NN O O
LY450139 NN O I-INT
were NN O O
manageable NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
Abeta NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
temporally NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
LY450139 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15968406)

Anti-Xa NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
accumulate NN O O
in NN O O
extended NN O O
duration NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
venous NN O I-PAR
thromboembolism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thromboembolism NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
being NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
for NN O O
extended NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
certain NN O O
if NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
extended NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thromboembolism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
consenting NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
compared NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
( NN O O
200 NN O O
IU NN O O
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
) NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4,4-6 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
measurements NN O O
performed NN O O
but NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
underlying NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
were NN O O
1.11 NN O O
and NN O O
1.03 NN O O
anti-Xa NN O O
units/ml NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
accumulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
anti-Xa NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
situation NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
not NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15973098)

Stapled NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-INT
milligan-morgan NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoidectomy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
2-year NN O O
postoperative NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stapled NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
circular NN O O
stapler NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Milligan-Morgan NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MM NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reproducibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
define NN O O
its NN O O
place NN O O
among NN O O
conventional NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
134 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single-masked NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
center NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
balancing NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
2.21 NN O O
years NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.26 NN O O
( NN O O
1.89-3.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
monitored NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
9 NN O O
nevertheless NN O O
filled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain/discomfort NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
[ NN O O
WHO NN O O
] NN O O
class NN O O
II NN O O
analgesics NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
class NN O O
III NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.066 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
per-patient NN O O
consumption NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
class NN O O
III NN O O
analgesics NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.089 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clear NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
evident NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
SH NN O O
2.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
0 NN O O
; NN O O
5.0 NN O O
] NN O O
versus NN O O
MM NN O I-INT
3.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
8.0 NN O O
] NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
fecaloma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
external NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoidal NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Impaired NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
urgency NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
continence NN O O
problems NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
tenesmus NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
needed NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
prolapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
1 NN O O
MM NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.194 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
reproducible NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
achieve NN O O
comparable NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MM NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
well-described NN O O
steps NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
are NN O O
followed NN O O
. NN O O

Like NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
anorectal NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
occur NN O O
after NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
symptoms NN O O
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemorrhoidal NN O I-OUT
prolapse NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Hemorroidopexy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
applicable NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
reducible NN O O
hemorrhoidal NN O O
prolapse NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15975721)

Removal NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
and NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
by NN O O
veno-venous NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
renal NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
burned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
veno-venous NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
renal NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
and NN O O
cytokines NN O O
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
burned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
burned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
sepsis NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
CRRT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
admission NN O O
. NN O O

Veno-venous NN O I-INT
CRRT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRRT NN O O
group NN O O
whenever NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
septic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
, NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
CRRT NN O O
initiation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
sepsis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
CRRT NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serial NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endotoxin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Plasma NN O O
endotoxin NN O O
and NN O O
cytokines NN O O
( NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
removed NN O O
effectively NN O O
with NN O O
CRRT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
severely NN O O
burned NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
sepsis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15978926)

Endovascular NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
repair NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
unfit NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EVAR NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Endovascular NN O I-INT
aneurysm NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EVAR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
exclude NN O O
abdominal NN O O
aortic NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
( NN O O
AAA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
introduced NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
unfit NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
instigated NN O O
EVAR NN O O
trial NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
whether NN O O
EVAR NN O O
improves NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
unfit NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
338 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
5.5 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assigned NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
EVAR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=166 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=172 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
of NN O O
aneurysm-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
197 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
aneurysm NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
assigned NN O O
no NN O O
intervention 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
adhered NN O O
to NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EVAR NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
5-15 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
rupture NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
9.0 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
6.0-13.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
142 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
42 NN O O
of NN O O
aneurysm-related NN O O
factors NN O O
; NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
EVAR NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.21 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.87-1.69 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.25 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
aneurysm-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
UK NN O O
pound NN O O
sterling NN O O
13,632 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EVAR NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
pound NN O O
sterling NN O O
4983 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
pound NN O O
sterling NN O O
8649 NN O O
, NN O O
SE NN O O
1248 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
HRQL NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
EVAR NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
already NN O O
unfit NN O O
for NN O O
open NN O O
repair NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
. NN O O

EVAR NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O O
over NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
continued NN O O
surveillance NN O O
and NN O O
reinterventions NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
substantially NN O O
increased NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

Ongoing NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
fitness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
priority NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15979021)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ongoing NN O O
and NN O O
experimentally NN O O
induced NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ongoing NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
quantitative NN O O
sensory NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
parameters NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
ongoing NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
, NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
global NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
sensory NN O O
measurements NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
area NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
included NN O O
pin-prick NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
, NN O O
allodynia NN O O
, NN O O
detection NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
thresholds NN O O
to NN O O
electrical NN O O
and NN O O
heat NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
temporal NN O O
summation NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
electrical NN O O
and NN O O
heat NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
escape NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
areas NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allodynia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pin-prick NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
venlafaxine NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
thresholds NN O O
( NN O O
electrical NN O O
and NN O O
heat NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
summation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
electrical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
and NN O O
temporal NN O O
summation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ongoing NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O O
sensory NN O O
tests NN O O
provided NN O O
complementing NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15985559)

Long NN O O
term NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
induces NN O O
progressive NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
mucosa NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Understanding NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
effects NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
infection NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
design NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
795 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preneoplastic NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
anti-H NN O I-INT
pylori NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
antioxidants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
anti-H NN O O
pylori NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
histopathology NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
utilised NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Non-linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O O
pylori NN O O
clearance NN O O
on NN O O
histopathology NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
confounders NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ninety NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
cent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
H NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
accumulated NN O O
1703 NN O O
person NN O O
years NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
multivariate NN O O
model NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
regression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
histopathology NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
square NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
H NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
negative NN O O
had NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
regression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
as NN O O
years NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
accumulated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
advanced NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Preneoplastic NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
regress NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
square NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
rendered NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preneoplastic NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
cured NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
H NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (15987536)

D-dimer NN O O
predicts NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
aneurysmal NN O O
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
on NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Approximately NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
nontraumatic NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
complications NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
delayed NN O O
ischemic NN O O
deficit NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
reported NN O O
recently NN O O
that NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
seems NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
thromboprophylactic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
SAH NN O O
trial 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
assessed NN O O
hemostatic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
SAH NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
closure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ruptured NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
measure NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
aneurysmal NN O I-PAR
SAH NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conclusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
variables NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
elevated NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
suppressed NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
thrombin NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
inhibited NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
D-dimer NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
clinical NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SAH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
thromboprophylactic NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
inhibited NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
down-regulate NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
ischemic NN O O
deficit NN O O
after NN O O
SAH NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15994014)

The NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
burn NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
pressure NN O I-INT
garment NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
hypertrophic NN O O
scarring 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
threefold NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Assess NN O O
the NN O O
pressure NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
garments NN O I-INT
that NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertrophic NN O I-PAR
scars NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
on NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
burn NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
scars NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
objectively NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Minolta NN O I-OUT
Chromameter NN O I-OUT
CR-300 NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-INT
erythema NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Dermascan NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
values NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mmHg NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
wearing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
garment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
parameters NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pressure NN O O
garments NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
compression NN O O
did NN O O
lose NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
compression NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
4.82 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
garments NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
compression NN O O
class NN O O
( NN O O
2.57 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scars NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
garments NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
compression NN O O
class NN O O
did NN O O
score NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
thickness NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
compression NN O O
class NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
most NN O O
evident NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Thereafter NN O O
no NN O O
further NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
treatments NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O O
correlations NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
test NN O O
points NN O O
while NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
parameters NN O O
correlated NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
significance 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

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
pressure NN O O
garments NN O O
that NN O O
deliver NN O O
a NN O O
pressure NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
pressure NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
accelerate NN O O
scar NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erythema NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
scar NN O O
thickness NN O O
and NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15994720)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
: NN O O
longer-term NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
blinded NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
aggression NN O O
, NN O O
temper NN O O
outbursts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
self-injurious NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Because NN O O
these NN O O
behaviors NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
longer-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
, NN O O
two-part NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
earlier NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Part NN O O
I NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
4-month NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
established NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
; NN O O
part NN O O
II NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-substitution NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Part NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
was NN O O
1.96 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
over NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
. NN O O

Reasons NN O O
for NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
part NN O O
I NN O O
included NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
N=5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
N=1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
gained NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
5.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

Part NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
gradual NN O O
placebo NN O O
substitution NN O O
and NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
continued NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
persistent NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
good NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
intermediate-length NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
characterized NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Discontinuation NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
return NN O O
of NN O O
disruptive NN O O
and NN O O
aggressive NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (15996057)

Longterm NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early 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
undergoing NN O I-PAR
longterm NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
where NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
summarized NN O O
descriptively NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
College NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Rheumatology NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
Sharp NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
with NN O O
longterm NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
etanercept NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
rates NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
blinded NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
201 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
decreased NN O O
or NN O O
discontinued NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O O
or NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
TSS NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
5-year NN O O
radiographs NN O O
; NN O O
negative NN O O
change NN O O
( NN O O
TSS NN O O
< NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
sustained NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
emphasizing NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
gained NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
longterm NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16006861)

Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
adrenalectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
adrenalectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
adrenalectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adrenal NN O O
lesions NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
followup NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
undergo NN O I-INT
TLA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RLA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
32 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-PAR
exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
80 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
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
adrenalectomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
quadrant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
interest NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O O
followup NN O O
was NN O O
5.96 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
in NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
American NN O O
Society NN O O
of NN O O
Anesthesiologists NN O O
class NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
laterality NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
adrenal NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.7 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TLA NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.6 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RLA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TLA NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
RLA NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
130 NN O O
vs NN O O
126.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
specimen NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.56 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
case NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
electively NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
open NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pathology NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intact NN O O
extracted NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Averaged NN O O
convalescence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TLA NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RLA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
followup NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
years NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TLA NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
port NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
hernia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mortality NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
1 NN O O
with NN O O
TLA NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
with NN O O
RLA NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6-year NN O O
followup NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
For NN O O
most NN O O
benign NN O O
adrenal NN O O
lesions NN O O
requiring NN O O
surgery NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
adrenalectomy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
transperitoneal NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16007391)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
on NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
of NN O O
solids NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
13C-octanoic NN O O
acid NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O O
ulcer NN O O
and NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
disorders NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
upper NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
studies NN O O
examining NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
disorders NN O O
have NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
of NN O O
solids NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
( NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
C-octanoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
habitual NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
occasions NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
sham NN O O
smoking NN O O
or NN O O
actively NN O O
smoking NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O O
vs NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
CO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mathematically NN O O
fitted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
formula NN O O
of NN O O
y NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
m*k*beta*e NN O O
( NN O O
-k*t NN O O
) NN O O
* NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
- NN O O
e NN O O
( NN O O
-k*t NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
beta-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
k NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
: NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
( NN O O
smaller NN O O
) NN O O
beta NN O O
indicates NN O O
slower NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
faster NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
( NN O O
smaller NN O O
) NN O O
k NN O O
indicates NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
slower NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
later NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
half NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
13 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2b NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
- NN O O
[ NN O O
ln NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
- NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
-1/beta NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
/k NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
13 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
[ NN O O
lnbeta NN O O
] NN O O
/k NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
k NN O O
, NN O O
beta NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
1/2b NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
signed-rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
k NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
beta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1/2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
k NN O I-OUT
suggests NN O O
the NN O O
acceleration NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
later NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O O
smoking NN O O
speeds NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
of NN O O
solids NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
habitual NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16014845)

Tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
albendazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Wuchereria NN O I-PAR
bancrofti NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
helminth NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Haitian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
tolerance NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nutritional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
intestinal NN O O
helminths NN O O
and NN O O
lymphatic NN O O
filariasis NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Ascaris NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Trichuris NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hookworm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
69.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
parasites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
15.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Wuchereria NN O I-PAR
bancrofti NN O I-PAR
microfilariae NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
albendazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DEC/ALB NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
microfilarial NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ALB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
DEC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Albendazole NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DEC/ALB NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Ascaris NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Trichuris NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hookworm NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
DEC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O I-OUT
Trichuris-infected NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
ALB NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DEC/ALB NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Albendazole NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DEC/ALB NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
equally NN O I-OUT
efficacious NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
treating NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
helminths NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
W. NN O I-OUT
bancrofti NN O I-OUT
microfilaremia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DEC/ALB NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
DEC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16030275)

Administrative NN O O
Data NN O O
Feedback NN O O
for NN O O
Effective NN O I-OUT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
AFFECT NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Hospital NN O O
report NN O O
cards NN O O
are NN O O
increasingly NN O O
being NN O O
implemented NN O O
for NN O O
quality NN O O
improvement NN O O
despite NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
strong NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
hospital NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
cards NN O I-INT
constructed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
linked NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
administrative NN O I-INT
databases NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
AMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
Administrative NN O I-INT
Data NN O I-INT
Feedback NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Effective NN O I-INT
Cardiac NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AFFECT NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Quebec NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Hospitals NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2533 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3142 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
confidential NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
quality NN O I-INT
indicators NN O I-INT
constructed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
administrative NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Quality NN O O
indicators NN O O
pertaining NN O O
to NN O O
processes NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
admitted NN O O
between NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
indicator NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O O
survivors NN O O
of NN O O
AMI NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
hospital NN O O
who NN O O
filled NN O O
a NN O O
prescription NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
prescription NN O O
rates NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
vs NN O O
late NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.06 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.82-1.37 NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.17 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.90-1.52 NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.14 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.86-1.50 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
aspirin NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.05 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.84-1.33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waiting NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
readmissions NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Feedback NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
one-time NN O O
, NN O O
confidential NN O O
report NN O O
cards NN O O
constructed NN O O
using NN O O
administrative NN O O
data NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
need NN O O
exists NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
rigorously NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
report NN O I-INT
card NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16030622)

Trichuris NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16038713)

Superior NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
arterial NN O O
thrombogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Recent NN O O
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregometry NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
antiplatelet NN O O
regimen NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
marketed NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
dipyridamole+ASA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
dual NN O I-INT
antiplatelet NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
two NN O O
10-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
14-day NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
once-daily NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O O
thrombus NN O O
formation NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
ex NN O O
vivo NN O O
by NN O O
exposing NN O O
a NN O O
collagen-coated NN O O
surface NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
parallel-plate NN O O
perfusion NN O O
chamber NN O O
to NN O O
native NN O O
blood NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
arterial NN O O
wall NN O O
shear NN O O
rate NN O O
2600 NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrin NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
immunoenzymatic NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
63.9+/-5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
18.4+/-5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
49-79 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
for NN O O
fibrin NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
64.9+/-4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
18.3+/-9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
45-67 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clopidogrel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
arterial NN O O
thrombogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16044227)

Investigation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
palatal NN O I-PAR
canine NN O I-PAR
displacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
retrospective NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
mesiodistal NN O O
and NN O O
vestibulo-oral NN O O
crown NN O O
sizes NN O O
of NN O O
naturally NN O O
, NN O O
fully-erupted NN O O
permanent NN O O
maxillary NN O O
teeth NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
palatal NN O I-PAR
canine NN O I-PAR
displacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
115 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Orthodontics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Munich NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
palatally-displaced NN O I-PAR
canine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Diagnosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
location NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
displacement NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
basis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-INT
radiographs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
documentation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
tooth NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
mesiodistal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vestibulo-oral NN O I-PAR
width NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dial NN O I-INT
caliper NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
cast NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Excluded NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
partially-erupted NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
surfaces NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
caries NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
available NN O O
space NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
dental NN O O
casts NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
widths NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
unilateral NN O O
canine NN O O
displacement NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
contralateral NN O O
quadrants NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
noted NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
namely NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
and NN O O
lateral NN O O
incisors NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
canines NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
side NN O O
were NN O O
narrower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-affected NN O O
side NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
displaced NN O O
upper NN O O
canines NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
vestibulo-oral NN O I-OUT
dimension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
including NN O O
all NN O O
tooth NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
palatally-displaced NN O O
canines NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
crown NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
unilaterally- NN O O
and NN O O
bilaterally-affected NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
tooth-size NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
space-analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
excessive NN O O
dental-arch NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
palatally-displaced NN O O
canine NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
palatal NN O O
canine NN O O
displacement NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
maxillary NN O O
tooth NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16048456)

Autism-Spectrum NN O I-INT
Quotient-Japanese NN O I-INT
version NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
short NN O O
forms NN O O
for NN O O
screening NN O I-PAR
normally NN O I-PAR
intelligent NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Japanese NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
Spectrum NN O I-INT
Quotient NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
AQ-J NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
normally NN O I-PAR
intelligent NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HPDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
215 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
AQ-J NN O I-INT
had NN O O
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
internal NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
> NN O O
0.70 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
test-retest NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discriminant NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

the NN O O
AQ-J NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HPDD NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
29.6 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
22.2 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
cut-off NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
AQ-J NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
facts NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
25 NN O O
mild NN O O
HPDD NN O O
patients NN O O
scored NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
scored NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
AQ-J NN O I-INT
than NN O O
British NN O O
counterparts NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
AQ NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AQ-J-21 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
HPDD NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
AQ-J-10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
0.17 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.35 NN O O
and NN O O
0.46 NN O O
at NN O O
cut-offs NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
AQ-J NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
AQ-J NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
short NN O O
forms NN O O
are NN O O
useful NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
but NN O O
to NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
HPDD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
difficult NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
HPDD NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
distinguished NN O O
from NN O O
non-PDD NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O O
scoring NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
cut-offs NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
professionals NN O O
' NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
HPDD NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O O
scoring NN O O
over NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
their NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16076379)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
sevelamer NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperphosphatemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
sevelamer NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
involved NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
CC NN O O
was NN O O
fixed NN O O
at NN O O
3.0 NN O O
g/day NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
12-week NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
changed NN O O
from NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O O
g/day NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
6.0 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorous NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
=5.5 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
corrected NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ca NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
9.0-10.0 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
finished NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dosage NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N=16 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N=26 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
5.7+/-1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
6.4+/-1.7 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
concentrations NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Ca NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
9.7+/-1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
9.1+/-0.7 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
to NN O O
sevelamer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
Ca NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
Side-effects NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
sevelamer NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
34 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
86 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
13/29 NN O O
; NN O O
44.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperphosphatemia NN O O
with NN O O
CC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
CC NN O O
or NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1608405)

Reactivation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Heparin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
comparing NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neither NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
encountered NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
was NN O O
reactivated NN O O
after NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
403 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
original NN O I-PAR
479 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
96 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
closely NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Early NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
107 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
study NN O O
groups 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

These NN O O
reactivations NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
urgent NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
, NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
coronary-bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
combined 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

Four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
a NN O O
reactivation NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
disease NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Reactivations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
9.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
distributed NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
96 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
process NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
reactivated NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Concomitant NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16087911)

A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
allodynia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
herpes NN O I-PAR
zoster NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
gabapentin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
900 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
allodynia NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
herpes NN O I-OUT
zoster NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
allodynia NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
gabapentin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16089221)

Hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
post-tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H2O2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
with NN O O
control NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
electrocautery NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
H2O2 NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
recorded NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
twice NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analgesic NN O O
uses NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
any NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
10.3 NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
were NN O O
9.0 NN O O
and NN O O
6.7 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
H2O2 NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
water NN O O
rinse NN O O
for NN O O
post-tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16093405)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
isoflavones NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
moderately NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isoflavones NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
water-washed NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
milk-protein NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
lipid NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
hyperlipidemic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
including NN O O
159 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
a NN O O
milk NN O I-INT
protein-based NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
five-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
draws NN O O
for NN O O
lipid NN O O
measurement NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
towards NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
period 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
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
isoflavone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured 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

RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
isoflavones NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
further NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
lipids NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
water-washed NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Several NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
, NN O O
highlighting NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O O
consumption NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cholesterol-lowering NN O O
effect NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
participation NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
nutrient NN O O
displacement NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
protein NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16095446)

Nitrous NN O O
oxide NN O O
diffusion NN O O
into NN O O
tracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
cuffs NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
prototype NN O O
cuff NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CPRV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
pressure NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
adjusted NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
cuffed NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
tubes NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
cuff NN O O
hyperinflation NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
N2O NN O O
diffusion NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
vitro NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
PRV NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
or NN O O
25 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
release NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
connected NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
cuffed NN O O
tube NN O O
placed NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
box NN O O
flushed NN O O
with NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
N2O NN O O
in NN O O
O2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
CPRV NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Experiments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
CPRVs NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vivo NN O O
: NN O O
with NN O O
Institutional NN O O
Review NN O O
Board NN O O
approval NN O O
, NN O O
CPRV NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
technique NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
N2O NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
O2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ventilator NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CPRV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
and NN O O
CPRV NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O O
25 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
manually NN O O
released NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
deflations NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U-test NN O O
( 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
In NN O O
vitro NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O O
50 NN O O
cmH2O NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
without NN O O
CPRV NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
settings NN O O
with NN O O
CPRV NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vivo NN O O
: NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
manually NN O O
deflate NN O O
the NN O O
cuff NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CPRV NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
every NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
seven NN O O
) NN O O
deflating NN O O
manoeuvres NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
CPRV NN O O
allows NN O O
reliable NN O I-OUT
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
various NN O O
pressure NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
reliably NN O O
prevents NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
N2O NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16095766)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
inactivated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whole-cell NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Shigella NN O I-INT
sonnei NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Orally NN O O
delivered NN O O
, NN O O
inactivated NN O O
whole-cell NN O O
vaccines NN O I-INT
are NN O O
safe NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
local NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
immunity NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
increase NN O O
surface NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
invasion NN O O
, NN O O
Shigella NN O O
sonnei NN O O
were NN O O
grown NN O O
in NN O O
BHI NN O O
broth NN O O
containing NN O O
deoxycholate NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
whole-cell NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SsWC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
then NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
formalin NN O O
inactivation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
pre-clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
immunogenic NN O O
and NN O O
protected NN O O
against NN O O
S. NN O O
sonnei-induced NN O O
keratoconjunctivitis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
guinea NN O I-PAR
pig NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Phase NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
five NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Days NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
dose NN O O
contained NN O O
2.0 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
inactivated NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
SsWC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LPS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IpaC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
4-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
titer NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Antibody NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
dosing NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
LPS NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
IpaC NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fecal NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
antigens NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
, NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
rises NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
immunogens NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
; NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
trended NN O O
toward NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
paired NN O O
one-tailed NN O O
t-test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
SsWC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16097539)

Migration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acetabular NN O I-PAR
component NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cement NN O I-OUT
pressurization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
radiolucency NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
5-year NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
radiostereometry NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Cementing NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
crucial NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
prosthesis NN O I-PAR
fixation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O O
fingerpacking NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
pressurization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cement NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
cup NN O O
insertion NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
THAs NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
fingerpacking NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
pressurization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
pressurization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
anchorage NN O I-INT
hole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RSA NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
penetration NN O O
of NN O O
cement NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
anchorage NN O O
holes NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
digital NN O O
radiographs NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
radiolucent NN O I-OUT
lines NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cup NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-OUT
RSA NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
SF-36 NN O O
and NN O O
HHS NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pressurized NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
THAs NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
stable NN O O
regarding NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
inclination NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
migratory NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cement NN O O
penetration NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
anchorage NN O O
holes NN O O
was NN O O
deeper NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pressurization NN O O
technique NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
fingerpacking NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
radiolucent NN O O
lines NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
radiograph NN O O
and NN O O
later NN O O
migration NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
RSA NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Pressurization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cement NN O O
produced NN O O
better NN O O
cement NN O O
penetration NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
cup NN O O
stability NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
inclination NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
radiolucent NN O O
lines NN O O
can NN O O
predict NN O O
later NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
cup NN O O
migration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16099893)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
glycogen NN O I-INT
availability NN O I-INT
on NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
receptor NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
skeletal NN O I-PAR
muscle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cytokine NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
( NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
) NN O O
exerts NN O O
it NN O O
actions NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
IL-6R NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ubiquitously NN O O
expressed NN O O
gp130 NN O O
receptor NN O O
. NN O O

IL-6 NN O O
is NN O O
tightly NN O O
regulated NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
being NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
exercise NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
energy NN O O
availability NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
extensively NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6R NN O O
response 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
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glycogen NN O I-INT
availability NN O I-INT
, NN O O
factors NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6R NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
either NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
bout NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low-glycogen NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
normal-glycogen NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
training NN O O
nor NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
glycogen NN O O
levels NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
expressed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
before NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
are NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
well NN O O
conserved NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
neither NN O O
training NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
glycogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6R NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
sensitization NN O O
of NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
to NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16104966)

Open NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
intentional NN O I-INT
cementum NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
4-month NN O O
follow-up 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
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
cementum NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
periodontal NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
depth NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=5 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
instructions NN O O
and NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
supragingival NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
CIC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
scaled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Gracey NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CIUS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
scaled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CDC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
calculus NN O I-INT
deattachment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Gracey NN O I-INT
curettes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CDUS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
calculus NN O I-INT
deattachment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Full-thickness NN O O
flaps NN O O
were NN O O
reflected NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
microscope NN O O
. NN O O

Probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
margin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RGML NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
five NN O O
experimental NN O O
periods NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
days NN O O
postoperative NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
the NN O O
approaches NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
PD NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
evaluation NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
RGML NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CDUS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RAL NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
RAL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
CDC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CDUS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
scaling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
calculus NN O I-INT
deattachment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
probing NN O O
depth NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16107454)

NHS NN O I-INT
Direct NN O O
and NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16108749)

Analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
and NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
following NN O O
pediatric NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
with NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
purposes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Their NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
belonged NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O I-INT
out NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
caudal NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mL/kg NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
postinduction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
port NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Hannallah NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
360 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postextubation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O O
patients NN O O
needed NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
was NN O O
technically NN O O
difficult NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
find NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
at NN O O
port NN O O
sites NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
necessarily NN O O
invasive NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
caudal NN O O
block NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
with NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
at NN O O
port NN O O
sites NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
economical NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
analgesia NN O O
following NN O O
pediatric NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16108781)

Economic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
findings NN O O
on NN O O
management NN O O
decisions NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
utility NN O O
and NN O O
sustainability NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
substitute NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
hospital NN O O
wards NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
discharge NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
Service NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
transfer NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nursing-led NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
discuss NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustainability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
nursing-led NN O O
inpatient NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Recent NN O O
economic NN O O
analyses NN O O
have NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
nursing-led NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
with NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
stay NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
driver NN O O
of NN O O
inpatient NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
175 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
86 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
investigations NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
multiprofessional NN O I-OUT
input NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nursing NN O I-OUT
input NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
Barthel NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
nursing-led NN O O
inpatient NN O O
unit NN O O
although NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

Postdischarge NN O I-OUT
community NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
1044 NN O O
pounds NN O O
sterling NN O O
per NN O O
point NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Barthel NN O O
Index NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-INT
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
costs NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
nursing-led NN O O
inpatient NN O O
unit NN O O
is NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clearly NN O O
answered NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O O
management NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
service NN O O
provision NN O O
within NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
nursing-led NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
operated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
substantial NN O O
investment NN O O
in NN O O
intermediate NN O O
care NN O O
did NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16109116)

Topiramate NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
topiramate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
26-week NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O I-PAR
protocols NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Migraine NN O O
substantially NN O O
impairs NN O O
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

Approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
migraine NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
preventive NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
only NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receive NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

TPM NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
generally NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
( NN O O
preventive NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials 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
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
in NN O O
migraine NN O O
prevention NN O O
are NN O O
paresthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
alteration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Migraine-Specific NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
version NN O O
2.1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
functionality NN O O
and NN O O
HRQoL NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
study-completer NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
pooled NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

MSQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
score NN O O
indicates NN O O
better NN O O
functioning NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
three NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
role NN O O
restriction NN O O
( NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
migraine NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
role NN O O
prevention NN O O
( NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
is NN O O
interrupted NN O O
by NN O O
migraine NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
examines NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
frustration NN O O
and NN O O
helplessness NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
migraine NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
MSQ NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
mixed-effects NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
piecewise NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
HRQoL NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
MSQ NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TPM NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
372 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
362 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
study-completer NN O O
( NN O O
TPM NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
220 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
216 NN O O
) NN O O
populations NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
populations NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
for NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
varied NN O O
from NN O O
0.40 NN O O
to NN O O
0.78 NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
MSQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
were NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TPM NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
the NN O O
MSQ NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
indicate NN O O
, NN O O
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1610994)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
infrarenal NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
. NN O O

Aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
for NN O O
reconstructive NN O O
aortic NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
volatile NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
aortic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
clearances NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
reconstructive NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pancuronium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50/50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
throughout NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERPF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
131I-hippuran NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
99Tc-DTPA NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
halothane NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
118.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25.6 NN O O
and NN O O
19.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.2 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
253.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
51.5 NN O O
and NN O O
44.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.4 NN O O
mL/min 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
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
markedly NN O O
affected NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane-anesthetized NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
232.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
47.1 NN O O
and NN O O
49.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
for NN O O
ERPF NN O O
and NN O O
GFR NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
halothane-anesthetized NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
132.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31.6 NN O O
and NN O O
14.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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

After NN O O
aortic NN O O
unclamping NN O O
, NN O O
ERPF NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
markedly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
467.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
122 NN O O
and NN O O
362.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
57.7 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
halothane NN O O
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
GFR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22 NN O O
and NN O O
71.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.1 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
vasoconstriction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
during NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16113620)

Atomoxetine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
are NN O O
commonly NN O O
comorbid NN O O
with NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
atomoxetine/fluoxetine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
127 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
last NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
marked NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
scale NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
symptom NN O O
cluster NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitudes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
likely NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

Completion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-only NN O O
arm NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
allow NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
specifically NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Combined NN O I-INT
atomoxetine/fluoxetine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16116013)

Cervical NN O O
spine NN O O
motion NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O O
comparison NN O O
during NN O O
intubation NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
lighted NN O O
stylet NN O O
, NN O O
GlideScope NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
intubate NN O O
the NN O O
trachea NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-spine NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
unresolved NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
fluoroscopic NN O O
video NN O O
, NN O O
C-spine NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
intubation NN O O
for NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
3 NN O O
blade NN O O
, NN O O
GlideScope NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Intubating NN O O
Lighted NN O O
Stylet NN O O
, NN O O
popularly NN O O
known NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
Lightwand NN O O
or NN O O
Trachlight NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
either NN O O
Lightwand NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
GlideScope NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Macintosh NN O I-INT
laryngoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
in-line NN O I-INT
stabilization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
C-spine NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
examined NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Occiput-C1 NN O O
junction NN O O
, NN O O
C1-2 NN O O
junction NN O O
, NN O O
C2-5 NN O O
motion NN O O
segment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C5-thoracic NN O O
motion NN O O
segment NN O O
during NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
bag-mask NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
laryngoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
intubate NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

C-spine NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
bag-mask NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
motion NN O O
segments NN O O
studied NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

C-spine NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Lightwand NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
averaging NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
motion NN O O
segments NN O O
studied NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intubate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
Lightwand NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
blade NN O O
. NN O O

C-spine NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
C2-5 NN O O
segment NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
GlideScope NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
unchanged NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
segments NN O O
. NN O O

Laryngoscopy NN O O
with NN O O
GlideScope NN O O
took NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
blade NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Lightwand NN O O
( NN O O
Intubating NN O O
Lighted NN O O
Stylet NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
C-spine NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16116055)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
before NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
hybrid NN O O
compound NN O O
of NN O O
ATP-sensitive NN O O
potassium NN O O
channel NN O O
opener NN O O
and NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
donor NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
early NN O O
functional NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
phase NN O O
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
This NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
368 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rehospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
various NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
epicardial NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
microvascular NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
2.4 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
had NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.39 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.20 NN O O
to NN O O
0.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0058 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postprocedural NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
89.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
81.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.99 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.09 NN O O
to NN O O
3.65 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Corrected NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
frame NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
furthermore NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
21.0+/-9.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
25.1+/-14.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ST-segment NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
79.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
61.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
2.45 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.54 NN O O
to NN O O
3.90 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
nicorandil NN O I-INT
to NN O O
PCI NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
beneficial NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prevents NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16119478)

Clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
functional NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
serotonin NN O O
transporter NN O O
gene NN O O
on NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
serotonin NN O O
transporter NN O O
gene NN O O
promoter NN O O
region NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
( NN O O
5-HTTLPR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
children 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
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

5-HTTLPR NN O O
( NN O O
long NN O O
( NN O O
l NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
short NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
PCR NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
allele NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
clinical NN O O
global NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
l NN O O
allele NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
s NN O O
allele NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
s NN O O
allele NN O O
. NN O O

5-HTTLPR NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
fluvoxamine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16119805)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
intravesical NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
THP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
intravesical NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
THP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TUR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
THP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
THP NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
THP NN O O
dissolved NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
4 NN O O
times NN O O
intravesically NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
TUR 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
no NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TUR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
cystoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
cytology NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
non-recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
THP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
54.1 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
37.6 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
40.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.086 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
cm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
THP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0137 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
1+2 NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
THP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.079 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intravesical NN O O
THP NN O O
instillation NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
TUR NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
cm NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
superficial NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16124442)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
zalcitabine NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
herbs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine 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
combined-herbs NN O O
( NN O O
SH NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ZDV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
zalcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ddC NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
eligible NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
anti-retrovirals NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Karnofski NN O I-PAR
Performance NN O I-PAR
Score NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
KPS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
opportunistic NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
ZDV NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
ddC NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
g NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ZDV NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ddC NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
g NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
HIV-RNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

HIV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
that 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
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SH NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
SH NN O O
herbs NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
reverse NN O O
transcriptase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
has NN O O
greater NN O O
antiviral NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
antiretrovirals NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SH NN O I-INT
herbs NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
anti-retroviral NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
drug NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O O
infected NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
countries NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16125499)

Usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
temporal NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
neurohormones NN O I-INT
as NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
remodeling NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
candesartan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
various NN O O
neurohormones NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
measurement NN O O
confer NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
temporal NN O O
changes NN O O
( NN O O
Delta NN O O
) NN O O
remains NN O O
undetermined NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
temporal NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
neurohormones NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O O
remodeling NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
inhibition NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
renin-angiotensin-aldosterone NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Temporal NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angiotensin-II NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-terminal NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NT-ANP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
768 NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
relations NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increasing NN O O
BNP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
NT-ANP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
concurrent NN O O
decreasing NN O O
EF NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EDV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ESV NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
DeltaBNP NN O O
and NN O O
DeltaNT-ANP NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
DeltaESV NN O O
and NN O O
DeltaEDV NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
DeltaBNP NN O O
also NN O O
predicted NN O O
DeltaEF NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
larger NN O O
antecedent NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
NT-ANP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+293.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
-21.5 NN O O
pmol/ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lesser NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-22.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
-48.5 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
NT-ANP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
3.45 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
2.04 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
NT-ANP NN O O
and NN O O
BNP NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
predict NN O O
a NN O O
decreasing NN O O
EF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
increasing NN O O
NT-ANP NN O O
and NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
independently NN O O
predict NN O O
greater NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serial NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
neurohormones NN O O
may NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
useful NN O O
surrogate NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prognosticators NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16145415)

A NN O O
hybrid NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
assessed 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
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
PlasmaKinetic NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
During NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
period NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
preoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
International NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Symptom NN O O
Score NN O O
, NN O O
uroflowmetry NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Complete NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
69.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
followup NN O O
of NN O O
18.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
and NN O O
TURP NN O O
groups NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
40.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.4 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
57.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.4 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
45 NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
irrigation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PlasmaKinetic NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
hyperosmolar NN O O
solution NN O O
irrigation NN O O
during NN O O
TURP 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
and NN O O
TURP NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
catheterized NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
irritative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
complaints NN O O
after NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Recatheterization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TURP NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
followup NN O O
urethral NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reoperation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
and NN O O
TURP NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
: NN O O
Transurethral NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
PlasmaKinetic NN O O
bipolar NN O O
energy NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
prostatic NN O O
tissue NN O O
removal NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
increased NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
irritative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
urethral NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
must NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16146466)

Hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
lipopolysaccharide-induced NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
involves NN O O
heme NN O O
oxygenase-1 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
lipopolysaccharide NN O O
( NN O O
LPS NN O O
) NN O O
-induced NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
HBO NN O O
involves NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
inducible NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
( NN O O
iNOS NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
heme NN O O
oxygenase-1 NN O O
( NN O O
HO-1 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
HBO NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
iNOS NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
septic NN O O
rat NN O I-PAR
lungs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Before NN O O
the NN O O
experiment NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
HBO NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
With NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
HBO NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
further NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
subgroups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
LPS NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N/S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
hemin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
HO-1 NN O I-INT
inducer NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
LPS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
hemin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tin NN O I-INT
protoporphyrin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SnPP NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
HO-1 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
LPS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vi NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
SnPP NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
sacrificed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
pentobarbital NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Lung NN O O
injuries NN O O
and NN O O
relevant NN O O
enzymes NN O O
expression NN O O
were NN O O
thus NN O O
assayed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Histological NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PMNs/alveoli NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wet/dry NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
LPS NN O O
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
and NN O O
HBO NN O O
and/or NN O O
hemin NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
this NN O O
LPS-induced NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
iNOS NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
of NN O O
HO-1 NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
HBO NN O O
and/or NN O O
hemin NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
this NN O O
LPS-induced NN O O
iNOS NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

SnPP NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
contrary NN O O
, NN O O
offset NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
HBO NN O I-INT
and NN O O
worsened NN O O
the NN O O
LPS-induced NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
HBO NN O I-INT
may NN O O
act NN O O
through NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
iNOS NN O O
expression NN O O
to NN O O
attenuate NN O O
LPS-induced NN O O
acute NN O O
lung NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
HBO NN O I-INT
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
iNOS NN O O
expression NN O O
involves NN O O
HO-1 NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16160627)

Tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
6R-l-erythro-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
during NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
alternating NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment-induced NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
every NN O O
third NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
small NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
looking NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1616359)

Double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
modifying NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anecdotal NN O O
reports NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
disease NN O O
modifying NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
assess NN O O
possible NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Detailed NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haematological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
dates NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
from NN O O
weeks NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
eight NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
from NN O O
weeks NN O O
nine NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
provided NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O I-OUT
metronidazole NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
attaining NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
articular NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
modifying NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
unacceptably NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (161652)

Aortic NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
Bj?rk-Shiley NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Lillehei-Kaster NN O I-INT
disc NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Late NN O O
haemodynamics NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
78 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-INT
Bj?rk-Shiley NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
B-S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Lillehei-Kaster NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L-K NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
disc NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
prostheses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
re-admitted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
haemodynamic NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
narrow NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
roots NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
over-represented NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cine-aortography NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
catheterisation NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
transseptal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
striking NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
still NN O I-OUT
incapacitated NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
relatively NN O O
large NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O I-INT
L-K NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nos NN O O
. NN O O

14 NN O O
& NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak-to-peak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
across NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
valves NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
B-S NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
L-K NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
valve NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVEDP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
B-S NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
L-K NN O I-INT
group NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LVEDP NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
significantly NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
still NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
level NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
large NN O O
pressure NN O O
gradients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-INT
L-K NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
Nos NN O O
. NN O O

14 NN O O
& NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
flow NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
too NN O O
large NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
acceptable NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16173223)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
sedating NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimen NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide/oxygen NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5.8 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
over NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
judged NN O O
as NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
behavioral NN O O
criteria NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
sleeping NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
body NN O O
movement NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
crying NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
clinician NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intraexaminer NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
sleeping NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
midazolam NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
diazepam NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
midazolam NN O O
also NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
35- NN O O
and NN O O
40-min NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
remainder NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment 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 I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
behaviors NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diazepam NN O O
and NN O O
midazolam NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
diazepam NN O O
and NN O O
midazolam NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
sedative NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
successfully NN O O
and NN O O
safely NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
sedate NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
dental NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Midazolam NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
diazepam NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
portions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1617528)

Drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cost NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
approaches NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Economic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
suppression NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
arrhythmias NN O I-INT
detected NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ambulatory NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
invasive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
suppression NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
arrhythmias NN O I-INT
induced NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
programmed NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
selection NN O O
for NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachyarrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN/SETTING NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial/tertiary-care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Of NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
consenting NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
noninvasive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
approaches NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
admissions NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
considered NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacies NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
approaches NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
variable NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachyarrhythmia NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
sudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Initial NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
therapy NN O O
selection NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
costly NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
approach NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
6,869 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4,019 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
13,164 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6,740 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
generated NN O O
higher NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
9,204 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9,217 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O O
approach NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
3,784 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4,944 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

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
16,073 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9,423 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
invasive NN O O
approaches NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
16,949 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7,174 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachyarrhythmia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
invasive NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
approach NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
lower NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
approach NN O O
are NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
greater NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Within NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
approaches NN O O
are NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
drug NN O O
selection NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16177585)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
applied NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
used NN O O
both NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cellular NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Internet NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
send NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
message NN O I-INT
service NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Web NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cellular NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
wire NN O I-INT
Internet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
input NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
every NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
sent NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
by NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
phone NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Internet NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
28.6 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
in NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
78.4 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
in NN O O
2-hour NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16181530)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Yufeining NN O I-INT
on NN O O
induced NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Yufeining NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medicine NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
randomly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Yufeining NN O I-INT
pills NN O I-INT
taken NN O O
orally NN O O
for NN O O
half NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Routine NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TCC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DCCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
TCC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Sputum NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
5.216 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.914 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
to NN O O
4.222 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.140 NN O O
microg/L 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
were NN O O
insignificant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Yufeining NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
TCC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
relieve NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16181541)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Yinxing NN O I-INT
Damo NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
betahistine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
on NN O O
vertebral NN O I-OUT
basilar NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
vertigo NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Yinxing NN O I-INT
Damo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
YXDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Betahistine NN O I-INT
Hydrochloride NN O I-INT
Injection NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BHI NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
vertebra NN O I-OUT
basilar NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
vertigo NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VBIV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Ninety NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
VBIV NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
YXDM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BHI NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O O
dripping NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Xueshuantong NN O O
and NN O O
BHI NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dripping NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
transcranial NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TCD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hemorheology NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
better 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
90.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
indexes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TCD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemorheology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
obviously NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
treatment 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
YXDM NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
BHT NN O O
injection NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treating NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
VBIV NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
ideal NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
VBIV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16190799)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
aggression NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
for NN O O
aggression 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
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
6-20 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
valproate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
VPA NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
75.5 NN O O
mcg/mL NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
77.8 NN O O
mcg/mL NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
statistically NN O O
between NN O O
VPA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
PBO NN O I-INT
groups 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
Community NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
OAS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
1 NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
dropped NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
notably NN O O
a NN O O
spreading NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
then NN O O
resolved NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
VPA NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
associated NN O O
parent NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
slurred NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
slowing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Poststudy NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
VPA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
PBO NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
VPA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
subjects NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
later NN O O
attempted NN O O
taper NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
negative NN O O
findings NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
viewed NN O O
as NN O O
conclusive NN O O
, NN O O
partly NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
response NN O O
, NN O O
subject NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Larger NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
expand NN O O
upon NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16197624)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pooled NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
southern NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
cooperative NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
biweekly NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
levo-leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
plus NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
850 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
via NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Individual NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
254 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
merged NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
features NN O O
potentially NN O O
affecting NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
series NN O O
, NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
-39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Liver-only NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0189 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
ORR NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Absence NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.40 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.02-1.93 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0377 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
PFS NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
months NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
13.5-16.6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
good NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
PS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
metastatic NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
oxaliplatin-based NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
PS NN O O
> NN O O
or=1 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O O
> NN O O
or=3 NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
and/or NN O O
preserved NN O O
PS NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
disease NN O O
extent NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
our NN O O
irinotecan/5-FU/LV NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

Notably NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
regimen NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O O
drugs NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O O
CRC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16198776)

Pulse NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
terbinafine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
onychomycosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Effective NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
onychomycosis NN O O
are NN O O
expensive NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
less NN O O
costly NN O O
, NN O O
pulsed NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
antifungal NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
continuous NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Terbinafine NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
toenail NN O O
onychomycosis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
pulse-dose NN O I-INT
terbinafine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
continuous-dose NN O I-INT
terbinafine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
toenail NN O O
onychomycosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Minneapolis NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
dermatophyte NN O I-PAR
culture NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
subungual NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
306 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Terbinafine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
continuous NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
terbinafine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
per NN O O
month NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
pulse NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered 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
mycological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
toenail NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
mycological NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
toenail NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
toenails NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
continuous-dose NN O I-INT
terbinafine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
: NN O O
mycological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
toenail NN O O
( NN O O
70.9 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
105/148 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
58.7 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
84/143 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
1.21 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
1.02-1.43 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
toenail NN O O
( NN O O
44.6 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
66/148 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
42/143 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.007 NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
=1.52 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.11-2.07 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
toenail NN O O
( NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
60/148 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
28.0 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
40/143 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.02 NN O O
, NN O O
RR=1.45 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.04-2.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
10 NN O O
toenails NN O O
( NN O O
25.2 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
36/143 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
14.7 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
21/143 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.03 NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
=1.71 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.05-2.79 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
regimens NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
=1.63 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
onychomycosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
continuous- NN O O
over NN O O
pulse-dose NN O I-INT
terbinafine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
this NN O O
expensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
much NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
previously NN O O
believed NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
for NN O O
achieving NN O O
complete NN O O
cure NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
10 NN O O
toenails NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16199793)

Family NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Beijing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Much NN O O
of NN O O
China NN O O
lacks NN O O
well-developed NN O O
services NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
services NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
hospitals NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
culturally NN O O
sensitive NN O O
family NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
offered NN O O
by NN O O
nurses NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
experimental NN O O
study NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
hospital NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
family NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
nonadherent NN O O
to NN O O
medication NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Family NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
by NN O O
nurses NN O O
in NN O O
China NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
promoting NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16200817)

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
previously NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
H1-antihistamines NN O O
may NN O O
shift NN O O
the NN O O
PC20 NN O O
( NN O O
provocation NN O O
concentration NN O O
that NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
second NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
threshold NN O O
to NN O O
adenosine NN O O
monophosphate NN O O
( NN O O
AMP NN O O
) NN O O
challenge NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
paradoxically NN O O
prolong NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
measure NN O O
AMP NN O O
recovery NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
predetermined NN O O
AMP NN O O
PC20 NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
use NN O O
confers NN O O
add-on NN O O
effects NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate-salmeterol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
expiratory NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
3-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate-salmeterol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
microg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
250 NN O O
microg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
matched NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
predetermined NN O I-OUT
AMP NN O I-OUT
PC20 NN O I-OUT
challenge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
exhaled NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
cationic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
card NN O I-OUT
outcomes 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
all NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
or NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
when NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate-salmeterol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
AMP NN O O
recovery NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
25.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
23.4 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
fexofenadine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
add-on NN O O
to NN O O
fluticasone-salmeterol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
22.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
23.9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
add-on NN O O
to NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Fexofenadine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
recovery NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
AMP NN O O
challenge NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
surrogate NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
add-on NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
corticosteroid-treatedatopic NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16202291)

[ NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
classification NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
vulvovaginal NN O I-PAR
candidiasis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
vulvovaginal NN O I-PAR
candidiasis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VVC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
mycologic NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
courses NN O O
for NN O O
VVC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
VVC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Candidas NN O O
were NN O O
cultured NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
miconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
miconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
miconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
and NN O O
complicated NN O O
VVC NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
VVC NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
, NN O O
complicated NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O O
VVC NN O O
were NN O O
56.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
44.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29/300 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

C. NN O O
albicans NN O O
was NN O O
isolated NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
90.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
271/300 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
C. NN O O
glabrata NN O O
( NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
C. NN O O
tropicalis NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
C. NN O O
krusei NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
parapsilosis NN O O
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mycologic NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
day NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
courses NN O O
for NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
VVC NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
was NN O O
96.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
93.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
98.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
day NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
courses NN O O
for NN O O
complicated NN O O
VVC NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
was NN O O
86.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
92.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
day NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
courses NN O O
for NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
VVC NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
35 NN O O
was NN O O
93.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
89.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
day NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
courses NN O O
for NN O O
complicated NN O O
VVC NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
35 NN O O
was NN O O
89.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
97.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
VVC NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complicated NN O I-PAR
VVC NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O O
superior NN O O
mycologic NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
6 NN O O
day NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
course NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16204903)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
anal NN O I-PAR
fissures NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
Anal NN O O
fissures NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertonia NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
anal NN O O
sphincter NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healing NN O O
anal NN O O
fissures NN O O
. 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
study NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anal NN O I-PAR
fissure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
local NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ointments NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=28 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
minoxidil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anal NN O I-OUT
fissure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fissure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
lignocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
8/27 NN O O
, NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
10/34 NN O O
, NN O O
combination NN O O
7/22 NN O O
; NN O O
p=ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
1.9 NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
weeks NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
3.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.7 NN O O
] NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
3.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.8 NN O O
] NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Stoppage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
minoxidil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
helps NN O O
in NN O O
faster NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
anal NN O O
fissures NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
better NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
relief NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16212446)

Intensive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
four-year NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
predictors NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinic-directed NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
replicating NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
UCLA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
parent-directed NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
supervision NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
equally NN O I-INT
well-trained NN O I-INT
supervisors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
academic NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
combining NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
achieved NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
succeeding NN O O
in NN O O
regular NN O O
education NN O O
classrooms NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
best NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
pretreatment NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
Lovaas NN O O
and NN O O
colleagues NN O O
( NN O O
Lovaas NN O O
, NN O O
1987 NN O O
; NN O O
McEachin NN O O
, NN O O
Smith NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Lovaas NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16214437)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
glucose-insulin-potassium NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ST-elevation NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
glucose-insulin-potassium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GIK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
soluble NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
liter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
liter NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
ml/kg/hour NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
adjunct NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
MU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
streptokinase/30 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
GIK NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
32.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
0.24 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
0.63 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
15.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
40.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
0.55 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
from NN O O
48 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 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
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
high-dose NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
, NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
GIK NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16214598)

Secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PROactive NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
PROspective NN O O
pioglitAzone NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
In NN O O
macroVascular NN O O
Events NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
fatal NN O O
and NN O O
non-fatal NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
is NN O O
indirect NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
agonists NN O O
of NN O O
peroxisome NN O O
proliferator-activated NN O O
receptor NN O O
gamma NN O O
( NN O O
PPAR NN O O
gamma NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
whether NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
5238 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
recruited NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
primary-care NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assigned NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=2605 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=2633 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
glucose-lowering NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
silent NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endovascular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
above NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
International NN O O
Standard NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
NCT00174993 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS 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
but NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
was NN O O
34.5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

514 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2605 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
572 NN O O
of NN O O
2633 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
event NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.80-1.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.095 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
301 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
358 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
reached NN O O
this NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
0.72-0.98 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
good NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
149 NN O O
of NN O O
2065 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
108 NN O O
of NN O O
2633 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
admitted NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
with NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Pioglitazone NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-fatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
macrovascular NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1621668)

Antipyretic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
antipyretic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Emergency NN O O
department NN O O
and NN O O
inpatient NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
metropolitan NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
university-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Michigan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intercurrent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
febrile NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Each NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS/MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Oral NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hourly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
produced NN O O
significant NN O O
antipyresis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
greater NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
decrement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antipyresis NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
when NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
equal NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
antipyretic NN O I-OUT
agent NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
selected NN O O
febrile NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
antipyretic NN O O
medication NN O O
but NN O O
who NN O O
either NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
take NN O O
or NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
antipyresis NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16217314)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
needlescopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16220085)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
nelfinavir-based NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus-infected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O O
AIDS NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
group NN O O
protocol NN O O
403 NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Few NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O O
active NN O O
antiretrovirals NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
nucleoside NN O I-PAR
reverse NN O I-PAR
transcription NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NRTI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-experienced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-infected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
tolerability NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
combination NN O O
therapies NN O O
containing NN O O
an NN O O
NRTI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nonnucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcription NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NNRTI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
youths NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
NRTI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
NNRTI NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
protease NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
nelfinavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
buffered NN O I-INT
didanosine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
240 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
NFV NN O I-INT
50-55 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nevirapine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stavudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
d4T NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
clinically NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Intensive NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
sampling NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=400 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
assigned NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
RTV NN O O
+ NN O O
ddI NN O O
versus NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
NVP NN O O
+ NN O O
d4T NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 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
median NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
children NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
NFV NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
RTV NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ddI NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
NFV NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
NVP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
d4T NN O I-INT
were NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
permanent NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
NVP NN O O
+ NN O O
d4T NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
RTV NN O O
+ NN O O
ddI NN O O
[ NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

NFV NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
NFV NN O O
metabolite NN O O
, NN O O
M8 NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
RTV NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
NVP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
RTV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
d4T NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
: NN O O
Combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
containing NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
RTV NN O O
+ NN O O
ddI NN O O
appears NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
NRTI-experienced NN O O
children NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
regimen NN O O
containing NN O O
NFV NN O O
+ NN O O
NVP NN O O
+ NN O O
d4T NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16229958)

Over NN O O
time NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
peer NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
. NN O O

Peer NN O O
and NN O O
adolescent NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
are NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
relationship NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
contributions NN O O
of NN O O
selection NN O O
and NN O O
socialization NN O O
to NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
progression NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

Students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=2453 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sixth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
seventh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eighth NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
9th NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Self-reported NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
friends NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relationship NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
parallel NN O I-INT
processes NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
part NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
autoregressive NN O I-INT
latent NN O I-INT
trajectory NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
friends NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
linear NN O O
fashion NN O O
from NN O O
T1 NN O O
to NN O O
T5 NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
predicted NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
friends NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
selection NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
substance NN O O
using NN O O
friends NN O O
predicted NN O O
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
progression NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
socialization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnitudes NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Bivariate NN O O
, NN O O
lagged NN O O
autoregressive NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
successive NN O O
relationships NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
assessment NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
showed NN O O
consistent NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
associations NN O O
from NN O O
peer NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
association NN O O
from NN O O
adolescent NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
from NN O O
7th NN O O
to NN O O
8th NN O O
grade NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
reciprocal NN O O
influences NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
socialization NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O O
influence NN O O
than NN O O
selection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16230665)

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
puberty NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
beef NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
high- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low-starch NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
periods NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
breeding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Spring-born NN O I-PAR
Hereford NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
Angus NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
206 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
on NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
puberty NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
, NN O O
heifers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
205 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
grazing NN O I-PAR
dormant NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
pasture NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
( NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
from NN O O
November NN O O
until NN O O
February NN O O
14 NN O O
. NN O O

Heifers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
weaning NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
allotted NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
before NN O O
breeding NN O O
( NN O O
May NN O O
to NN O O
July NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
supplement/d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pasture NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
high-starch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
73 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
corn NN O O
; NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
starch NN O O
) NN O O
fed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
drylot NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
HS-60 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
HS NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
drylot NN O I-INT
for NN O O
30 NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
HS-30 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
low-starch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
corn NN O O
; NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
starch NN O O
) NN O O
self-fed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
pasture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
30 NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
LS-30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HS-60 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HS-30 NN O I-INT
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
limited-fed NN O O
to NN O O
gain NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
LS-30 NN O I-INT
heifers NN O O
had NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

High-starch-60 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LS-30 NN O O
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
heavier NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
HS-30 NN O O
heifers NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breeding NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-one NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
HS-60 NN O O
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
pubertal NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
May NN O O
1 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
LS-30 NN O O
, NN O O
HS-30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
puberty NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
HS-60 NN O O
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
d NN O O
younger NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
LS-30 NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
kg NN O O
lighter 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
LS-30 NN O O
heifers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
, NN O O
heifers NN O O
grazed NN O O
dormant NN O O
pasture NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
42 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
supplement/d NN O I-INT
from NN O O
weaning NN O O
in NN O O
October NN O O
to NN O O
late NN O O
February NN O O
; NN O O
then NN O O
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
d NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
breeding NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
46 NN O O
) NN O O
grazed NN O O
pasture NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
of NN O O
SBM NN O I-INT
supplement/d NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
LS NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
46 NN O O
) NN O O
heifers NN O O
were NN O O
self-fed NN O O
a NN O O
distiller NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
grain NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
soybean NN O I-INT
hull-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
drylot NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
HS NN O O
heifers NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
46 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
limited-fed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
corn-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
drylot NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
HS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
LS NN O I-INT
heifers NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
greater NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
. NN O O

Pubertal NN O I-OUT
BW NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
313 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
HS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LS NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
younger NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
at NN O O
puberty NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
60-d NN O O
breeding NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
puberty NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
HS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LS NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
heifers NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
HS NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
LS NN O O
heifers NN O O
in NN O O
Year NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Feeding NN O O
a NN O O
LS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
HS NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
for NN O O
30 NN O O
d NN O O
before NN O O
breeding NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
inadequate NN O O
to NN O O
stimulate NN O O
puberty NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
beef NN O O
heifers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
feeding NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
starch NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
d NN O O
before NN O O
breeding NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
puberty NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
breeding NN O O
of NN O O
heifers NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
inadequate NN O O
yearling NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16230666)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
corn NN O O
germ NN O O
on NN O O
reproductive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calf NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primiparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mature NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
2-yr NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
primiparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
multiparous NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
spring-calving NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
crossbred NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
germ NN O I-INT
on NN O O
reproductive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calf NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Each NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
blocked NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
BCS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
115 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
1.14 NN O I-INT
kg/d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
basis NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
germ NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
approximately NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
calving NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
POST NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
109 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
1.14 NN O I-INT
kg/d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
germ NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
approximately NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
calving NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
118 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
similar NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
dry-rolled NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.82 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
DM/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
calving NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
PRE NN O O
cows NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
calving NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
POST NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
grouped NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
calving NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
so NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
germ-supplemented NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cow NN O I-OUT
BW NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
538 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
BCS NN O O
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
among NN O O
treatments NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

Calf NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
weaning NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
225 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
age-adjusted NN O I-OUT
weaning NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
234 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
dam NN O O
supplementation NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
cows NN O O
exhibiting NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
luteal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breeding NN O O
season NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interval NN O O
from NN O O
exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
bulls NN O O
until NN O O
subsequent NN O O
calving NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
PRE NN O O
( NN O O
298 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
POST NN O O
( NN O O
303 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.6 NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
304 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
cows NN O O
. NN O O

Leptin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
among NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
2.15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
1.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.76 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.75 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
POST NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PRE NN O O
cows NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
calving NN O O
influenced NN O O
leptin NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

Primiparous NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
similar NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
3-yr-old NN O O
and NN O O
mature NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
wk NN O O
-7 NN O O
and NN O O
-6 NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
calving NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
than NN O O
mature NN O O
cows NN O O
for NN O O
wk NN O O
-5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
3-yr-old NN O O
or NN O O
mature NN O O
cows NN O O
for NN O O
wk NN O O
-4 NN O O
to NN O O
+7 NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
calving NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
leptin NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
BCS NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
feeding NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
BCS NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supplement NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
BW NN O O
or NN O O
interim NN O O
BCS NN O O
. NN O O

Calving NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
weekly NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Supplementing NN O O
beef NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
whole NN O O
corn NN O O
germ NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cow NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
calf NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
serum NN O O
leptin NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
cows NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16232016)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
during NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
membrane NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
infusing NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
during NN O O
neonatal NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
membrane NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
( NN O O
ECMO NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
through NN O O
the NN O O
ECMO NN O O
circuit NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
fat NN O O
emulsion NN O O
through NN O O
separate NN O O
intravenous NN O O
access NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
route NN O O
for NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Neonatal NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
106-bed NN O I-PAR
quaternary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ECMO NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
1-3 NN O I-INT
g/kg/day NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ecmo NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ECMO NN O O
circuit NN O O
and NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
phase NN O O
separation NN O O
, NN O O
layering NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
emulsion NN O O
from NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
agglutination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
clots NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
completion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
oxygenators NN O O
were NN O O
dissected NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
unpaired NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ECMO NN O O
circuit NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
vs NN O O
2.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
87 NN O O
+/- NN O O
79 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
elevated NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
phase NN O I-OUT
separation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
ECMO NN O O
circuit NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
had NN O O
layering NN O I-OUT
out NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
emulsion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
agglutination NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
developed NN O O
clots NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
circuit NN O O
despite NN O O
adequate NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous-access NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
had NN O O
layering NN O O
and NN O O
agglutination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
had NN O O
blood NN O O
clots NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
layering NN O I-OUT
out NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
agglutination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O O
administration NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
ECMO NN O O
circuit NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
stasis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
disruption NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
ECMO NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
calories NN O O
. NN O O

Fat NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
should NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
through NN O O
separate NN O O
intravenous NN O O
access NN O O
during NN O O
ECMO NN O O
whenever NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16234574)

Ultrasound NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
recalcitrant NN O I-OUT
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
estimated NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
will NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
sometime NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
them NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
amputation NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
non-healing NN O O
foot NN O O
ulcer NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
non-contact NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
kilohertz NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
recalcitrant NN O I-OUT
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O O
closure NN O O
and NN O O
quantitative NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cultures NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
sharp/surgical NN O O
debridement NN O O
- NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospital-based NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
products NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
provide NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
moist NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
offloading NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
shoes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
socks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
debridement NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
either NN O O
active NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
KHz NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
mist NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
mist NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wounds NN O I-OUT
healed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
complete NN O O
epithelialization NN O O
without NN O O
drainage NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
therapy NN O O
device NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
40.7 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0366 NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
interest NN O O
, NN O O
wounds NN O O
were NN O O
debrided NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
quantitative NN O O
culture NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
cultures NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
bioburden NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recalcitrant NN O O
, NN O O
diabetic NN O O
foot NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1623694)

Differential NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
dihydropyridine NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
niguldipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
; NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
; NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TPR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate-corrected NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
systole NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QS2c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
preejection NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEPc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
noninvasively NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pronounced NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
TRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
shortening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PEPc NN O O
. NN O O

QS2c NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
after NN O O
niguldipine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
QS2c NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
oral NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dihydropyridines NN O I-INT
may NN O O
( NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
niguldipine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
detectable NN O O
by NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16238797)

Bronchial NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
respond NN O O
to NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
despite NN O O
ongoing NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Inflammatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
structural NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
chronic NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
modulation NN O O
by NN O O
steroid NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clarified NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
ongoing NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
could NN O O
drive NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extracellular NN O O
matrix NN O O
( NN O O
ECM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
could NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
exposed NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bronchial NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
this NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
stained NN O O
and NN O O
digitally NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ECM NN O O
proteins NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Low-dose NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
alone NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
ongoing NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proteoglycans NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
biglycan NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decorin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bronchial NN O O
mucosa NN O O
of NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Steroid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
during NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PGS NN O I-OUT
biglycan NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
versican NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
chronic NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
induces NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bronchial NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
ongoing NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
steroid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
altering NN O O
PG NN O O
density NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latter NN O O
observation NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
steroid-induced NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
closely NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O O
structure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16239862)

Long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
discontinuation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
short-term NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ameliorating NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
started NN O O
8-week NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Responders NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
continued NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
; NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
) NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
taper NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
only NN O O
or NN O O
continuing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Relapse NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
judgment NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
continuing NN O O
on NN O O
risperidone NN O O
versus NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
who NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
about NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
beyond NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
considerable NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16249417)

Supplemental NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Supplemental NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
variously NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
halve NN O O
or NN O O
double NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
infection NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
Spanish NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Wound NN O O
infections NN O O
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
by NN O O
blinded NN O O
investigators NN O O
using NN O O
Centers NN O O
for NN O O
Disease NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Prevention NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
fraction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inspired NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FIO2 NN O O
) NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthetic NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
administration NN O O
were NN O O
standardized NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Any NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tolerate NN O I-OUT
solid NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suture NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
143 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
148 NN O O
received NN O O
80 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
FIO2 NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
FIO2 NN O O
( NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SSI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
FIO2 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.38-0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
FIO2 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
important NN O O
covariates NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
RR NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
administered NN O O
supplemental NN O O
oxygen NN O O
was NN O O
0.46 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.22-0.95 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
varied NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
inspired NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Supplemental NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
SSI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O O
Registration NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00235456 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16254100)

Pathology NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-OUT
tamoxifen NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
hormone NN O O
receptor NN O O
positivity NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
poorly NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

Breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
subdivided NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
pathological NN O O
parameters NN O O
including NN O O
histological NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
proliferation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
parameters NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
net NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O O
alterations NN O O
effecting NN O O
tumour NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
potentially NN O O
reflect NN O O
subtypes NN O O
that NN O O
respond NN O O
differently NN O O
to NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS/METHODS NN O O
Clinically NN O O
established NN O O
pathological NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
response NN O O
in NN O O
500 NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
564 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
14 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

Proliferation NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Oestrogen NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
ductal NN O I-OUT
carcinomas NN O I-OUT
responded NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
apparent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
few NN O O
lobular NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
histological NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
proliferation NN O O
and NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
response NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
clear NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumours NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
tumours NN O O
with NN O O
intermediate NN O O
proliferation NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
responded NN O O
more NN O O
poorly NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clinically NN O O
established NN O O
pathology NN O O
parameters NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
mirror NN O O
the NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
potentially NN O O
be NN O O
valuable NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
treatment NN O O
decisions NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16257339)

Gefitinib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
best NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Iressa NN O O
Survival NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
Lung NN O O
Cancer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
or NN O O
third-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
1692 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
intolerant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
latest NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
either NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
best NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
adenocarcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
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
has NN O O
been NN O O
submitted NN O O
for NN O O
registration NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
1839IL/709 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
1129 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
gefitinib NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
563 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
7.2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
gefitinib NN O O
and NN O O
5.1 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.89 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.77-1.02 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.087 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
812 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
5.4 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
0.84 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.68-1.03 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.089 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Preplanned NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
gefitinib NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
never-smokers NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n=375 NN O O
; NN O O
0.67 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.49-0.92 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.012 NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
8.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.1 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
Asian NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n=342 NN O O
; NN O O
0.66 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.48-0.91 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
9.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Gefitinib NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
coprimary NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
pronounced NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
among NN O O
never-smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16264956)

Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
current NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
direction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16275518)

The NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
hypertension NN O O
using NN O O
right NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
isovolumic NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
RV NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O O
pool-derived NN O O
isovolumic NN O O
relaxation NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
IVRT NN O O
) NN O O
correlates NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
systolic NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
PAP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
complex NN O O
parameter NN O O
derivation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
rarely NN O O
used 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
validate NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
velocity NN O O
imaging-derived NN O O
RV NN O I-INT
IVRT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVRT NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
against NN O O
invasively NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
PAP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Transthoracic NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
velocity NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-OUT
pool NN O I-OUT
IVRT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
IVRTs NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tricuspid NN O I-OUT
valve NN O I-OUT
annulus NN O I-OUT
ring NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apical NN O I-OUT
RV NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
segments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sex-matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measured NN O I-OUT
IVRTs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
hypertension NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
strongest NN O O
correlation NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
= NN O O
0.74 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
PAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate-corrected NN O I-OUT
IVRT NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
RV NN O O
free NN O O
wall NN O O
segment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
IVRT NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O O
PAP NN O O
measurement NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
PAP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
can NN O O
even NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
tricuspid NN O O
regurgitation-derived NN O O
PAP NN O O
systolic NN O O
when NN O O
tricuspid NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
is NN O O
nonrecordable NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
proposed NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O O
systolic NN O O
PAP NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
while NN O O
screening NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
monitoring NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16283087)

A NN O O
training NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
and NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
and NN O O
executive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
whilst NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Training NN O O
programmes NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
individually NN O O
, NN O O
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
25 NN O O
minutes NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
5-10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
before NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
two-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
theory NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mind NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
trained NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen 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

The NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16293958)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nebulized NN O I-INT
flunisolide NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nebulized NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
poorly NN O O
studied 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
nebulized NN O I-INT
flunisolide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O I-INT
salbutamol/ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,875/375 NN O O
microg NN O O
) NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
salbutamol/ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
114 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
symptoms 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
s NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shuttle NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
St. NN O I-OUT
George NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Respiratory NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flunisolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
vs. NN O O
34 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.054 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
experiencing NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
exacerbation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.059 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
type NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
Anthonisens NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
flunisolide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flunisolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
for NN O O
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
purulence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flunisolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.0 NN O O
, NN O O
flunisolide NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
shuttle NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
St. NN O I-OUT
George NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Respiratory NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and 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
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nebulized NN O I-INT
flunisolide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
nebulized NN O I-INT
salbutamol/ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16296713)

An NN O O
open NN O O
multicenter NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5-10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
ongoing NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
2-week NN O O
baseline NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
maintained NN O O
their NN O O
current NN O I-INT
antianginal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
5-10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine/day NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NTG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tablets NN O I-OUT
consumed/week NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
8.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
98.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
63/64 NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
attacks/week NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
58/64 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
2/week NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
self-assessments NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
55/58 NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
improved NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
53/58 NN O O
) NN O O
felt NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
usual NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
as NN O O
drug NN O O
related NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
was NN O O
edema NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Amlodipine NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
reported NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16299669)

Comparative NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
kill NN O O
of NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imidacloprid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fipronil- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-methoprene NN O I-INT
spot-on NN O O
formulations NN O O
against NN O O
fleas NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
kill NN O O
of NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imidacloprid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fipronil- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-methoprene NN O I-INT
against NN O O
Ctenocephalides NN O O
felis NN O O
infestations NN O O
on NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
so NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
20 NN O O
cats NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
Days NN O O
-2 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
cat NN O O
was NN O O
infested NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
adult NN O O
C. NN O O
felis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Kansas NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
flea NN O I-PAR
strain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
initial NN O O
application NN O O
only NN O O
imidacloprid NN O I-INT
had NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adult NN O I-OUT
fleas NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treated NN O O
cats NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
by NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
formulations NN O O
had NN O O
killed NN O O
96.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fleas NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
formulations NN O O
reduced NN O O
flea NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
by NN O O
68.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
99.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
21 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
formulations NN O O
killed NN O O
significant NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fleas NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
infestation NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fipronil- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-methoprene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imidacloprid NN O I-INT
had NN O O
killed NN O O
99.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
72.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fleas NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
infestation NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
kill NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
flea NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
decreases NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
month NN O O
following NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
selamectin NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
against NN O O
the NN O O
Kansas NN O O
1 NN O O
flea NN O O
strain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16304214)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensives NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypertension NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
problem NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infraction NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
0.1-0.8 NN O O
mg.kg-1.h-1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
infused NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
1-3 NN O O
microg.kg.h-1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
1-3 NN O O
microg.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
before NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
T1 NN O O
and NN O O
T2 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
T3 NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
T3 NN O O
and NN O O
T4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O O
product NN O O
was NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
affords NN O O
better NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16311751)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
biopsychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
biomedical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
subacute NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
sick NN O O
leave NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
biopsychosocial NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
solely NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
biomedical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
subacute NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
depressive NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
work NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-time NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
leave NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
biomedical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MT NN O O
; NN O O
n=33 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
biopsychosocial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BT NN O O
; NN O O
n=31 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
psychotherapeutic NN O O
module NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
inpatient NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
nearly NN O O
all NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BT NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
showed NN O O
further NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
T1 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
T2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MT NN O O
group NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
from NN O O
T1 NN O O
back NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
MT NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
BT NN O O
required NN O O
no NN O O
further NN O O
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
psychotherapeutic NN O O
element NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
positively NN O O
influence NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
chronification NN O O
and NN O O
helps NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16313112)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
feiyanqing NN O I-INT
rectum NN O I-INT
condensed NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
36 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
syncytial NN O O
viral NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
Feiyangqin NN O I-INT
Rectum NN O I-INT
Condensed NN O I-INT
Liquid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FRCL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
syncytial NN O I-PAR
viral NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Methods NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FRCL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
simply NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
77.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
94.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
number NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
55.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
obviously NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FRCL NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
these NN O O
indexes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
FRCL NN O I-INT
had NN O O
the NN O O
action NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
children NN O O
syncytial NN O O
viral NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
regulation NN O O
on NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16316486)

Divalproex NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
core NN O O
symptom NN O O
domains NN O O
: NN O O
socialization NN O O
, NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repetitive/stereotyped NN O O
behaviours NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
associated NN O O
symptom NN O O
domains NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
affected NN O O
including NN O O
impulsivity/aggression NN O O
, NN O O
self-injury NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mood NN O O
lability NN O O
. NN O O

Divalproex NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
, NN O O
bipolar NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
mood NN O O
lability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
impulsive NN O O
aggression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compulsive-like NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
8-wk NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
on NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
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
C-YBOCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
d=1.616 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
preliminary NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O O
and NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1631861)

Biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
creatine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardioplegic NN O O
solution NN O O
during NN O O
aortic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
drop NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
high-energy NN O I-OUT
phosphates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
myocardium NN O O
. NN O O

Cold NN O O
potassium NN O O
cardioplegia NN O O
decreases NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
altogether NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
cardioplegic NN O O
solutions NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
high-energy NN O O
compound NN O O
creatine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
cardioplegic NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O I-INT
creatine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
stroke-work NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
102 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
recovery NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
bypass NN O O
and NN O O
145 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
119 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
recovery NN O O
105 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
bypass NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
5/15 NN O O
) NN O O
needing NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
9/14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
during NN O O
ischemia NN O O
and NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O O
protection NN O O
during NN O O
ischemia NN O O
was NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O I-OUT
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
CP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16326121)

Minimal NN O O
tolerance NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoprotective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
on NN O O
allergene NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O I-INT
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
( NN O O
50/250 NN O O
mcg NN O O
by NN O O
Diskus NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
induces NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoprotective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
of NN O O
salmeterol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
woman NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age+/-SD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
31.3+/-11.0 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
beta2-agonists NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
corticosteroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
shown NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
allergen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
underwent NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
after NN O O
1-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
1-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
1-week NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
bid NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EAR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
both NN O O
as NN O O
maximum NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
MaxDeltaFEV1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MaxDeltaFEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
allergen NN O I-OUT
challenge NN O I-OUT
protected NN O O
by NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
MaxDeltaFEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenges NN O O
protected NN O O
by NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
salmeterol/fluticasone NN O O
1-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
MaxDeltaFEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
T2 NN O O
and NN O O
T3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
also NN O O
after NN O O
computing NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
individually NN O O
considered NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
protected NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
EAR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
protection NN O O
index NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
T2 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
seven NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
protected NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
EAR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
and NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
device NN O O
prevents NN O O
in NN O O
almost NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
examined NN O O
subjects NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
salmeterol NN O O
on NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
observation NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
inhaled NN O O
beta2-agonists NN O O
and NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16335132)

Phytase NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
broiler NN O I-PAR
chickens NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
starting NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
growing/finishing NN O I-PAR
phases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Supplemental NN O O
1alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol NN O O
( NN O O
1alpha-OHD3 NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
additive NN O O
effects NN O O
to NN O O
exogenous NN O O
phytase NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
experiments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
d NN O O
in NN O O
floor NN O O
pens NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
additive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
phytase NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1alpha-OHD3 NN O I-INT
when NN O O
supplemented NN O O
to NN O O
Ca- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
P-deficient NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
both NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
replicates NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
chicks NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
replicate NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Corn-soybean-meal-and NN O I-INT
soybean-oil-based NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
birds NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
raised NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
house NN O I-INT
impervious NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ultraviolet NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
starter NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
ST NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
chicks NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O O
diet NN O O
containing NN O O
0.60 NN O O
% NN O O
Ca NN O O
and NN O O
0.47 NN O O
% NN O O
total NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
tP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
grower/finisher NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
GF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
19 NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
birds NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O O
diet NN O O
containing NN O O
0.30 NN O O
% NN O O
Ca NN O O
and NN O O
0.37 NN O O
% NN O O
tP NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
1,000 NN O O
phytase NN O O
units/kg NN O O
of NN O O
Natuphos NN O O
phytase NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
1alpha-OHD3 NN O O
( NN O O
P+1A NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
feed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ST NN O O
and NN O O
GF NN O O
. NN O O

Diets NN O O
containing NN O O
adequate NN O O
Ca NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
fed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ST NN O O
( NN O O
0.90 NN O O
% NN O O
Ca NN O O
, NN O O
0.68 NN O O
% NN O O
tP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
GF NN O O
( NN O O
0.80 NN O O
% NN O O
Ca NN O O
, NN O O
0.67 NN O O
% NN O O
tP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rickets NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tibial NN O I-OUT
dyschondroplasia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
d. NN O O
In NN O O
experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
unsupplemented NN O O
chicks NN O O
performed NN O O
well NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
considerable NN O O
leg NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Chicks NN O O
fed NN O O
P+1A NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ST NN O O
or NN O O
GF NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
perform NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
birds NN O O
fed NN O O
P+1A NN O O
throughout NN O O
. NN O O

Birds NN O O
fed NN O O
P+1A NN O O
throughout NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
birds NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
adequate NN O O
diets NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
leg NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
unsupplemented NN O O
birds NN O O
performed NN O O
similarly NN O O
to NN O O
unsupplemented NN O O
birds NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
chicks NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
supplements NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diets NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
perform NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
or NN O O
accumulate NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
ash NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
birds NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
diets NN O O
were NN O O
formulated NN O O
identically NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

Diets NN O O
with NN O O
as NN O O
little NN O O
as NN O O
0.30 NN O O
% NN O O
Ca NN O O
and NN O O
0.37 NN O O
% NN O O
tP NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
broilers NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
18 NN O O
d NN O O
if NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
phytase NN O O
and NN O O
1alpha-OHD3 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
variables NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
broilers NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineralization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
pathology NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
adequate NN O O
diets NN O O
are NN O O
fed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16337719)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
IMVAMUNE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
candidate NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
generation NN O O
smallpox NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
smallpox NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
MVA-BN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMVAMUNE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
clone NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Modified NN O O
Vaccinia NN O O
Virus NN O O
Ankara NN O O
strain NN O O
571 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
naive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pre-immunized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
five NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
routes NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
38 NN O O
subjects NN O O
seroconverted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
TCID50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
vaccinations NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
mainly NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
MVA-BN NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
smallpox NN O O
vaccines NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
Lister-Elstree NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Dryvax NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Unique NN O O
attributes NN O O
render NN O O
it NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
candidate NN O O
for NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
mass NN O O
immunization NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
conventional NN O O
smallpox NN O O
vaccines NN O O
are NN O O
contraindicated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1634173)

[ NN O I-INT
Local NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
grade NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
hemorrhoids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
leech NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Testing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
leech NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
polidocanol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
allantoin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
; NN O O
examinations NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Histologically NN O I-OUT
demonstrable NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
clearly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preparation 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

No NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
good NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
convincingly NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16354710)

Using NN O O
dietetic NN O I-INT
assistants NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
ward NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
how NN O O
improved NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
achieved NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
employment NN O O
of NN O O
dietetic NN O I-INT
assistants NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
will NN O O
affect NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Open NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
DA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
bedded NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
ward NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
344 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
admissions NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
nonpathological NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
approached NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
immediately NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
acute NN O O
ward NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
managed NN O O
conservatively NN O O
or NN O O
died NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

PRIMARY NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
trauma NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

SECONDARY NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
fracture 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
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
DA-supported NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
die NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
ward NN O O
( NN O O
4.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
still NN O O
apparent NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
13.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DA-supported NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1,105 NN O O
kcal NN O O
versus NN O O
756 NN O O
kcal/24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
259-440 NN O O
kcal/24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mid-arm NN O O
circumference NN O O
during NN O O
their NN O O
inpatient NN O O
stay NN O O
( NN O O
0.39 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nonsignificantly NN O O
favourable NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Dietetic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
assistants NN O I-INT
are NN O O
being NN O O
introduced NN O O
in NN O O
units NN O O
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
ever NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
, NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
employment NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
trauma NN O O
unit NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
that NN O O
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16360994)

Prehydration NN O O
alone NN O O
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
contrast-induced NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
after NN O O
day-only NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Contrast NN O O
agents NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
angiography NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
contrast-induced NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
( NN O O
CIN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
partially NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
nephrotoxic NN O O
oxygen-free NN O O
radicals NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
anti-oxidant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-five NN O I-PAR
day-only NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
concentration NN O I-PAR
0.16+/-0.03 NN O I-PAR
mmol/l NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
stenting NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
fluid NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
none NN O O
had NN O O
acute NN O O
CIN NN O O
( NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
concentration NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
: NN O O
2/19 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
2/21 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
NAC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4/20 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
NAC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
and NN O O
prehydration NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Considering NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
NAC NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
estimate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
would NN O O
translate NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
saving NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dollar NN O O
26,637 NN O O
per NN O O
annum NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
day-stay NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
prehydration NN O O
alone NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
complicated NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
used NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hydration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16377918)

Cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
colestimide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-lowering NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
predisposition NN O O
to NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
colestimide NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
intensive NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
16-week NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
open-label NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
heterozygous NN O I-PAR
FH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
54.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
after NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
failed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
achieve NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3 NN O O
g/day NN O O
colestimide NN O I-INT
or NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
their NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
5.07 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.10 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
to NN O O
3.76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.90 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
3.81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.50 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
therapies NN O O
showed NN O O
comparable NN O O
mean NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
similar NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
predominantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
To NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
for NN O O
refractory NN O O
FH NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
LDL-C-lowering NN O O
therapy NN O O
selected NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
either NN O O
intensive NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16379507)

Acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment-emergent NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5-3.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
37 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
nonresponders NN O O
received NN O O
open-label NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
another NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
responders NN O O
( NN O O
n=65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
63 NN O O
entered NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
another NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
total NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
were NN O O
rerandomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
continued NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
n=16 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
gradual NN O O
replacement NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=16 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
collected NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBC NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electrolytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinalyses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Side NN O I-OUT
Effects NN O I-OUT
Review NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
records NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
Simpson NN O I-OUT
Angus NN O I-OUT
Neurological NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
Abnormal NN O I-OUT
Involuntary NN O I-OUT
Movement NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AIMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
lab NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
acute NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AEs NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Side NN O O
Effects NN O O
Review NN O O
, NN O O
scored NN O O
as NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
risperidone NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
Somnolence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
enuresis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
difficulty NN O I-OUT
waking NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Difficulty NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
asleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
actually NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O O
condition NN O O
at NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
recur NN O O
through NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
often NN O O
at NN O O
reduced NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
Centers NN O O
for NN O O
Disease NN O O
Control NN O O
( NN O O
CDC NN O O
) NN O O
standardized NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
SDs NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
0.0 NN O O
and NN O O
0.1 NN O O
SDs NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
into NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
( NN O O
0.19 NN O O
and NN O O
0.16 NN O O
SDs NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
gain NN O O
decelerated NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
SARS NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
for NN O O
drug NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
drooling NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
AIMS NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
seizures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
one NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
changes NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
unanticipated NN O O
AEs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
concern NN O O
were NN O O
somnolence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16379508)

Risperidone-induced NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Risperidone NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
prescribed NN O O
for NN O O
aggression NN O O
and NN O O
self-injury NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Risperidone NN O O
elevates NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
atypical NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

Females NN O O
may NN O O
show NN O O
greater NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
relatively NN O O
long-term NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
aggression NN O O
and NN O O
self-injury NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MR NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
21-subject NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prolactin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
during NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
during NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
mean NN O O
13.2+/-8.6 NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
31.0+/-11.6 NN O O
acutely NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
elevated NN O O
at NN O O
37.9+/-10.4 NN O O
in NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
more NN O O
markedly NN O O
from NN O O
11.6+/-7.4 NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
n=11 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
93.3+/-54.2 NN O O
acutely NN O O
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
67.8+/-62.9 NN O O
in NN O O
maintenance NN O O
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Prolactin NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
above NN O O
normal NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adult NN O O
females NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O O
males NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
2.2 NN O O
times NN O O
male NN O O
levels NN O O
acutely NN O O
and NN O O
3.7 NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
subset NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
females NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
elevations NN O O
than NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16381993)

GH NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
enzyme NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
11betaHSD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
abdominal NN O O
obesity NN O O
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
years NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
11beta NN O O
hydroxysteroid NN O O
dehydrogenase NN O O
( NN O O
11betaHSD NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
obesity NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
11betaHSD NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
48-66 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Urinary NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
profile NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
estimate NN O I-INT
11betaHSD NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
11betaHSD1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
11betaHSD2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Abdominal NN O I-OUT
s.c. NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visceral NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Glucose NN O I-OUT
disposal NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GDR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
GH-treated NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
transiently NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
whereas NN O O
11betaHSD2 NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
GDR NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
11betaHSD NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
GDR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
different NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
11betaHSD2 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
long-term NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
its NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
11betaHSD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16382035)

Albendazole NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
for NN O O
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intraventricular NN O I-PAR
cysticercosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intraventricular NN O I-PAR
cysticercosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
plus NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
favored NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O I-OUT
cyst NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
MRI NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
and NN O O
180 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
albendazole NN O I-OUT
sulfoxide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
course NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
insufficient NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
intraventricular NN O O
and NN O O
giant NN O O
cysts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16386890)

Pre-treatment NN O O
proliferation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
proliferation NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Ki-67 NN O I-INT
staining NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CHART NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Histological NN O O
material NN O O
from NN O O
402 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
stained NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
staining NN O O
. NN O O

Locoregional NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
clinical NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
positivity NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreasing NN O O
differentiation 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
increasing NN O O
N-stage NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
N-stage NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
proliferation NN O O
pattern NN O O
from NN O O
marginal NN O O
to NN O O
random NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
towards NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
CHART NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
tumours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
became NN O O
significant NN O O
by NN O O
pooling NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
intermediate NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tumours NN O O
with NN O O
marginal NN O O
proliferation NN O O
pattern NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
with NN O O
CHART NN O O
versus NN O O
conventional NN O O
for NN O O
locoregional NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16393740)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
emotional NN O I-INT
distress NN O I-INT
on NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
333 NN O I-PAR
seronegative NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
specifically NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
HIV NN O O
risk NN O O
behaviors NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
emotional NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
inner-city NN O I-PAR
Atlanta NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Georgia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
neighborhoods NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
enhanced NN O I-INT
gender-specific NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
culturally NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
NIDA NN O O
standard NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
interviewed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
including NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
sociodemographics NN O O
, NN O O
sexual NN O O
and NN O O
drug-using NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
emotional NN O O
distress NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
sample NN O O
reported NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
post-intervention NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug-taking NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
enhanced NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
their NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug-taking NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
motivation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
resources NN O O
among NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16394797)

Similar NN O O
compliance NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
resulting NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
infection NN O O
causes NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
some NN O O
reluctance NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
intravenous NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IVDUs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
of NN O O
presumed NN O O
lower NN O O
compliance NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
compliance NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
CHC NN O I-INT
in NN O O
IVDUs NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
non-IVDUs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
retrospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
-- NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Belgium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
406 NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
CHC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
IVDUs NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
for NN O O
compliance NN O O
( NN O O
presentation NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
alanine NN O O
aminotransferase NN O O
within NN O O
normal NN O O
limits NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
negative NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
virological NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
SVR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Non-compliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
IVDUs NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
non-IVDUs NN O O
( NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk=1.20 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval=0.55-2.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk=1.19 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval=0.89-1.60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
or NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
virus NN O O
viral NN O O
load NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
marginally NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sustained NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
IVDUs NN O O
( NN O O
46.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
non-IVDUs NN O O
( NN O O
34.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk=1.35 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval=1.00-1.81 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
disappearing NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
genotype NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
non-active NN O O
IVDUs NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
IVDU NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
methadone NN O O
maintenance NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
Benelux NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
IVDUs NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O O
and NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CHC NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
justifiable NN O O
to NN O O
withhold NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16399263)

Playing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
typewriter NN O O
, NN O O
typing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
piano NN O O
: NN O O
manipulation NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
experiments NN O O
investigated NN O O
sensory/motor-based NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
man-made NN O I-PAR
objects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
manipulation NN O O
features NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
prime-target NN O O
pairs NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
auditorily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
a NN O O
lexical NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
word NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
made NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
decision NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O I-INT
word NN O I-INT
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

'typewriter NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
related NN O O
prime NN O O
that NN O O
shared NN O O
manipulation NN O O
features NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

'piano NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
an NN O O
unrelated NN O O
prime NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

'blanket NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
eye NN O O
movements NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
viewed NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
display NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
listening NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
input NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
simply NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
input NN O O
and NN O O
touch NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
object NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
computer NN O O
display NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
fixated NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
object NN O O
picture NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

typewriter NN O O
) NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
word NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

'piano NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
an NN O O
unrelated NN O O
object NN O O
picture NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

bucket NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
visually NN O O
matched NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

couch NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
experiments NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
manipulation NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
retrieved NN O O
without NN O O
conscious NN O O
effort NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
manipulation NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
constitutes NN O O
a NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lexical-semantic NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1640362)

Performance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
hydrophilic NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
experimental NN O O
formulations NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
hydrophilic NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
characteristics NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Theo-dur NN O I-INT
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reference NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
syrup NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
Theo-dur NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
drum-dried NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sustained-release NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DDCS-70 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
span NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
Theo-dur NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
DDCS-70 NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
Theo-dur NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
for NN O O
DDCS-70 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
starch NN O O
: NN O O
drug NN O O
ratio NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
starch NN O O
content NN O O
from NN O O
70 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
formulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
towards NN O O
a NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16418843)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
on NN O O
Stroop NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
performance NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Several NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
cognitive NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O

Neuroimaging NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
the NN O O
engagement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
executive NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
specifically NN O O
during NN O O
selective NN O O
attention 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
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
on NN O O
Stroop NN O O
task NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
incongruent NN O O
and NN O O
congruent NN O O
trials NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Stroop NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
after NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Such NN O O
a NN O O
pattern NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
in NN O O
implementing NN O O
top-down NN O O
attentional NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1642441)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy/tolerability NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
cibenzoline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propafenone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-PAR
arrhythmia NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Cibenzoline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
propafenone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
anti-arrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
contractions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PVC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
hour NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hour NN O I-PAR
Holter NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
succession NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
randomised NN O O
by NN O O
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
390 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O I-INT
( NN O O
900 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
sequence NN O O
being NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
two NN O O
week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
PVC/hour NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
hour NN O O
Holter NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
samples NN O O
drawn NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
times NN O O
for NN O O
assay NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
epigastric NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
with NN O O
dummy NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PVC/hour NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
cross-over NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PVC/hour NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
70 NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
cent NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
seen NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
P. NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
basis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
developed NN O O
troublesome NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
C NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
P. NN O O
A NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
cent NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
seen NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
figures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
proarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
P. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
328 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
149 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
non-responders NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
137 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
41 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
concerning NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
578 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
477 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
646 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
457 NN O I-OUT
ng/ml NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy/tolerability NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
C NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16426958)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
micronutrient NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
schoolchildren NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
micronutrient-fortified NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
micronutrient NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
apparently NN O O
healthy NN O O
schoolchildren NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
middle-income NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
residential NN O O
schools NN O O
that NN O O
catered NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
semi-urban NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
near NN O I-PAR
Hyderabad NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Included NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
869 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Because NN O O
children NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
grade NN O O
were NN O O
distributed NN O O
across NN O O
two NN O O
classrooms NN O O
( NN O O
clusters NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
grade NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
matched NN O O
pair NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
thus NN O O
10 NN O O
pairs NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Classes NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
grade NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
micronutrient-enriched NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
micronutrients NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
14 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
supervised NN O O
feeding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
micronutrient-enriched NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
micronutrients NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
matched NN O O
pairs NN O O
varied NN O O
between NN O O
seven NN O O
and NN O O
eight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
required NN O O
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
heath NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
177 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
successful NN O O
pairing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Designing NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
choosing NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
implementing NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O O
Indian NN O O
school NN O O
setting NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16431255)

Paricalcitol NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
hyperparathyroidism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
paricalcitol NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
hyperparathyroidism NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SHPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
capsule NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
paricalcitol NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
convenient NN O O
dosage NN O O
form NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stages NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
CKD NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
phase-3 NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SHPT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enrollment NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-PAR
filtration NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
mL/min/1.73 NN O I-PAR
m2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.25 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1.00 NN O I-PAR
mL/s/1.73 NN O I-PAR
m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
intact NN O I-PAR
parathyroid NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
iPTH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
pg/mL NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ng/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-PAR
8.0 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10.0 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2.00 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2.50 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
5.2 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1.68 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
studies NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
thrice-weekly NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimen NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Dosing NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
iPTH NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
2 NN O I-OUT
consecutive NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
iPTH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
107 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
paricalcitol NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
iPTH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
paricalcitol NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Incidences NN O O
of NN O O
hypercalcemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperphosphatemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
calcium-phosphorus NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
administered NN O O
paricalcitol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Paricalcitol NN O I-INT
capsule NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
decreased NN O O
iPTH NN O O
levels NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
calcium NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
balance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stages NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
CKD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16435344)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
extracoporeal NN O I-INT
shockwave NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
North NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
confirmatory NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
numerous NN O O
publications NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recalcitrant NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shockwave NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
still NN O O
remain NN O O
equivocal NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
provides NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
shock NN O O
wave NN O O
therapy NN O O
can NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
relieve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
plantar NN O O
fasciitis NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
pain NN O O
with NN O O
walking NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
114 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recalcitrant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conservative NN O I-PAR
therapies NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
3,800 NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
waves NN O I-INT
( NN O O
+/-10 NN O O
) NN O O
reaching NN O O
an NN O O
approximated NN O O
total NN O O
energy NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
1,300 NN O O
mJ/mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
ED+ NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
few NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
whose NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analog NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
met NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
success NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Roles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Maudsley NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
ESWT NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Dornier NN O O
Epos NN O O
Ultra NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
recalcitrant NN O O
plantar NN O O
fasciitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16448427)

Plasmakinetic NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O O
prostate NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
plasmakinetic NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PKRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TURP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PKRP NN O O
techniques NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
thought NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
operative NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
necessary NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
30 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
PKRP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
International NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
I-PSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uroflowmetry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ultrasonography NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
both NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Operation NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Htc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
between NN O O
the 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
statistical NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
I-PSS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TURP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were 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

While NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
75.7 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
TURP NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
42 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
PKRP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
clear NN O O
that NN O O
catheterization NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
obvious NN O O
that NN O O
PKRP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
efficient NN O O
as NN O O
TURP NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
our NN O O
opinion NN O O
, NN O O
PKRP NN O I-INT
makes NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
BPH NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
advantages NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
urethral NN O O
catheter NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
TUR NN O O
syndrome NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16452103)

Sham NN O O
device NN O O
v NN O O
inert NN O O
pill NN O O
: NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
sham NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
needle NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
an NN O O
inert NN O O
pill NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
created NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
week NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
periods NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
nested NN O O
trials NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
and NN O O
amitriptyline NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
placebo NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
remained NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
continued NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
to 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

SETTING NN O O
Academic NN O O
medical NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
270 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
repetitive NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lasted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
scored NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=3 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
point NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Arm NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Levine NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Pransky NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
week NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
device NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
pill NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
-0.52 NN O O
to NN O O
0.25 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
arm NN O O
function NN O O
improved NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
pill NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
, NN O O
0.06 NN O O
to NN O O
3.92 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Longitudinal NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
that NN O O
followed NN O O
participants NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
downward NN O O
slopes NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
device NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
pill NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-0.33 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.40 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
-0.15 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.21 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
-0.07 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
v NN O O
-0.05 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.06 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
scale NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
grip NN O O
strength NN O O
. NN O O

Reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
sham NN O O
device NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
effects NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
pill NN O O
on NN O O
self NN O O
reported NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
week NN O O
placebo NN O O
run NN O O
in NN O O
. NN O O

Placebo NN O O
effects NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
malleable NN O O
and NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
behaviours NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
rituals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16454975)

XS0601 NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
restenosis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
335 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
ingredients NN O O
( NN O O
Chuangxiongol NN O O
and NN O O
paeoniflorin NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
arterial NN O O
neointimal NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
preliminary NN O O
human NN O O
studies 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
restenosis NN O O
following NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
335 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
XS0601 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
successful NN O O
PCI NN O O
. NN O O

Angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
scheduled NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
angioplasty NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
308 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
91.9 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
and NN O I-PAR
145 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
47.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as 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
26.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
47.2 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
the NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
lumen NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MLD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
2.08 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
( NN O O
1.73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
for 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

XS0601 NN O I-INT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
XS0601 NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
22.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
19.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
42.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
XS0601 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
is NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
restenosis NN O O
in NN O O
post-PCI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1645768)

Application NN O O
of NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
monitoring NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
decisions NN O O
in NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
efficacies NN O O
of NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
office NN O O
sphygmomanometry NN O O
and NN O O
24-h NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
at NN O O
25-100 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
or NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
at NN O O
10-40 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
until NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
mmHg NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
mmHg NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
monitoring NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
lisinopril NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
value NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
degree NN O O
than NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
throughout NN O O
24-h NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
office NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
intertreatment NN O O
differences NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
first-dose NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
than NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
captopril NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16472720)

Brain NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
expectation NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
insula NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
amygdala NN O I-PAR
response NN O O
to NN O O
aversive NN O O
taste NN O O
: NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
aversion NN O O
is NN O O
shaped NN O O
by NN O O
multiple NN O O
physiological NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
factors NN O O
including NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
expectations NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
work NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
expectancy NN O O
manipulation NN O O
can NN O O
alter NN O O
perceptions NN O O
of NN O O
aversive NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
brain NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

Accruing NN O O
evidence NN O O
indicates NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
altered NN O O
expectancies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
probed NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
expectation NN O O
attenuates NN O O
sensory NN O O
taste NN O O
transmission NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
how NN O O
brain NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
activated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
misleading NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
expectancy NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
modulate NN O O
insula NN O O
and NN O O
amygdala NN O O
activation NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O I-INT
aversive NN O I-INT
bitter NN O I-INT
taste NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
event-related NN O O
fMRI NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
activations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rostral NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
cingulate NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
rACC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
orbitofrontal NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OFC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dorsolateral NN O I-PAR
prefrontal NN O I-PAR
cortex NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
misleading NN O O
cue NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
taste NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
mildly NN O O
aversive NN O O
predicted NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
insula NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amygdala NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
highly NN O O
aversive NN O O
taste NN O O
. NN O O

OFC NN O O
and NN O O
rACC NN O O
activation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
misleading NN O I-INT
cue NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
aversive NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
consistent NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
functional NN O O
connectivity NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
OFC NN O O
, NN O O
rACC NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
insula NN O O
. NN O O

Altering NN O O
expectancies NN O O
of NN O O
upcoming NN O O
aversive NN O O
events NN O O
are NN O O
shown NN O O
here NN O O
to NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
robust NN O O
functional NN O O
associations NN O O
among NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
prior NN O O
work NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16483029)

Evaluating NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
versus NN O O
intracavernosal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
papaverine NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Intracavernosal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
vasoactive NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
evaluating NN O O
erectile NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
invasive NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
priapism NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
substitute NN O O
for NN O O
intracavernosal NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
papaverine NN O I-INT
initially NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
another NN O O
25 NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
papaverine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Genital NN O O
self-stimulation NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Penile NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
erection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
models NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
injection NN O O
papaverine NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
penile NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLCUSION NN O O
: NN O O
Oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
injection NN O O
papaverine NN O O
in NN O O
evaluating NN O O
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16495253)

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
fosamprenavir NN O O
and NN O O
ritonavir NN O O
. NN O O

High-dose NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
fosamprenavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FPV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
select NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
protease NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-experienced NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
high-dose NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
and NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
approved NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
700 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
three-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-two NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
marked NN O O
hepatic NN O O
transaminase NN O O
elevations NN O O
, NN O O
predominantly NN O O
with NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
prematurely NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
amprenavir NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
0-tau NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
54 NN O O
, NN O O
81 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
RTV NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
700 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
APV NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
RTV NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tau NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
4.15-fold NN O O
, NN O O
4.17-fold NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3.99-fold NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
FPV NN O I-INT
700 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
. NN O O

FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
recommended NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
marked NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
transaminase NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FPV NN O I-INT
1,400 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
plus NN O O
RTV NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
BID NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
under NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
PI-experienced NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16503545)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Selaginella NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O O
herbal NN O O
medicine NN O O
Selaginella-induced NN O O
radiosensitization NN O O
of NN O O
terminal NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O O
180 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
equally NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
radiotherapeutic NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
Selaginella NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
entire NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
Selaginella NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasopharyngeal NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mucous NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
milder NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Selaginella NN O I-INT
may NN O O
induce NN O O
radiosensitization NN O O
for NN O O
terminal NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16505756)

Longitudinal NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O O
modalities NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
applicability NN O O
of NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
digestive NN O O
oncology 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
longitudinal 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
between NN O O
LV5FU2-irinotecan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LV5FU2 NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
LV5FU2-cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Among NN O O
134 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
described NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
2 NN O O
monthly NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
during NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
mixed NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
extreme NN O O
poorest NN O O
imputation NN O O
for NN O O
missing NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GHS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
3rd NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LV5FU2-cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LV5FU2-irinotecan NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
irinotecan-based-therapy NN O O
presented NN O O
14 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
scores NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
GHS NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
globally NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
highlights NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
LV5FU2-irinotecan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
interest NN O O
of NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
complement NN O O
the NN O O
risk-benefit NN O O
judgement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16508555)

Minimal NN O I-INT
clinically NN O I-INT
important NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
Minimal NN O I-OUT
Clinically NN O I-OUT
Important NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MCIC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
numerical NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PI-NRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Quebec NN O I-OUT
Back NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QBPDS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Euroqol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
MCIC NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
valuable NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
researchers NN O O
, NN O O
healthcare NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
policymakers NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
442 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
MCIC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
minimal NN O O
detectable NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
optimal NN O O
cutoff NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
receiver NN O O
operant NN O O
curves NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
global NN O O
perceived NN O O
effect NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
GPE NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
external NN O O
criterion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
MCIC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
MCIC NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
PI-NRS NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
3.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.7 NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
( NN O O
sub NN O O
) NN O O
acute NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.5 NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MCIC NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
QBPDS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
between NN O O
17.5 NN O O
to NN O O
32.9 NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
to NN O O
24.6 NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
sub NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
MCIC NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EQ NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.07 NN O O
to NN O O
0.58 NN O O
in NN O O
( NN O O
sub NN O O
) NN O O
acute NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
0.28 NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Reporting NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
made NN O O
a NN O O
MCIC NN O I-INT
adds NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
interpretability NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
MCIC NN O I-INT
values NN O O
and NN O O
advocate NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
MCIC NN O I-INT
value NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16527796)

Nasotracheal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
curve-tipped NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
guidance NN O O
reduces NN O O
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Nasotracheal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
greater NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
trauma NN O O
of NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
than NN O O
orotracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
NTI NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
curve-tipped NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CTSC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
guide NN O O
nasotracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
advancement NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
under-went NN O I-PAR
NTI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
NTI NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
CTSC NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
CTSC NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
Fr NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
first NN O O
inserted NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
tracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
tip NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CTSC NN O O
emerging NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tube NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
curved NN O O
tip NN O O
was NN O O
directed NN O O
ventrally NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
tracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
and NN O O
CTSC NN O O
were NN O O
advanced NN O O
together NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
nasopharynx NN O O
; NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
NTI NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CTSC NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
( NN O O
G NN O O
[ NN O O
- NN O O
] NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tracheal NN O O
tube NN O O
was NN O O
advanced NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O O
cavity NN O O
and NN O O
passed NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
pharynx NN O O
without NN O O
CTSC NN O O
guidance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pass NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
endotracheal NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
through NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
cavity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
passage NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
passage NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
nasotracheal NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
passage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
62/62 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
82.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
57/69 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
21/62 NN O O
, NN O O
33.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
37/69 NN O O
, NN O O
53.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
G NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nasotracheal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
CTSC NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
airway NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
reduces 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 O
epistaxis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16541481)

Etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
7 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
longterm NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
modifying NN O I-PAR
antirheumatic NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DMARD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Safety NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
714 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
longterm NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
581 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
714 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
581 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
continuing NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
longest NN O O
individual NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
8.2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
3139 NN O O
total NN O O
patient-years NN O O
of NN O O
etanercept NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Rates 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 O
overall NN O O
rate=14.8 NN O O
events/100 NN O O
patient-yrs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
rate=4.2 NN O O
events/100 NN O O
patient-yrs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
rate=1.0 NN O O
events/100 NN O O
patient-yrs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
rate=0.7 NN O O
events/100 NN O O
patient-yrs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
stable NN O O
each NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
etanercept NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
356 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
ACR20=73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ACR50=52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ACR70=27 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
CRP NN O O
good NN O O
response=52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
CRP NN O O
remission=37 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
responses NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
167 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
Year NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
concomitant NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
or NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
maintained NN O O
clinical NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Durable NN O O
clinical NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefit-to-risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
longterm NN O O
etanercept NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
remains NN O O
highly NN O O
favorable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16548702)

Resisting NN O O
good NN O O
news NN O O
: NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
communication NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
women NN O O
overestimate NN O O
their NN O O
percentage NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
received NN O O
careful NN O I-INT
estimates NN O I-INT
from NN O O
health NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
2 NN O O
experiments NN O O
with NN O O
134 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
variables NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
explored NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
influence NN O O
such NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
persistence NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
explanations NN O O
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
persistence NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
public NN O I-INT
commitment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
self-consistency NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
unique NN O I-INT
causal NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
individual NN O O
difference NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
pessimism NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
understanding NN O O
percentages NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
persistence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-INT
anchor NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
downward NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
processes NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttest NN O O
that NN O O
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
discusses NN O O
why NN O O
comparison NN O I-INT
anchors NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
feedback NN O O
situations NN O O
and NN O O
concludes NN O O
with NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
professionals NN O O
who NN O O
wish NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
accurate NN O O
risk NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
patients NN O O
adopt NN O O
that NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16555138)

The NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
casein-free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
gluten-free NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
casein-free NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GFCF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
included NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
homes NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
findings NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
several NN O O
parents NN O O
reported NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
preliminary NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
how NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GFCF NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16562630)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O I-INT
modulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
parameters NN O I-INT
on NN O O
muscle NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Muscle NN O O
contractions NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FES NN O O
) NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
greatly NN O O
limits NN O O
activities NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
FES-assisted NN O O
standing NN O O
and NN O O
walking NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
FES NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
randomly NN O O
modulating NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
electrical NN O O
stimulus NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
paraplegic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
seated NN O O
, NN O O
FES NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
and NN O O
tibialis NN O O
anterior NN O O
muscles NN O O
bilaterally NN O O
using NN O O
surface NN O O
electrodes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
force NN O O
to NN O O
drop NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
dB NN O O
( NN O O
fatigue NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
normalized NN O O
force-time NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
different NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
FES NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
: NN O O
constant NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
frequency NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
40 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
current NN O O
amplitude NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
pulsewidth NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
250 NN O O
micros NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
stimulation NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
stochastically NN O O
modulated NN O O
every NN O O
100 NN O O
ms NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
+/-15 NN O O
% NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
uniform NN O O
probability NN O O
distribution 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
fatigue NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FTI NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
particular NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
stochastic NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
involved NN O O
moderate NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
variations NN O O
updated NN O O
every NN O O
100 NN O O
ms NN O O
and NN O O
centered NN O O
around NN O O
40 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
maximum NN O O
force NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
stimulation NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
apparent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
FTI NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
10-min NN O O
rest NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
stimulation NN O O
trials NN O O
was NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
full NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16567604)

Prolonged NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
programs NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
7.5 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
heterogeneous NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
260 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-INT
postdischarge NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
268 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
HBI NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
1.04 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.80-1.35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unplanned NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.86-1.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
HBI NN O I-INT
had NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
marginal NN O O
impact NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
unplanned NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
677 NN O O
readmissions NN O O
vs NN O O
824 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
0.72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.96 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.84 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.20 NN O O
readmissions/patient NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
accounting NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HBI NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
HBI NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
readmissions NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
0.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.72 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.88 NN O O
readmission/patient NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
surviving NN O O
patients NN O O
within NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
0.64 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.26 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.61 NN O O
readmissions/patient NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HBI NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
823 NN O O
dollars NN O O
+/- NN O O
1642 NN O O
dollars NN O O
vs NN O O
960 NN O O
dollars NN O O
+/- NN O O
1376 NN O O
dollars NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
unique NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
HBI NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
long-term NN O O
cost NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
illnesses NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16571852)

Web-based NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
integrated NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
: 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Web-based NN O O
information-only NN O O
weight NN O O
management NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
Participants NN O O
, NN O O
2862 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
kg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Kaiser NN O I-PAR
Permanente NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
integrated NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
information-only NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
self-report NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
survey NN O O
at NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
among NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
than NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
information-only NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
tailored NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
lost NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
information-only NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
lost NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
was NN O O
personally NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
helpful NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
easy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
understand NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Notably NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
proportion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
expert NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
information-only NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16585311)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
nonpharmacologic NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anxiety NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
for NN O O
laceration NN O O
repair NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pediatric NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Nonpharmacologic NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
powerful NN O O
adjuncts NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
evaluating NN O O
these NN O O
interventions NN O O
as NN O O
adjuncts NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
painful NN O O
procedures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pediatric NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
( NN O O
ED NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
distraction NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
and NN O O
affective NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
among NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laceration NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eligible NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
laceration NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
age-appropriate NN O I-INT
distracters NN O I-INT
during NN O O
laceration NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
situational NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
7-point NN O I-OUT
Facial NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
Children NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
laceration NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
State NN O I-OUT
Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
Children NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Facial NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
same NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
perceived NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
older NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
situational NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pain NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
distraction NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
situational NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
lowering NN O O
parental NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
distress NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
technique NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
procedural NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pediatric NN O O
ED NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16585808)

Survey NN O I-INT
response NN O O
inducements NN O O
for NN O O
registered NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
past NN O O
20 NN O O
years NN O O
have NN O O
seen NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
survey NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
thank NN O I-INT
you NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
postcard NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
to NN O O
stem NN O O
the NN O O
tide NN O O
of NN O O
declining NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
mail NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
survey NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
49,605 NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Sample NN O I-PAR
Survey NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Registered NN O I-PAR
Nurses NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
sent NN O O
an NN O O
extra NN O O
mailing NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
subsample NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4,968 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
then NN O O
compared NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
prior NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
reminder NN O O
postcards NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
several NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
familiarity NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
saliency NN O O
of NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
project NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nursing NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
even NN O O
widely NN O O
accepted NN O O
best NN O O
practices NN O O
for NN O O
survey NN O O
methods NN O O
deserve NN O O
scrutiny NN O O
when NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
special NN O O
subpopulations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1659236)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
interim NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Interim NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
services NN O O
to NN O O
heroin NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
comprehensive NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
clinic NN O O
that NN O O
provided NN O O
initial NN O O
medical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
methadone NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
AIDS NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
include NN O O
formal NN O O
drug NN O O
abuse NN O O
counseling NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
services NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
301 NN O I-PAR
volunteer NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
list NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Beth NN O I-PAR
Israel NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-INT
program NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
immediate NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
interim NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
initial NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illicit NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One-month NN O O
urinalysis NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heroin NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
at NN O O
intake NN O O
to NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
) NN O O
. 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
cocaine NN O I-OUT
urinalyses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
16-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Limited NN O O
services NN O O
interim NN O O
methadone NN O O
maintenance NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
heroin NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
awaiting NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
comprehensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
entering NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16596465)

A NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Risperidone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
aggressive NN O O
and NN O O
destructive NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
longer-duration NN O O
study NN O O
includes NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
8-56 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean=22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
22-week NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O O
maintenance NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
40 NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
57.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
responded NN O O
fully NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
35 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
87.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Gender NN O O
, NN O O
mood NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
antiseizure NN O O
medications NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
dose NN O O
risperidone NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
aggressive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
MR. NN O O
More NN O O
long-term NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
incorporating NN O O
weight NN O O
control NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16601648)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
scoring NN O O
the NN O O
Vineland NN O O
Adaptive NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Scales NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
improvement NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Vineland NN O O
Scales NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Raw NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age-equivalents NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
special NN O I-OUT
norm NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
socialization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
gained NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
7.8 NN O O
age-equivalent NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
socialization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
beyond NN O O
what NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
growth NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
serious NN O O
behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

Vineland NN O O
age-equivalent NN O O
scores NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
assessing NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16603337)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O O
significant NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
spontaneously NN O I-OUT
imitate NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
actions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
descriptive NN O I-OUT
gestures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

Reciprocal NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
play NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
parent-implemented NN O O
RIT NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
multiple-baseline NN O O
design NN O O
across NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
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
their NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
mothers NN O O
were NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
RIT NN O I-INT
techniques NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinic NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
mothers NN O O
were NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
RIT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
teach NN O O
object NN O O
imitation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
third NN O O
mother NN O O
was NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
RIT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
target NN O O
both NN O O
object NN O O
and NN O O
gesture NN O O
imitation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiple-baseline NN O O
design NN O O
across NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

Generalization NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
' NN O O
homes NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
1-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
learned NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
exhibited NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
replicate NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
RIT NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
teaching NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
extend NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
to NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16644334)

Antiarrhythmic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
azimilide NN O I-INT
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
Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
conversion NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Azimilide NN O I-INT
dihydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
azimilide NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
investigational NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. 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 O
it NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
excellent NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
minimal NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
azimilide NN O I-INT
125 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
spontaneously NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
restored NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
electric NN O I-PAR
cardioversion NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
structural NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Safety NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
446 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
314 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
structural NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
structural NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
13 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.4596 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
314 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
placebo NN O O
: NN O O
azimilide NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
1.104 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.849-1.436 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
1 NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
azimilide NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Azimilide NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
or NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
structural NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
converted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16647616)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
home NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
of NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
daytime NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
averaged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Antihypertensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
adjusted NN O I-INT
at NN O O
6-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
randomization NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
diastolic NN O O
BP NN O O
stayed NN O O
above NN O O
80 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
intensified NN O I-INT
hypertensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Ninety-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
24-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
both NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
within NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
46 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
in NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
night-time NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
averaged NN O O
2.6/2.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
0.6/1.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
1.0/1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.6/1.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
range NN O O
.06 NN O O
to NN O O
.75 NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
larger NN O O
share NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
reaching NN O O
( NN O O
57.7 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
43.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
BP NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
3.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
good NN O O
BP NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen 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

Additional NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
more NN O O
conclusive NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16648775)

The NN O O
double-blind NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
negative NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF-rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
double-blind NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
HF-rTMS NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
threshold NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
stimuli NN O O
per NN O O
session NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
ten NN O O
days NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
PANSS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MADRS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
rTMS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sham NN O I-OUT
rTMS NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MADRS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Between-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
reveal NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
HF-rTMS NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
DLPCF NN O I-OUT
affects NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
alternative NN O O
rTMS NN O O
approaches NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16651950)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
for NN O O
wound NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
barbed NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Suture NN O O
knots NN O O
present NN O O
several NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
in NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
tedious NN O O
to NN O O
tie NN O O
and NN O O
place NN O O
ischemic NN O O
demands NN O O
on NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

Bulky NN O O
knots NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
nidus NN O O
for NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
extrude NN O O
through NN O O
skin NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Needle NN O O
manipulations NN O O
during NN O O
knot-tying NN O O
predispose NN O O
the NN O O
surgeon NN O O
to NN O O
glove NN O O
perforation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
barbed NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
self-anchoring NN O O
, NN O O
requiring NN O O
no NN O O
knots NN O O
or NN O O
slack NN O O
management NN O O
for NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
knot NN O O
tying NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
barbed NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dermal NN O I-PAR
closure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pfannenstiel NN O I-PAR
incision NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
nonemergent NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
produces NN O I-PAR
scar NN O O
cosmesis NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
worse NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
using NN O O
3-0 NN O I-INT
polydioxanone NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cosmesis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
photographs NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
plastic NN O O
surgeon NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
Hollander NN O O
cosmesis NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
time 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 I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
195 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
188 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cosmesis NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
barbed NN O O
suture NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dehiscence 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
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Closure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
barbed NN O O
suture NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
innovative NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
cosmesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
avoids NN O O
the NN O O
drawbacks NN O O
inherent NN O O
to NN O O
suture NN O O
knots NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16670650)

Effects NN O O
on NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEBM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
group-comparison NN O O
design NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
therapist NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
metropolitan NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1/2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
20-week NN O I-INT
manual-based NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
manual-based NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
General NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postintervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
97 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
=.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
principal NN O O
caregivers NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
alleviating NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
somatic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
counseling NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
20-week NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
justifying NN O O
its NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16671415)

Decompressive NN O I-INT
craniectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
RESCUEicp NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
www.RESCUEicp.com NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RESCUEicp NN O O
( NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Surgery NN O O
with NN O O
Craniectomy NN O O
for NN O O
Uncontrollable NN O O
Elevation NN O O
of NN O O
intracranial NN O O
pressure NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
decompressive NN O I-INT
craniectomy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
raised NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
does NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
decompressive NN O I-INT
craniectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
traumatic NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RESCUEicp NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1667693)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E1 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
failure NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
plasma NN O O
suppressive NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
injured NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into 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 I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PGE1 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
assessments NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
infusion NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
mediated NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
PMN NN O O
superoxide NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
PMN NN O O
granule NN O O
enzyme NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
morality NN O O
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
-- NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
PGE1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
suppressive NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
assayed NN O O
by NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
PMN NN O O
superoxide NN O O
production NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
control NN O O
plasma NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reversal NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
suppressive NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
67 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
suppressive NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
diminished NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
77 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
61 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
lysozyme NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
PMN NN O O
's NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
control NN O O
PMNs NN O O
( NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
119 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
lysozyme NN O O
content NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
-- NN O O
ratio NN O O
P NN O O
: NN O O
C NN O O
79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
suppressive NN O O
activity 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- (16691061)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
cellulose NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
vaginal NN O O
microbicide NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Few NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
microbicides NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
their NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HIV-infected NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
cellulose NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gel NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
vaginal NN O O
microbicide NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
sexually NN O I-PAR
abstinent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Sexually NN O I-PAR
abstinent NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
applied NN O O
gel NN O O
once NN O O
or NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
sexually NN O O
active NN O O
women NN O O
used NN O O
gel NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
CS NN O O
gel NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
reported NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
life-threatening NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-nine NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
experienced NN O O
urogenital NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
judged NN O O
as NN O O
probably NN O O
or NN O O
possibly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
gel NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
only NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fewer NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
CS NN O O
experienced NN O O
urogenital NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
gel NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.59 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
experienced NN O O
intermenstrual NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
judged NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
probably NN O O
or NN O O
possibly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
gel NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
four NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CS NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
gel NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
AE NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
gel NN O O
use NN O O
or NN O O
sexual NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
abdominal/pelvic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
sexually NN O O
abstinent NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
and NN O O
men NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
gel NN O O
highly NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16700802)

Eberconazole NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
dermatophytosis NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Eberconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
, NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
imidazole NN O O
derivative NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
dermatophytoses NN O O
, NN O O
candidiasis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pityriasis NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
efficacy NN O O
than NN O O
clotrimazole NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
dermatophytoses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
eberconazole NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
dermatophytoses NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
653 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dermatophytoses NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
eberconazole NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
or NN O O
miconazole NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
response NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
through NN O O
mycologic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
653 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
360 NN O O
produced NN O O
positive NN O O
baseline NN O O
mycologic NN O O
cultures NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
76.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eberconazole NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
75.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
miconazole NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
0.91 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
eberconazole NN O O
and NN O O
0.92 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
miconazole NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
being NN O O
serious NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
being NN O O
local NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Eberconazole NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
fungal NN O O
infections NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
dermatophytes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
dermatophytoses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1670445)

Thromboprophylaxis NN O O
by NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elective NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
trial NN O O
; NN O O
58 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
35 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
developed NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
125I-fibrinogen NN O O
uptake NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Verification NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
phlebography NN O O
in NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Prolonged NN O O
surgery NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
four NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
peroperative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
easily NN O O
administered NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16704894)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
holmium NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
enucleation NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostates NN O I-PAR
larger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
grams NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
holmium NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
enucleation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HoLEP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
outflow NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BOO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24-month NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
BOO NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
urodynamic NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
pre-operatively NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
40-200 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
patient NN O O
died NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
left NN O O
30 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 I-PAR
Perioperative NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Qmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six,12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Post-void NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transrectal NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRUS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
. NN O O

Continence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potency NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
surgical NN O O
groups NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
pre-operative NN O I-OUT
TRUS NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
77.8+/-5.6 NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
42-152 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HoLEP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
70.0+/-5.0 NN O O
g NN O O
( NN O O
46-156 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
shorter NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stays NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
prostate NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
retrieved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
urodynamically NN O I-OUT
superior NN O O
to NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
BOO NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
surgical NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
Urology NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Qmax NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TURP NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
re-operation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
has NN O O
less NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
produces NN O O
superior NN O O
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
treating NN O O
prostates NN O O
> NN O O
40 NN O O
g. NN O O
At NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
HoLEP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
TURP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16709205)

Late NN O I-PAR
miscarriage NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
consent NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Zelen NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
screen NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
vaginosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
vaginal NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
miscarriage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
37 NN O I-OUT
completed NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
consent NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Zelen NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Southeast NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
POPULATION NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
9025 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
819 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Nugent NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
BV NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Zelen NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
miscarriage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
noniatrogenic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Late NN O I-OUT
miscarriage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
37 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Therapy NN O O
with NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
37 NN O O
completed NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
0.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.40-2.02 NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
delivered NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
33 NN O O
completed NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.02-0.95 NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
32 NN O O
days NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
gestation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-OUT
miscarriage NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
infants NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
birthweight NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
2,500 NN O I-OUT
g NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
born NN O O
preterm NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
postnatally NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
extending NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
sequelae NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clindamycin NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O O
cream NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
gestation NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Early NN O O
screening NN O O
for NN O O
BV NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
saved NN O O
approximately NN O O
27 NN O O
euro NN O O
per NN O O
woman NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16712638)

Joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
symbolic NN O O
play 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 I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Delays NN O O
and NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
symbolic NN O O
play NN O O
constitute NN O O
two NN O O
important NN O O
developmental NN O O
problems 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 I-PAR
These NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
deficit NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
rarely NN O O
been NN O O
the NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
efforts NN O O
( NN O O
see NN O O
Kasari NN O O
, NN O O
Freeman NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Paparella NN O O
, NN O O
2001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
targeted NN O O
interventions NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) 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
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interventions NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5-6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
structured NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
play NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
mother-child NN O O
interactions NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
assessors NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
certain NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
intervention NN O O
initiated NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
showing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
structured NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mother-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
play NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
diverse NN O O
types NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symbolic NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
mothers NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
interaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
provides NN O O
promising NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
generalizability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
early NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16714498)

Confidential NN O I-INT
registration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
: NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Human NN O O
rights NN O O
legislation NN O O
safeguards NN O O
the NN O O
privacy NN O O
and NN O O
dignity NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
assessed NN O O
privacy NN O O
of NN O O
confidential NN O I-INT
registration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Emergency NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
302 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Binary NN O I-INT
choices NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ordinal NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
scores NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
speak NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
receptionists NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disclose NN O I-OUT
confidential NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
overhead NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concern NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
disclosure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
confidential NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
screened NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
felt NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
tell NN O I-OUT
receptionists NN O I-OUT
things NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
want NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hear NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Control NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
concerned NN O O
than NN O O
intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
others NN O I-OUT
heard NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
name NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
address NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
date NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reason NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
department NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
telephone NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
marital NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
concerned NN O O
about NN O O
disclosure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
overheard NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
value NN O O
privacy NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
register NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
concerned NN O O
if NN O O
others NN O O
can NN O O
hear NN O O
them NN O O
tell NN O O
receptionists NN O O
who NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
, NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
contact NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
why NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
there NN O O
. NN O O

Confidential NN O I-INT
registration NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
instituted NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

Confidential NN O I-INT
registration NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
patient NN O O
privacy NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
instituted NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16719652)

Tradeoffs NN O O
and NN O O
theory NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
double-mediation NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Most NN O O
theories NN O O
of NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
options NN O O
imply NN O O
tradeoffs NN O O
between NN O O
their NN O O
attributes NN O O
, NN O O
conflict NN O O
increases NN O O
as NN O O
tradeoff NN O O
size NN O O
increases NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
greater NN O O
sacrifices NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
incurred NN O O
in NN O O
choosing NN O O
one NN O O
option NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
alternative NN O O
view NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
conflict NN O O
decreases NN O O
as NN O O
tradeoff NN O O
size NN O O
increases NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
stronger NN O O
arguments NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
decision NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
propose NN O O
a NN O O
unified NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
double-mediation NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
combines NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mediating NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sacrifice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
argumentation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
model NN O O
generally NN O O
predicts NN O O
an NN O O
inverse NN O O
U-shaped NN O O
relation NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
tradeoff NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
conflict NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
support NN O O
this NN O O
prediction NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
situation NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mediating NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sacrifice NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
argumentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
tradeoff NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
upward NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
conversely NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
situation NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mediating NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
argumentation NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sacrifice NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relation NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
downward NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
support NN O O
these NN O O
predictions NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

Commonalities NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
our NN O O
model NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
formulations NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16729400)

Nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
radial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
transradial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Radial NN O O
artery NN O O
spasm NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
transradial NN O O
coronary NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
vasodilating NN O I-INT
cocktails NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
radial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
transradial NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
large NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients 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
379 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Every NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Along NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
instead NN O O
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
received NN O O
both NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
single NN O O
experienced NN O O
operator NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
subjectively NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
spasm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
379 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
spasm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
spasm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
cocktail NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
13.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.597 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
spasm NN O O
: NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
diameter NN O O
( NN O O
RD NN O O
) NN O O
/height NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
RD/BSA NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sheath NN O O
outer NN O O
diameter NN O O
( NN O O
OD NN O O
) NN O O
/RD NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
to NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
antispastic NN O O
cocktail NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
morphometric NN O O
and NN O O
mechanical NN O O
factors NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
sex NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
surface NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
history NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
no NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16730335)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
prolactin NN O O
were NN O O
assessed 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
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
101 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
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
4-month NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
Baseline NN O O
and NN O O
Week-8 NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
78 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
43 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
22-month NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
prolactin NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
immunoradiometric NN O O
assay NN O O
; NN O O
dopamine NN O I-OUT
type-2 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DRD2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
polymorphisms NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
genotyped NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
9.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.5 NN O O
and NN O O
9.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.6 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
39.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.2 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.8 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
32.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.8 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
; NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
43 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
22 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
25.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.6 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
DRD2 NN O O
alleles NN O O
( NN O O
Taq1A NN O O
, NN O O
-141C NN O O
Ins/Del NN O O
, NN O O
C957T NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
or NN O O
risperidone-induced NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
prolactin NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
two- NN O O
to NN O O
four-fold NN O O
mean NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
prolactin NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
risperidone-induced NN O O
increases NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
diminish NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
prolactin NN O O
elevations NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16730541)

Thermal NN O I-INT
welding NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
welding NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
electrocautery NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Indications NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
tonsillitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
peritonsillar NN O I-PAR
abscess NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
together NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
TWT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
BET NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
TWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
measurable NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
BET NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
16 NN O O
mL NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
regarding NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noticed NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BET NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noticed NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
subjects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BET NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Thermal NN O I-INT
welding NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
sufficient NN O O
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lower NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
quick NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EBM NN O O
RATING NN O O
A-1b NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16731138)

Neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
on-pump NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
difficulties NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
off-pump NN O O
surgery NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Consecutively NN O I-PAR
listed NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
on-pump NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
107 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
battery NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
standardized NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
tests NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
statistical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
modeling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS 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
cognitive NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on-pump NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
using NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on-pump NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
that NN O O
fewer NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
impairment NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
sophisticated NN O O
modeling NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
again NN O O
comparable NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
on-pump NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
off-pump NN O I-INT
group NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
generally NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
on-pump NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
neurocognitive NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16731878)

Outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
transition NN O O
case-management NN O O
program NN O O
targeting NN O O
new NN O I-PAR
admissions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
Providing NN O I-INT
Assistance NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Caregivers NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Transition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
discharge NN O O
planning NN O O
and NN O O
case NN O O
management NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
transitional NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
return NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
PACT NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
targeted NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
worked NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
caregiver NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
develop NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
implement NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
plan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
Reported NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
design NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
's NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Those NN O O
individuals NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
PACT NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
individuals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
continued NN O O
their NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULT NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
treatment NN O O
vs NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
controls NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
42 NN O O
days NN O O
vs NN O O
55 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Replications NN O O
or NN O O
extensions NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
PACT-type NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
might NN O O
consider NN O O
a NN O O
broader NN O O
mix NN O O
of NN O O
nursing NN O O
homes NN O O
, NN O O
working NN O O
directly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
's NN O O
admission NN O O
Minimum NN O O
Data NN O O
Set NN O O
coordinator NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
selection NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
Medicare NN O O
or NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
HMO NN O O
plans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1673324)

Deliberate NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
malformations NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
esmolol NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
malformations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
deliberate NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
60-65 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
micrograms.kg-1.min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
mg/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Esmolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
6.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
to NN O O
3.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
L/min NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
far NN O O
exceeded NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
similar NN O O
magnitude NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
and NN O O
126 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
, NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
must NN O O
be NN O O
recognized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
properties NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
agents NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
profile NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16733916)

[ NN O O
Profiles NN O O
of NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
formulated NN O I-INT
herbs NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
profiles NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
formulated NN O I-INT
herbs NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Applied NN O O
with NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
136 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
estradiol NN O I-INT
valerate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
0.45 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
tibolone NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
formulated NN O I-INT
herbs NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Kuntai NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
# NN O O
tid NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
took NN O O
element NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
IU/d NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
. NN O O

Modified NN O O
Kupperman NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
thereafter NN O O
and NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
menopausal NN O O
diary NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
The NN O O
efficacies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
HT-managed NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
menopausal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.00 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
2.43 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.08-5.46 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3.12 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.42-6.88 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.73 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.26-2.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
cases NN O O
initially NN O O
experienced NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
but NN O O
such NN O O
initiation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
bit NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
Endometrium NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
B-mode NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
HT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
bit NN O O
thicker NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
Long NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
reproductive NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
since NN O O
menopause NN O O
were NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Profiles NN O O
of NN O O
irregular NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
3 NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
HT NN O I-INT
are NN O O
different NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
reproductive NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
since NN O O
menopause NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
bleeding NN O O
initiation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16740812)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
clinician NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
inner-city NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Barriers NN O O
impede NN O O
translating NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
asthma NN O O
treatment NN O O
into NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
inner NN O O
cities NN O O
where NN O O
asthma NN O O
morbidity NN O O
is NN O O
highest NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
timely NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
providing NN O O
recent NN O O
patient-specific NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
service NN O O
use NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
guideline-based NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
care NN O O
by NN O O
inner-city NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
resultant NN O O
asthma NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
5- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
11-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
937 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospital- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
inner-city NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
caretaker NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
bimonthly NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
collect NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
providers NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
bimonthly NN O I-INT
computer-generated NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
calls NN O O
summarizing NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
service NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
use NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
corresponding NN O O
recommendation NN O O
to NN O O
step NN O O
up NN O O
or NN O O
step NN O O
down NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
scheduled NN O O
visits NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
stepping NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
2-week NN O O
recall NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
2-month NN O O
recall NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
whose NN O O
symptoms NN O O
warranted NN O O
a NN O O
medication NN O O
increase NN O O
actually NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
scheduled NN O I-OUT
visit NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
reevaluate NN O O
their NN O O
asthma NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2-month NN O O
interval NN O O
after NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
step-up NN O O
letter NN O O
, NN O O
17.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
letters NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
scheduled NN O O
visits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
scheduled NN O O
visits NN O O
12.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Asthma NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
were NN O O
stepped NN O O
up NN O O
when NN O O
indicated NN O O
after NN O O
46.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
visits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
35.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
warranted NN O O
a NN O O
step NN O O
up NN O O
in NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
medication NN O O
changes NN O O
occurred NN O O
earlier NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
children NN O O
whose NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
stepped NN O O
up NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
22.1 NN O O
% NN O O
fewer NN O O
symptom NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
37.9 NN O O
% NN O O
fewer NN O O
school NN O O
days NN O O
missed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
yet NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
fewer NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
emergency NN O I-OUT
department NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
emergency NN O I-OUT
department NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
cost NN O O
saving NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patient-specific NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
to NN O O
inner-city NN O O
providers NN O O
increased NN O O
scheduled NN O O
asthma NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
asthma NN O O
visits NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
stepped NN O O
up NN O O
when NN O O
clinically NN O O
indicated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16750325)

Fifteen-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
noninflammatory NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
schedule NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
locoregional NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
noninflammatory NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
and NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
179 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
dose-escalated NN O O
, NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
schedule NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
1.2-Gy NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

fractions NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
( NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
schedule NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
2-Gy NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

fractions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
supraclavicular NN O O
fossa NN O O
and NN O O
axillary NN O O
apex NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
Gy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
15-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
locoregional NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
q.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

vs. NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
moist NN O O
desquamation NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
q.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
15-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

vs. NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
b.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
hyperfractionation NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
postmastectomy NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
offered NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16752282)

Different NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
uncemented NN O I-INT
press-fit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
cups NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
repeated NN O O
DXA NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
hips NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fixation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
cemented NN O O
THA NN O O
, NN O O
aseptic NN O O
loosening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cup NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
than NN O O
loosening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stem NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
periprosthetic NN O O
osteolysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
socket NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
difficult NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
problems NN O O
has NN O O
emerged NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
problem NN O O
with NN O O
cementless NN O O
cup NN O O
fixation NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
hips NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
THA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
acetabular NN O O
component NN O O
: NN O O
acrylic NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cemex-F NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
porous-coated NN O I-INT
press-fit NN O I-INT
cup NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ceramic NN O I-INT
coating NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Trilogy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
uncemented NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acrylic NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Palacos NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Spectron NN O I-INT
EF NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acetabular NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
dual-energy NN O O
X-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
( NN O O
DXA NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
periprosthetic NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
ROIs NN O O
positioned NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
acetabular NN O O
component NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
uncemented NN O O
sockets NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
proximally NN O O
and NN O O
medially NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cup NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
region NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Palacos NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
cemented NN O O
components NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Stepwise NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
periprosthetic NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
high-pressure NN O O
region NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
uncemented NN O O
design NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
cemented NN O O
stems NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
periprosthetic NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
uncemented NN O O
press-fit NN O O
cups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
region NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
osteolytic NN O O
lesions NN O O
are NN O O
commonly NN O O
found NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
stress NN O O
shielding NN O O
may NN O O
initiate NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O

Longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
will NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
substantiate NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16753722)

Greater NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
than NN O O
student-directed NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Child NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial 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
detect NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
structured NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
student-directed NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two-week NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
module NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
138 NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
two-week NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
blocks NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Dundee NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Scotland NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
student-directed NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
between NN O O
January NN O O
and NN O O
December NN O O
2002 NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-course NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
attachment NN O O
; NN O O
129 NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
sat NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
as NN O O
mean NN O O
scores NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
or 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
in NN O O
parentheses 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
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
core NN O O
curriculum NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
covered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outpatient NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
pre-course NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
student-directed NN O O
25.3 NN O O
( NN O O
7.3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
structured NN O O
24.8 NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
structured NN O O
approach NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
post-course NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
student-directed NN O O
approach NN O O
( NN O O
student-directed NN O O
41.8 NN O O
( NN O O
9.4 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
structured NN O O
53.8 NN O O
( NN O O
8.8 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

Knowledge NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
learning NN O O
approaches NN O O
( NN O O
student-directed NN O O
16.5 NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
structured NN O O
29.1 NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
12.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11.3 NN O O
to NN O O
13.9 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
pre-course NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
gender NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
outpatient NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
'traditional NN O O
' NN O O
structured NN O O
approach NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
'novel NN O O
' NN O O
student-directed NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
emphasize NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
careful NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
strategies NN O O
before NN O O
their NN O O
implementation NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
schools NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
delivering NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16757200)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intraoral NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
in NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
xerostomic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Part NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Radiation-induced NN O O
xerostomia NN O O
can NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
caries NN O O
in NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Topically NN O O
applied NN O O
fluorides NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
successfully NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
caries NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
intensive NN O O
daily NN O O
self-application NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
compliance NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intraoral NN O I-INT
fluoride-releasing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFRS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
, NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
, NN O O
passive NN O O
drug NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
that NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
patient NN O O
involvement NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
periodic NN O O
replacement NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O O
caries NN O O
prevention NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
U. NN O I-PAR
T. NN O I-PAR
M. NN O I-PAR
D. NN O I-PAR
Anderson NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
xerostomia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
contrast NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
home NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
stannous NN O O
fluoride-gel-containing NN O I-INT
tray NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
IFRS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
tolerability NN O O
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
relative NN O O
caries NN O O
preventive NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O O
exposure NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
IFRS NN O O
or NN O O
stannous NN O O
fluoride NN O O
gel NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fitted NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
IFRS NN O I-INT
retainers NN O I-INT
and NN O O
also NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
1100-ppm NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-cell NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-existing NN O O
carious NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
restored NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
or NN O O
recurrent NN O O
decayed NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
caries NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Reports NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
information NN O O
volunteered NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
elicited NN O O
during NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
resting NN O O
and NN O O
stimulated NN O O
salivary NN O O
flow NN O O
rates NN O O
( NN O O
g/5min NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
received NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
radiation NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
68Gy NN O O
vs. NN O O
60Gy NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
marked NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
follow-up NN O O
new NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
stannous NN O O
fluoride NN O O
gel NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
IFRS NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
carious NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fluoride NN O O
gel NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IFRS NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
carious NN O O
lesions NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
examination NN O O
( NN O O
Poisson NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
or NN O O
recurrent NN O O
carious NN O O
lesions NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group=0.55 NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.83 NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.705 NN O O
; NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group=0.80 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.781 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
IFRS NN O O
was NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
SnF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
gel NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
caries NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IFRS NN O O
provided NN O O
similar NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
caries NN O O
formation NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fluoride-gel-containing NN O O
tray NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IFRS NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
release NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.12mg NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
evenly NN O O
distributed NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
cavity NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
convenient NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
home NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tray NN O O
of NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
stannous NN O O
fluoride NN O O
or NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
sodium NN O O
fluoride NN O O
gel NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
avoids NN O O
the NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
variable NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16767966)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
( NN O O
PONV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
major NN O O
complication NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
delay NN O O
post-anesthetic NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
prolong NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
understood NN O O
that NN O O
PONV NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multi-factorial NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
occurs NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
with NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
antihistamines NN O O
, NN O O
antidopaminergics NN O O
, NN O O
anticholinergics NN O O
, NN O O
phenothiazines NN O O
, NN O O
serotonin NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
steroids NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
expenses NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
concern NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
doctors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
cost NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
free NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
PONV 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
700 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
P NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
D NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
right NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1-8 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
D NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
39 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

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
D NN O O
also NN O O
requested NN O O
less NN O O
rescue NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
30 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
same NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8-to-24-hour NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
PONV NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
and NN O O
rescue NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
D NN O O
vs. NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
PONV NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16772581)

Milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
fed NN O O
wet NN O O
corn NN O O
gluten NN O O
feed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
lactation NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
experiment NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
primiparous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
multiparous NN O I-PAR
Holstein NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
feeding NN O O
wet NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
gluten NN O I-INT
feed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WCGF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
305-d NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
matter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
treatments NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
WCGF NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
WCGF-L-cows NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
WCGF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
basis NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
lactation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
23 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
WCGF-DL NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
cows NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
WCGF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
basis NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lactation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
26 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
consuming NN O I-PAR
WCGF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
observed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
BCS NN O O
( NN O O
0.07 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
BCS NN O O
in NN O O
cows NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
= NN O O
-0.11 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
and NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
= NN O O
-0.04 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
lactation NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
BCS NN O O
. NN O O

Cows NN O O
consuming NN O I-PAR
WCGF NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
lactation NN O O
consumed NN O O
more NN O O
feed NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
25.4 NN O O
, NN O O
23.8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
21.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.76 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
for NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
, NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
cows NN O O
consuming NN O O
WCGF NN O O
: NN O O
35.0 NN O O
, NN O O
34.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
for NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
, NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
DM NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
and NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
prepartum NN O O
diets NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
lactational NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
WCGF NN O O
diets NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.94 NN O O
, NN O O
3.74 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
, NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
because NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased 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
total NN O O
milk NN O O
fat NN O O
yield NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
fat-corrected NN O O
milk NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
diet NN O O
: NN O O
38.9 NN O O
, NN O O
36.3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.93 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
for NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
, NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increasing NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
DM NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cows NN O O
consuming NN O O
WCGF NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
fat-corrected NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
averaging NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
yields NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
cows NN O O
consuming NN O O
WCGF NN O O
diets NN O O
during NN O O
lactation NN O O
: NN O O
1.15 NN O O
, NN O O
1.10 NN O O
, NN O O
1.00 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
for NN O O
WCGF-L NN O O
, NN O O
WCGF-DL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
diets NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
formulated NN O O
to NN O O
contain NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
as NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
WCGF NN O O
( NN O O
DM NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1678925)

The NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
blacks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Terazosin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
selective NN O O
alpha NN O O
1-adrenergic NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
1180 NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Terazosin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
prescribed NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
terazosin NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
sitting NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
-8.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
terazosin NN O O
and NN O O
-5.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Terazosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
methyclothiazide NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater 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
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
standing NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
-7.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
-15.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
methyclothiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
-15.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
methyclothiazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Terazosin NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
lipid NN O O
effects NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
diuretics NN O O
and NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Terazosin NN O O
, NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16791814)

International NN O I-PAR
Czech NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Slovak NN O I-INT
cooperation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
concerning NN O O
cooperation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Slovak NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Slovak NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Czech NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
means NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
cooperation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nuclear NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ostrava NN O I-PAR
357 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Slovak NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
follicular NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
papillary NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
near-total NN O I-PAR
thyroidectomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Slovak NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Then NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
sent NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nuclear NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ostrava NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Czech NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
department NN O O
a NN O O
radioiodine NN O I-INT
ablation NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
remnants NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
amount NN O O
of NN O O
radioiodine NN O I-INT
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
3.7 NN O O
GBq NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
a NN O O
suppression NN O O
and NN O O
substitution NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormones NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3-6 NN O O
months NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
whole NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
scintigraphy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
MBq NN O O
131I NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
7.4 NN O O
GBq NN O O
131I NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
( NN O O
WBS NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
or NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
radioiodine NN O I-INT
application NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
after NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
thyroglobulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
WBSs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
negative NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Nuclear NN O O
Medicine NN O O
in NN O O
Martin NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
radioiodine NN O O
accumulated NN O O
metastases NN O O
were NN O O
again NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
radioiodine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Ostrava NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
indicated NN O O
, NN O O
external NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
targeted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
neck NN O O
and NN O O
upper NN O O
mediastinum NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Slovak NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Martin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Newly NN O O
formed NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
metastases NN O O
were NN O O
surgically NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
Slovakia NN O O
, NN O O
too NN O O
. NN O O

Generally NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
economically NN O O
our NN O O
partnership NN O O
is NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
collaboration NN O O
also NN O O
successfully NN O O
continues NN O O
after NN O O
entrance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Slovak NN O O
Republic NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Czech NN O O
Republic NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Union NN O O
in NN O O
2004 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
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
international NN O O
Czech NN O O
and NN O O
Slovak NN O O
cooperation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
complex NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
differentiated NN O O
thyroid NN O O
cancers NN O O
is NN O O
successful NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Czech NN O O
Republic NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16794504)

POG NN O O
8625 NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stages NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIIA1 NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
6 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
could NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
or NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
biopsy-proven NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pathologically NN O I-PAR
staged NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IIIA1 NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
6 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
alternating NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
mustard NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oncovin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
procarbazine/doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
alternating NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
mustard NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oncovin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
procarbazine/doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
+2550 NN O I-INT
cGy NN O I-INT
involved-field NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
99.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
low-stage NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intermediate-stage NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
both NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
8-year NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Early NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
paradigm NN O O
of NN O O
response-based NN O O
risk-adapted NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
pediatric NN O O
Hodgkin NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16794570)

Modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Amantadine-sulfate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
several NN O O
decades NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
acute NN O O
influenza NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
drug-induced NN O I-PAR
dyskinesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Several NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
actions NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
vivo/in NN O O
vitro NN O O
including NN O O
N-methyl-D-aspartate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
NMDA NN O O
) NN O O
-receptor NN O O
antagonism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
blockage NN O O
of NN O O
potassium NN O O
channels NN O O
, NN O O
dopamine NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonism NN O O
, NN O O
enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
noradrenergic NN O O
release NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
anticholinergic NN O O
effects NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
human NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
motor NN O O
thresholds NN O O
, NN O O
recruitment NN O O
curves NN O O
, NN O O
cortical NN O O
stimulation-induced NN O O
silent NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
CSP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
short NN O O
intracortical NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
ICI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intracortical NN O O
facilitation NN O O
( NN O O
ICF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
L-ICI NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paired NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
paradigms NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Spinal NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
distal NN O O
latencies NN O O
and NN O O
M-amplitudes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
abductor NN O O
digiti NN O O
minimi NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
ICF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noticed NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
L-ICI NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ICF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
L-ICI NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

ICI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MEP NN O I-OUT
recruitment NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CSP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
in NN O O
modulating NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
ICF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
L-ICI NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
modulation NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
polysynaptic NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
and NN O O
GABA-ergic NN O O
circuits NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
several NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
NMDA-receptor NN O O
antagonism NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
relevant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
L-ICI NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
interesting NN O O
parameter NN O O
for NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
learning NN O O
and NN O O
use-dependent NN O O
plasticity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16801333)

Factors NN O O
that NN O O
influence NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
consultation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
communication NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
physicians NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
No NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
yet NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
physicians NN O O
' NN O O
skills NN O O
acquisition NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
communication NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
consultation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
programme NN O O
consolidated NN O O
by NN O O
consolidation NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CW NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
physicians NN O O
' NN O O
communication NN O O
variables NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Physicians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
BT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CW NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
non-intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Consultations NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cancer NN O O
patient NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
' NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
State NN O I-OUT
Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
consultation NN O O
. NN O O

Communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Research NN O O
Campaign NN O O
Workshop NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Manual NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Mixed-effects NN O O
modelling NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
linked NN O O
with NN O O
screening NN O O
questions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
support NN O O
given NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
distress NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
linked NN O O
with NN O O
breaking NN O O
bad NN O O
news NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.050 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
supportive NN O O
skills NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
programme NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physicians NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
aware NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
influences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16802487)

Recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
prolonged NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acoustic NN O I-PAR
neuroma NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
desflurane NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
acoustic NN O I-INT
neuroma NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
to NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
breathing NN O O
, NN O O
extubation NN O O
, NN O O
eye-opening NN O O
, NN O O
hand-squeezing NN O O
to NN O O
command NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
state NN O O
name NN O O
, NN O O
birthdate NN O O
and NN O O
phone NN O O
number NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Steward NN O O
recovery NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
every NN O O
five NN O O
minutes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
regarding NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
sufentanil NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
: NN O O
349.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.1 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
349.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.9 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
haemodynamic/respiratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
bleeding NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
emergence NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
D NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
I NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
14.9 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
2.4 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
vs NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
29.2 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
2.4 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
eye-opening NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Full NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
22.1 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
3.1 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
vs NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
37.6 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
4.0 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.005 NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
stating NN O I-OUT
name NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Steward NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
better NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hour NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
: NN O O
40 NN O O
min NN O O
vs NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
for NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Steward NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
desflurane NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
faster NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
acoustic NN O I-PAR
neuroma NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
desflurane NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
desirable NN O O
after NN O O
long NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
enabling NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
full NN O O
cooperation NN O O
and NN O O
facilitating NN O O
early NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
potential NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16804044)

Psychological NN O O
well-being NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
free NN O O
thyroxine NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
free NN O O
3,5,3'-triiodothyronine NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
An NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
mood NN O O
disorders NN O O
and NN O O
overt NN O O
thyroid NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
closer NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
psychological NN O O
well-being NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
psychological NN O O
well-being NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
fT4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
free NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
fT3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TSH NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
rT NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
697 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mug NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
General NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-12 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GHQ-12 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Thyroid NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
fT NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
TSH NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
GHQ-12 NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
fT4 NN O O
- NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
-0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
; NN O O
TSH NN O O
- NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
0.663 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
GHQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fT3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
0.318 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.275 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rT NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
0.095 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rT NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
fT4 NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
71.83 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
fT3 NN O O
to NN O O
rT NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
: NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlations NN O O
remained NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
TSH NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
0.3-4.0 NN O O
mIU/liter NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Thyroid NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Differences NN O O
in NN O O
fT4 NN O O
and NN O O
TSH NN O O
concentration NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
well-being NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O I-PAR
hypothyroid NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
although NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
with NN O O
symptoms NN O O
typical NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O O
or NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16806442)

Pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
laparotomy NN O I-INT
extraperitoneal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extraperitoneal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB-IIB NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
entered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extraperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LPL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
classical NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Perioperative NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Follow NN O O
up NN O O
examinations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
15th NN O O
, NN O O
30th NN O O
and NN O O
60th NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
: NN O O
63+/-7.6 NN O O
, NN O O
54+/-6.7 NN O O
and NN O O
75+/-8.4 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TPL NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
EPL NN O I-INT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
EPL NN O O
vs NN O O
LPL NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
analyzed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPL NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LPL NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
: NN O O
5.6+/-0.9 NN O O
, NN O O
3.2+/-0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
3.1+/-0.3 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TPL NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
EPL NN O I-INT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
EPL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
are NN O O
as NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
TPL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
adequately NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
complication NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

LPL NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
longer NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
EPL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LPL NN O I-INT
can NN O O
minimize NN O O
some NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
reducing NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16822100)

Randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
group NN O O
experiment NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Responsive NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Prelinguistic NN O I-INT
Milieu NN O I-INT
Teaching NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
RPMT NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
20-min NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
generalized NN O I-OUT
turn NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
generalized NN O I-OUT
initiating NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latter NN O O
effect NN O O
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
began NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
some NN O O
initiating NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
requests NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
very NN O O
little NN O O
initiating NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
large NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16824559)

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O I-INT
gaze NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
Bubbles NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
direct NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
onto NN O O
other NN O O
people NN O O
's NN O O
faces NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
situations NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
gaze NN O I-OUT
onto NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
regions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O O
information NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
within NN O O
those NN O O
regions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
Bubbles NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
to NN O O
vary NN O O
the NN O O
facial NN O O
information NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
given NN O O
trial NN O O
by NN O O
revealing NN O O
only NN O O
small NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
made NN O O
as NN O O
participants NN O O
viewed NN O O
these NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
IQ- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
less NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
and NN O O
mouth NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
saccade NN O O
away NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
when NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
regions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
abnormal NN O O
directionality NN O O
of NN O O
saccades NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
novel NN O O
detail NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O O
way NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
look NN O O
at NN O O
faces NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
impairment NN O O
that NN O O
likely NN O O
influences NN O O
all NN O O
subsequent NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16824797)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
technical NN O O
abilities NN O O
of NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
basketball NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
off-season NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
basketball NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
technical NN O O
abilities NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
basketball NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
basketball NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14.7+/-0.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Tanner NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3.5+/-0.5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
specialized NN O I-INT
basketball NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SP NN O O
, NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
basketball NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MX NN O O
, NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Training NN O I-INT
included NN O O
five NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
100-120 NN O O
min NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Maximal NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similarly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
SP NN O O
( NN O O
4.9+/-1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
MX NN O O
( NN O O
4.9+/-1.4 NN O O
% 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
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
Wingate NN O O
test NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
magnitude NN O O
after NN O O
SP NN O O
( NN O O
21+/-5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
MX NN O O
( NN O O
15+/-6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Trunk NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equally NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
SP NN O O
: NN O O
23+/-4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
MX NN O O
: NN O O
25+/-5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
arms NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
after NN O O
MX NN O O
( NN O O
50+/-11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
SP NN O O
( NN O O
11+/-14 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

Performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
four NN O O
basketball NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similarly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
17-27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SP NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
technical NN O O
skills NN O O
of NN O O
shooting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
passing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
SP NN O O
basketball NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
performed NN O O
exclusively NN O O
on-court NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
MX NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O O
and NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
fitness NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
on-court NN O O
training NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MX NN O O
group NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
basketball NN O O
technical NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
SP NN O O
and NN O O
MX NN O O
training NN O O
are NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
limit NN O O
and/or NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
detraining NN O O
effects NN O O
that NN O O
occur NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
off-season NN O O
in NN O O
basketball NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1682643)

Specific NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
whooping NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
whooping NN O O
cough NN O O
( NN O O
pertussis NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
ineffective NN O I-OUT
although NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
sound NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
condition NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
toxin-induced NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
wondered NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
pertussis NN O O
immunoglobulins NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
inadequate NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
preparations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
Swedish NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
73 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whooping NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
admission NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
monocomponent NN O I-INT
pertussis NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
two-component NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
filamentous NN O I-INT
haemagglutinin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
albumin NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
immunoglobulins NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
raised NN O O
with NN O O
acellular NN O O
pertussis NN O O
vaccines NN O O
. NN O O

Diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
pertussis NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
laboratory NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
67 NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
whoops NN O I-OUT
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
Cl NN O O
4.8 NN O O
, NN O O
12.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
33 NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
20.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
Cl NN O O
11.9 NN O O
, NN O O
29.3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
14 NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0041 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
whoops NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0196 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
important NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
whoops NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
when NN O O
disease NN O O
duration NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
days 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 I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
preparations NN O O
. NN O O

High-dose NN O O
specific NN O O
pertussis NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
antitoxin NN O O
concentration NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
whooping NN O O
cough NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16840576)

Resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
basal NN O O
limb NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
conductance NN O O
in NN O O
aging NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Age-related NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
limb NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
conductance NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
impairments NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
osteoporosis 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
a NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
would NN O O
increase NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
aging NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
52 NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
yr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
men NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
53 NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
yr NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
men NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
participated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
conductance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
muscle NN O O
groups NN O O
tested 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
body NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
leg NN O I-OUT
fat-free NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
conductance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
55-60 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
both 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
such NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
brachial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, 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 I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
basal NN O O
femoral NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
conductance NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16845576)

Teaching NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
useful NN O O
speech NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Denver NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PROMPT NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
single NN O O
subject NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
two NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
Denver NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
merges NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
relationship-oriented NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PROMPT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
neuro-developmental NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
production NN O I-INT
disorders NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
in NN O O
pairs NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
received NN O O
12 NN O O
1-h NN O O
weekly NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
daily NN O O
1-h NN O O
home NN O O
intervention NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Fidelity NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ten NN O O
children NN O O
used NN O O
five NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
words NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
and NN O O
spoke NN O O
multiple NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment 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
acquired NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
responders NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
better NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emerging NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16846734)

Gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
split-dose NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
split-dose NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
in 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
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
anthracyclines NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
210 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
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1,250 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
175 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
3-h NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GP1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-h NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GP2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-h NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Cycles NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
48.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
GP1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
52.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
GP2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
52.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
GD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
GP1 NN O O
, NN O O
GP2 NN O O
and NN O O
GD NN O O
was NN O O
7.5 NN O O
, NN O O
7.0 NN O O
and NN O O
7.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
208 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
neutropaenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
GP1 NN O O
, NN O O
GP2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GD NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O O
4 NN O O
neutropaenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
anaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropaenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
transfusions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine-taxane NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
in NN O O
MBC NN O O
. NN O O

Split-dose NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
had NN O O
similar NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
split-dose NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
though NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16850327)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
on NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
antisecretory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Open NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
2-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
pharmacology NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26.2 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
14-day NN O O
'washout NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

Intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
continuously NN O O
from NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
during NN O O
0-5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
was NN O O
true NN O O
from NN O O
14-24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
during NN O O
0-14 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.041 NN O O
and NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
was NN O O
true NN O O
during NN O O
14-24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0005 NN O O
and NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
0-24 NN O O
h NN O O
interval NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Single-dose NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
maintaining NN O O
pH NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
2-fold NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16855426)

Rotigotine NN O I-INT
transdermal NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
enables NN O O
rapid NN O O
titration NN O O
to NN O O
effective NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
advanced-stage NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
subanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Rotigotine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Neupro NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
formulated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
transdermal NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
, NN O O
non-ergot NN O O
D3/D2/D1 NN O O
agonist NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
24-hour NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
patches NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
uptitrated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
increments NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
titration NN O O
of NN O O
rotigotine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
escalating NN O O
transdermal NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rotigotine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
titration NN O O
schemes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rotigotine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
slow-titration NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fast-titration NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
separate NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rotigotine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
titration NN O O
schemes NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
reported NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
fast-titration NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/ NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
slow-titration NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
remarkable NN O O
differences NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
side-effect NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
titration NN O O
schemes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
fast-titration NN O O
regimen NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
slower NN O O
titration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
allowed NN O O
rotigotine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
introduced NN O O
quickly NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
rotigotine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
uptitrated NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16859579)

Adjuvant NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-PAR
interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
low-dose NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IL-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TNM NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
surgically NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T3-4 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
N1-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
different NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
MIU/m2 NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
MIU/m2 NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
MIU/m2 NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
weeks NN O O
1-4 NN O O
, NN O O
9-12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17-20 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
MIU/m2 NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
weeks NN O O
1-4 NN O O
, NN O O
9-12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17-20 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-5 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
tolerable NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
schedules NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experiencing NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O I-OUT
constitutional NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Interleukin-2 NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
discontinued NN O O
therapy NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
39 NN O O
patients NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
reached NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
3-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.54 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
or= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
schedules NN O O
( NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
1/2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3/4 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
administered NN O O
( NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
1/3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2/4 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.99 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Subcutaneous NN O I-INT
IL-2 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
surgically NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
IL-2 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
selected NN O O
multitargeted NN O O
kinase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16864886)

A NN O O
fenbendazole NN O I-INT
oral NN O O
drench NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
pour-on NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
parasite NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
feedlot NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carcass NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
finishing NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
endectocides NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
studies NN O O
utilizing NN O O
1,862 NN O I-PAR
yearling NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fenbendazole NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
drench NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ivermectin NN O I-INT
pour-on NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SG+IVPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
pour-on NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
doramectin NN O I-INT
injectable NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
parasite NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feedlot NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O I-OUT
merit NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feedlot NN O I-OUT
cattle NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
heifers NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
SG+IVPO NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cattle NN O I-OUT
retreated NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.06 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
worm NN O I-OUT
eggs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
98 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
IVPO NN O O
. NN O O

Heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SG+IVPO NN O O
consumed NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
DM NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
ADG NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
heavier NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
slaughter NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
heavier NN O I-OUT
carcasses NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
IVPO-treated NN O O
heifers NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SG+IVPO NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.07 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
carcasses NN O I-OUT
grading NN O O
USDA NN O I-OUT
Prime NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Choice NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
IVPO-treated NN O O
heifers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SG+IVPO NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
worm NN O I-OUT
eggs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
35 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adult NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
larval NN O I-OUT
Cooperia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Trichostrongylus NN O I-OUT
spp NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
intestine NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
slaughter NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
DMX NN O O
. NN O O

Heifers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SG+IVPO NN O O
consumed NN O O
more NN O O
DM NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
heavier NN O O
at NN O O
slaughter NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
heavier NN O O
carcasses NN O O
than NN O O
DMX-treated NN O O
heifers 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
SG+IVPO-treated NN O I-INT
heifers NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
ADG NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fenbendazole NN O O
oral NN O O
drench NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
ivermectin NN O O
pour-on NN O O
reduced NN O O
parasite NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ADG NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
feedlot NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
endectocide NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16870004)

Enhanced NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
milk-based NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
wolfberry NN O O
( NN O O
Gou NN O O
Qi NN O O
Zi NN O O
; NN O O
Fructus NN O O
barbarum NN O O
L. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
carotenoid NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
concentrated NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
macula NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
macular NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
age-related NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
degeneration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
small NN O O
red NN O O
berry NN O O
, NN O O
wolfberry NN O O
( NN O O
Fructus NN O O
barbarum NN O O
L. NN O O
; NN O O
Gou NN O O
Qi NN O O
Zi NN O O
and NN O O
Kei NN O O
Tze NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
richest NN O O
natural NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
carotenoid NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
food-based NN O O
products NN O O
with NN O O
enhanced NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
three NN O O
wolfberry NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

Berries NN O O
were NN O O
homogenised NN O O
in NN O O
hot NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
warm NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
skimmed NN O O
milk NN O O
and NN O O
hot NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
skimmed NN O O
milk NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
freeze NN O O
drying NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
preparation NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
powdered NN O O
form NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
zeaxanthin-standardised NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
was NN O O
consumed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
randomised NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O O
breakfast NN O O
by NN O O
twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
consenting NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-5-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
venous NN O O
cannula NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
fasting NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
h NN O O
post-ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

Zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
triacylglycerol-rich NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
fraction NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
triacylglycerol-rich NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
post-ingestion NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

Zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
hot NN O O
milk NN O O
formulation NN O O
was NN O O
significantly 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
than NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
9.73 NN O O
( NN O O
sem NN O O
2.45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3.24 NN O O
( NN O O
sem NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3.14 NN O O
( NN O O
sem NN O O
1.09 NN O O
) NN O O
nmol NN O O
x NN O O
h/l NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hot NN O O
milk NN O O
, NN O O
warm NN O O
milk NN O O
and NN O O
hot NN O O
water NN O O
formulations NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
clearly NN O O
that NN O O
homogenisation NN O O
of NN O O
wolfberry NN O O
in NN O O
hot NN O O
skimmed NN O O
milk NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
formulation NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
3-fold NN O I-OUT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
'classical NN O O
' NN O O
hot NN O O
water NN O O
and NN O O
warm NN O O
skimmed NN O O
milk NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
berries NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16879274)

Nuclear NN O O
fragments NN O O
and NN O O
holes NN O O
in NN O O
grading NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
aspirates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16879519)

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
under NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide-fentanyl NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide-sevoflurane NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic NN O O
( NN O O
PK-PD NN O O
) NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
N2O NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
PS NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
N2O/O2-fentanyl NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
N2O/O2-sevoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
MAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O O
transmission NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
electromyographically NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Initial NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
targeting NN O O
at NN O O
steady-state NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
T1 NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Neuromuscular NN O O
transmission NN O O
was NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
recover NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
min NN O O
afterwards NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
with NN O O
electrochemical NN O O
detection NN O O
( NN O O
HPLC-EC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rocuronium NN O O
PK NN O O
was NN O O
described NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
two-compartment NN O O
model NN O O
and NN O O
PD NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
using NN O O
effect NN O O
compartment NN O O
and NN O O
sigmoidal NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
PK NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.07 NN O O
and NN O O
3.62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.80 NN O O
ml NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O I-OUT
compartment NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
corresponding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EC50 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
1.41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.45 NN O O
and NN O O
2.32 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.00 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
constants NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
equilibration NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
compartment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
k NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
were NN O O
0.10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
and NN O O
0.24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.14 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Disposition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
under NN O O
stable NN O O
N2O-fentanyl NN O O
and NN O O
N2O-sevoflurane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Sevoflurane NN O O
reduced NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
decreased NN O O
EC50 NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
compartment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
potentiating NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
mainly NN O O
of NN O O
PD NN O O
origin NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
junction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16882628)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
sensory-level NN O O
high-volt NN O O
pulsed NN O O
electrical NN O O
current NN O O
ondelayed-onset NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
soreness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
21.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
level-high NN O I-INT
volt NN O I-INT
pulsed NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HVPC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
delayed-onset NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
soreness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DOMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arm NN O O
discomfort NN O O
, NN O O
elbow NN O O
extension NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
motion NN O O
and NN O O
isometric NN O O
elbow NN O O
flexion NN O O
strength NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
as NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

Delayed-onset NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
soreness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
dominant NN O O
or NN O O
non-dominant NN O O
arm NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
maximal NN O O
eccentric NN O O
elbow NN O O
flexion NN O O
contractions NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
DOMS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HVPC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
HVPC NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
DOMS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
every NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
design NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
electrical NN O O
current NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reevaluated NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
DOMS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
returned NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
limb NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O I-INT
HVPC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
elbow NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
time-by-treatment NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
HVPC NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory-level NN O O
HVPC NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
utilized NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
application NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
variables NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
DOMS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16882678)

Coenzyme NN O I-INT
Q10 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
plasma NN O O
coenzyme NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CoQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
oral NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
cardiocirculatory NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
NYHA NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
59+/-9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
37+/-7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
tid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O O
VO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ET NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
phase NN O O
lasted NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EDDBA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
after NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
main NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
: NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
+9 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EDDBA NN O I-OUT
+38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-12 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
comparable NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
four-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
CoQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
further NN O O
increased NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CHF NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
CoQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
abovementioned NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
peak NN O O
SWTI NN O I-OUT
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
amplifies NN O O
the NN O O
already NN O O
described NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CoQ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
contractility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dysfunctional NN O I-OUT
myocardium NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16889080)

[ NN O O
Pilot NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
tamsulone-FS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Tamsulone-FS NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
novel NN O I-INT
Russian NN O I-INT
alpha1A/D-adrenoblocker NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Farm-Syntez NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pilot NN O O
results NN O O
agreed NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
trials NN O O
published NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
tamsulone-FS NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
prostatic NN O O
adenoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tamsulone-FS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
omnik NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
drug NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
wide NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
prostatic NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
by NN O O
Roszdravnadzor NN O O
( NN O O
certificate NN O O
N NN O O
LC-000859 NN O O
of NN O O
03.11.2005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
allowed NN O O
for NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
sale NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16900709)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
PCNL NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
modifications NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
Percutaneous NN O I-INT
Nephrolithotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCNL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
modified NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PCNL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
stone NN O I-PAR
regardless NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stone NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
configuration NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
pre-operative NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
culture NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
coagulopathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
visible NN O I-PAR
residual NN O I-PAR
stone NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
intra-operative NN O I-PAR
fluoroscopy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
cases NN O O
each NN O O
with NN O O
nephrostomy NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
temporary NN O I-INT
ureteral NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O I-INT
indwelling NN O I-INT
ureteral NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
43.2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25-70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40.1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25-73 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25-70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Procedures NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
under NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
access NN O O
and NN O O
lithotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-eight NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
PCNL NN O I-INT
, NN O O
plain NN O O
X-ray NN O O
abdomen NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
and NN O O
IVP NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
had NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
nephrostomy NN O O
tube NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
encountered NN O O
this NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
haemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ultrasonic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
showed NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
residue NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
collective NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

IVP NN O O
showed NN O O
dilatation NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
3 NN O O
subjects NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
or NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Tubeless NN O I-INT
PCNL NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

So NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
on NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
seems NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16904524)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multicomponent NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
including NN O O
an NN O O
information NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O I-INT
diary NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
to NN O O
contact NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
oncologist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
their NN O O
average NN O O
and NN O O
worst NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
and NN O O
worst NN O O
pain NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
pain NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.9/10 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.4/10 NN O O
and NN O O
4.2/10 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.5/10 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
decreased NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O O
levels NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
defining NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
adjustments NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
outpatients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16904652)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Oxytocin NN O I-INT
dysfunction NN O O
might NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
symptom NN O O
domain NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
retention NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Oxytocin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
challenges NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comprehension NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
affective NN O I-PAR
speech NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
happy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
indifferent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
angry NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sad NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
neutral NN O O
content NN O O
sentences NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
affective NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-infusion NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
first NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
revert NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
delay NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
first NN O O
retained NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
accurately NN O O
assign NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
intonation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
speech NN O O
comprehension NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
studies NN O O
linking NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rodents NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
studies NN O O
linking NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
to NN O O
prosocial NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
might NN O O
facilitate NN O O
social NN O O
information NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
also NN O O
provide NN O O
preliminary NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16904970)

Patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
inguinal NN O I-INT
herniorrhaphy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PRO NN O O
) NN O O
reflect NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
inguinal NN O I-INT
herniorrhaphy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hernia NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
PRO NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Open NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
Repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Inguinal NN O I-PAR
Hernia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Analyzed NN O O
PRO NN O O
included NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Study NN O O
Short NN O O
Form NN O O
36 NN O O
, NN O O
version NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Pain NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
Activities NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrences NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
by NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
hematoma/seroma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
orchitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
neuralgia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariable NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
identified NN O O
variables NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
postoperative NN O O
PRO NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
1603 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PRO NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
105 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
342 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complication NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Multivariable NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
neuralgia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
adversely NN O O
affected NN O O
all NN O O
PRO NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recurrence NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
affected NN O O
patient-reported NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
repair NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
repair NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
repair NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
repair NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
inguinal NN O O
herniorrhaphy NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuralgia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Postoperative NN O O
neuralgias NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16907931)

Atorvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
inhibit NN O O
blood NN O O
coagulation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
and NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O O
coagulation NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
microvascular NN O O
injury NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
quinapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
day-1 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
day-1 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
quinapril+atorvastatin NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FVa NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Fbg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cleavage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVa NN O I-OUT
inactivation NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
quinapril NN O O
and NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombin NN O I-OUT
B-chain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
30.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
34.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombin-antithrombin NN O I-OUT
complexes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
30.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0002 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
FV NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
19.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Fbg NN O I-OUT
depletion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
32.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Atorvastatin NN O O
alone NN O O
accelerated NN O O
FVa NN O I-OUT
inactivation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
further NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
enhanced NN O O
most NN O O
anticoagulant NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
when NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
quinapril NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
CAD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
and NN O O
quinapril NN O O
slowed NN O O
blood NN O O
clotting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
microvascular NN O O
injury NN O O
after NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
might NN O O
help NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
or NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
ACEIs NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
ACEI NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
prior NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16909273)

A NN O O
comparative NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
dexibuprofen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
salt NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
target NN O O
concentrations NN O O
rapidly NN O O
. 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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
12-h NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
S NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-ibuprofen NN O I-INT
following NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
dexibuprofen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two-period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single-centre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dexibuprofen NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-ibuprofen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
dexibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
h NN O O
sooner NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ibuprofen NN O I-INT
arginate NN O I-INT
approaches NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
-ibuprofen NN O O
faster NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
dexibuprofen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16911649)

Topical NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adenoidectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Micronefrin NN O O
; NN O O
Bird NN O O
Products NN O O
, NN O O
Palm NN O O
Springs NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
, NN O O
USA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laryngeal NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adenoidectomy NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Kanta-Hame NN O I-PAR
Central NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O O
consecutive NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
93 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
adenoidectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
gauze NN O I-INT
sponges NN O I-INT
soaked NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
1:500 NN O I-INT
RA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
physiological NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
adenoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Amount NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
surgeons NN O O
' NN O O
subjective NN O O
estimate NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
packings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
electrocautery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laryngeal NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Adrenaline NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
surgeons NN O O
' NN O O
subjective NN O O
estimate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
67 NN O O
versus NN O O
21 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
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
packings NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.2 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
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
electrocautery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
versus NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
versus NN O O
18 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
versus NN O O
35 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.058 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
adenoids NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-PAR
profuse NN O I-PAR
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
slight NN O O
elevation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
adenoidectomy NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
helps NN O O
control NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
electrocautery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shortens NN O O
the NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
procedure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16911869)

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
safety NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
microg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Some NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysrhythmia NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-agonist NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
3-14-day NN O O
run-in NN O O
, NN O O
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-INT
four-hour NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
electrocardiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Holter NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
proarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
formoterol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
sustained NN O O
postbaseline NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postbaseline NN O I-OUT
run NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ectopic NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
relevant NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
syncope NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
episode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
variable NN O O
but NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
formoterol NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
variables NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
( NN O O
mean+/-SD NN O O
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
80+/-8.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
80+/-10.6 NN O O
bpm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
total NN O O
732+/-2685.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
650+/-2090.6 NN O O
; NN O O
rate NN O O
35+/-131.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
30+/-101.3 NN O O
per NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
total NN O O
0.4+/-1.70 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.0+/-9.23 NN O O
; NN O O
rate NN O O
0.02+/-0.082 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.05+/-0.479 NN O O
per NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
supraventricular NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
total NN O O
504+/-1844.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
823+/-2961.8 NN O O
; NN O O
rate NN O O
22+/-80.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
37+/-129.6 NN O O
per NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
QT NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Bazett NN O O
and NN O O
Fridericia NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
formoterol NN O O
( NN O O
n=26 NN O O
[ NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n=33 NN O O
[ NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
expected NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
formoterol NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
placebo NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
of NN O O
formoterol NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16915076)

Control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O O
neutral NN O O
zone NN O O
decreases NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
self-evaluated NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
emphases NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lumbar NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NZ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
as NN O O
secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
Improving NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
lumbar NN O O
NZ NN O O
and NN O O
enhancing NN O O
muscle NN O O
activation NN O O
patterns NN O O
ensuring NN O O
spinal NN O O
stability NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
means NN O O
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
LBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Middle-aged NN O I-PAR
working NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TG NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CG NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
guided NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
independently NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LBP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-evaluated NN O I-OUT
future NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LBP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
CG NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
expectations NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
future NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
bigger NN O O
in NN O O
TG NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CG NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Controlling NN O O
lumbar NN O O
NZ NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
with NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
LBP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
working NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16919138)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Melatonin NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
published NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
11 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 I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.6 NN O O
h 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
2.28-2.93 NN O O
] NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
1.91 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.78-2.03 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
1.06 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.98-1.13 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
melatonin NN O O
. NN O O

Wakings NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.35 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.18-0.53 NN O O
) NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
0.26 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.20-0.34 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.08 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.04-0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
melatonin NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.05 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7.65-8.44 NN O O
) NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
8.75 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
8.56-8.98 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
9.84 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
9.68-9.99 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
melatonin NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
recruitment NN O O
difficulties NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
still NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
melatonin NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
predict NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
would NN O O
confirm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16920077)

Omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
or NN O O
imbalances NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
6-week NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
1.5 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
.84 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
.7 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
observed NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
each NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
over NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
elicited NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group 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
provide NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16923411)

Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Folic NN O I-INT
Acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Vascular NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O O
In NN O O
Transplantation NN O O
( NN O O
FAVORIT NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
, 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 I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CVD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
constellation NN O O
of NN O O
traditional NN O O
CVD NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
elevated NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tHcy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
notably NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
Folic NN O I-INT
Acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Vascular NN O O
Outcome NN O O
Reduction NN O O
In NN O O
Transplantation NN O O
( NN O O
FAVORIT NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
lowering NN O O
tHcy NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
CVD NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
FAVORIT NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
posttransplant NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
tHcy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
multivitamin NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
includes NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
0 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
or NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
B12 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
microg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
incident NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
CVD NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
aortic/lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
4000 NN O O
is NN O O
estimated NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Recruitment NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
expected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
continue NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
through NN O O
June NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2234 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
4000 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
tHcy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
( NN O O
17.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.2 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
58.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.6 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluating NN O O
baseline NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
mellitus NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
prevalent NN O O
CVD NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
FAVORIT NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
with NN O O
sufficient NN O O
power NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
CVD NN O O
risk NN O O
between NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
low NN O O
tHcy-lowering NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
multivitamin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Preliminary NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
's NN O O
objectives NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16926619)

Children NN O O
's NN O O
Yale-Brown NN O O
Obsessive NN O O
Compulsive NN O O
Scale NN O O
modified NN O O
for NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
psychometric NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Yale-Brown NN O I-INT
Obsessive NN O I-INT
Compulsive NN O I-INT
Scales NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CYBOCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
pervasive NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
disorders NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Raters NN O O
from NN O O
five NN O O
Research NN O O
Units NN O O
on NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Psychopharmacology NN O O
( NN O O
RUPP NN O O
) NN O O
Autism NN O O
Network NN O O
were NN O O
trained NN O O
to NN O O
reliability NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
modified NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O I-INT
CYBOCS-PDD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
contains NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O I-INT
Compulsion NN O I-INT
severity NN O I-INT
items NN O I-INT
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
172 NN O I-PAR
medication-free NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
8.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
RUPP NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Reliability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
intraclass NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
( NN O O
ICC NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
by NN O O
Cronbach NN O O
's NN O O
alpha NN O O
coefficient NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
with NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
disruptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
validity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eleven NN O O
raters NN O O
showed NN O O
excellent NN O O
reliability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ICC NN O O
= NN O O
0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
CYBOCS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14.4 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.86 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
excellent NN O O
internal NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
alpha NN O O
= NN O O
.85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
to NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
CYBOCS-PDD NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
five-item NN O O
CYBOCS-PDD NN O O
is NN O O
reliable NN O O
, NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16930934)

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subclinical NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
subclinical NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
autonomic NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
repolarization NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
yet NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
dispersion NN O O
of NN O O
QT NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

an NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
repolarization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
( NN O O
HRV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
autonomic NN O O
modulation NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
SH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
53.2+/-14.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
1.76+/-0.14 NN O I-PAR
m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SH NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
judged NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
TSH NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3.6 NN O I-PAR
mIU/l NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3.8-12.0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
hormones NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FT4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
FT3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
euthyroid NN O I-PAR
volunteer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
affect NN O I-PAR
autonomic NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SH NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
12-lead NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24-h NN O I-INT
ambulatory NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
L-thyroxine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
QT NN O O
dispersion NN O O
and NN O O
HRV NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SH NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
L-thyroxine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
enrolment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SH NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
SH NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
N-Ns NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDNN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
TSH NN O O
( NN O O
r=-0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
TSH NN O O
( NN O O
r=0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
SH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
both NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QTc NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
positively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
TSH NN O O
( NN O O
r=0.64 NN O O
and NN O O
r=0.63 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
L-tiroxine NN O I-INT
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
HRV NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
SH NN O O
can NN O O
alter NN O O
autonomic NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cause NN O O
increased NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
recovery NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
L-thyroxine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
advised NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
progression NN O O
to NN O O
overt NN O O
hypothyroidism NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
abnormal NN O O
cardiac NN O O
autonomic NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
repolarization NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16939848)

Preventing NN O O
paclitaxel-induced NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
paclitaxel-induced NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PIPN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
courses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
paclitaxel-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
detailed NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrophysiological NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PIPN NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
summarized NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
means NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Peripheral NN O I-OUT
Neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
3/16 NN O O
( NN O O
18.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
10/16 NN O O
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
PIPN NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
group NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
RR=0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
=0.1-0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
PNP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
2.25+/-5.1 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-15 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
11+/-11.63 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
and NN O O
safely NN O O
protects NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paclitaxel-induced NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16940738)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
syntometrine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
misoprostol NN O O
400 NN O O
mug NN O O
with NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
syntometrine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mug NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
syntometrine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
before NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
oxytocics NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
related NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
whilst NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
syntometrine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pyrexia NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Orally NN O O
administered NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
mug NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
alternative NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
post-partum NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
peri-partum NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
not 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
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16942963)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exposure 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
fear NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
flying NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
tested NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
fear NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
flying NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FOF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
new NN O O
and NN O O
innovative NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
do NN O O
exposure NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
wait NN O O
list NN O O
( NN O O
WL NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-three NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FOF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
VRE NN O O
, NN O O
SE NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
WL NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
WL NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
the NN O O
waiting NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anxiety NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
virtual NN O I-INT
airplane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
actual NN O I-INT
airplane NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
airport NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conducted NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
VRE NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
WL NN O I-INT
on NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fly NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
flight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
VRE NN O O
and NN O O
SE NN O O
; NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
WL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

VRE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
SE NN O I-INT
were NN O O
essentially NN O O
equivalent NN O O
on NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
flight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
improvement 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 I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
respondents NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
reporting NN O O
continued NN O O
flying NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
VRE NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
FOF NN O O
was NN O O
supported NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
experiences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
virtual NN O O
world NN O O
can NN O O
change NN O O
experiences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
real NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (16950955)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cocoa NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
on NN O O
colonic NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
constipated NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Although NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
fiber NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
constipation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
fiber NN O O
supplements NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
fiber NN O O
supplementation NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
interventional NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cocoa NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
on NN O O
intestinal NN O O
transit NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
cocoa NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
toilet NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
performed NN O O
anthropometry NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
routine NN O O
laboratory NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
determined NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
segmental NN O O
colonic NN O O
transit NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
evaluated NN O O
bowel NN O O
movement NN O O
habits NN O O
and NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
diary NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
variable NN O O
for NN O O
verifying NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
colonic NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
constipated NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
constipation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
colon NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
statistically NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
, NN O O
toward NN O O
faster NN O O
transit NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cocoa NN O O
husk NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
we NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
whose NN O O
total NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
> NN O O
50th NN O O
percentile NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
45.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
38.4 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cocoa NN O O
husk NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
8.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28.9 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-38.1 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
colon NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
toward NN O O
faster NN O O
transit NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
colon NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rectum NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
cocoa NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
hard NN O O
stools NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
hard NN O I-OUT
scybalous NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pebble-like NN O I-OUT
stools NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cocoa NN O O
husk NN O O
group 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
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
cocoa NN O O
husk NN O O
supplementation NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
hard NN O I-OUT
stools NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cocoa NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
that NN O O
is NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
dietary NN O O
fiber NN O O
on NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
idiopathic NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
benefits NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
constipated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
slow NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-PAR
transit NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16957425)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
organ NN O O
damage NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
organ NN O I-PAR
damage NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
profile NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
520 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
: NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
groups NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
level NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
thiazide NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
level NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
groups NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four-hour NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
E NN O O
and NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
illustrates NN O O
good NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
lowering NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
thiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (16957977)

Albumin-glutaraldehyde NN O I-INT
bioadhesive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Bioglue NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stapled NN O O
hemorrhoidopexy NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hemorrhoidopexy NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
circumferential NN O O
stapler NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prolapsing NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
its NN O O
advantages NN O O
, NN O O
complications NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
anal NN O O
canal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
, NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
and NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
leak NN O O
with NN O O
eventual NN O O
intrapelvic NN O O
sepsis NN O O
can NN O O
cause NN O O
serious NN O O
postoperative NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
surgical NN O O
adhesive NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O I-INT
albumin-glutaraldehyde NN O I-INT
glue NN O I-INT
Bioglue NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
stapled NN O I-INT
hemorrhoidopexy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
Bioglue NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mucosa NN O I-INT
anastomosis NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
analgesic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
laxative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
then NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
Bioglue NN O O
application NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
anal NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
with NN O O
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
three NN O O
had NN O O
anastomosis NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
one NN O O
had NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Bioglue NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fecal NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
Bioglue NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
circumferential NN O O
stapled NN O O
hemorrhoidopexy NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glue NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (16961674)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
written NN O O
guidelines NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
appropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O I-INT
prescriptions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
providing NN O O
doctors NN O O
with NN O O
written NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
current NN O O
recommendations NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
prescription NN O O
forms NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
1-day NN O O
survey NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
Internal NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Assistance NN O I-PAR
Publique-H?pitaux NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
Paris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
except NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
three NN O O
parts NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
1-day NN O O
baseline NN O O
survey NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
3-month NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
departments NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
all NN O O
practitioners NN O O
in NN O O
wards NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
systematically NN O O
use NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
prescription NN O O
forms NN O O
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
doctors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
prescribing NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
practices NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
1-day NN O O
postintervention NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prescriptions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
accordance NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recommendations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
1,469 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
over-prescriptions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
guideline NN O O
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
OR NN O O
: NN O O
0.3 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.1-0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
forms NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
under-prescription NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anticoagulants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
little NN O O
over NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
met NN O O
guideline NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
prescribed NN O I-OUT
anticoagulants NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
wards NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Multitargeted NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
means NN O O
and NN O O
strategies NN O O
should NN O O
still NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
prescriptions NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
expenses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1697487)

Trials NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tribulations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
speech NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1697914)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
1-blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
YM617 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
YM617 NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
recently NN O O
synthesized NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
1-blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-5- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
2- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
2- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
o-ethoxyphenoxy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
propyl NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
-2- NN O I-INT
methoxybenzenesulfonamide NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
YM617 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
270 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
L NN O O
-- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg. NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
M NN O O
-- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg. NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
H NN O O
-- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg. NN O O
of NN O O
YM617 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjective NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
nocturia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urgency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
H 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
sensation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
incomplete NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
M NN O O
and NN O O
H 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
. NN O O

Residual NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
and NN O O
H NN O O
after NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
bladder 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
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
P. NN O O
The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
L NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
and NN O O
H 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
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
P. NN O O
Average NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
M NN O O
or NN O O
H NN O O
versus NN O O
group NN O O
P. NN O O
Neither NN O O
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
laboratory NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
slight NN O O
and NN O O
disappeared NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
irritative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
obstructive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
benign NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
urodynamic NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
markedly NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
1-blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
YM617 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
drug NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16981667)

Long-term NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
MRC NN O I-INT
AML10 NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (16981901)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
steady-state NN O O
roflumilast NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
investigational NN O O
PDE4 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O O
and NN O O
asthma NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CYP3A NN O I-OUT
probe NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
major NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
sequence NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.v. NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
apart NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
microg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O I-INT
together NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.v. NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
apart NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
midazolam NN O O
following NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O O
dosed NN O O
to NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Point NN O O
estimates NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
0.97 NN O O
( NN O O
0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
1.13 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
AUC NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

midazolam NN O O
and NN O O
0.98 NN O O
( NN O O
0.82 NN O O
, NN O O
1.17 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
midazolam NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
roflumilast NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Therapeutic NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
roflumilast NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
N-oxide NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CYP3A NN O I-OUT
substrate NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
finding NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
roflumilast NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
metabolized NN O O
by NN O O
CYP3A4 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1699814)

A NN O O
stable NN O I-INT
prostacyclin NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iloprost NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Scandinavian-Polish NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostacyclin NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
iloprost NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
103 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Responders NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ulcer NN O O
area NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
responder NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
41.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
% 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
= NN O O
0.086 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
including NN O O
flushing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amputation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
43.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
iloprost NN O I-INT
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
severely NN O O
diseased NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
improve NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17003665)

Atomoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
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
symptoms 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 I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prominent NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
order NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
ATX NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
separated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
1-week NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Slopes NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
2004-2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 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
all NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ATX NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.043 NN O O
, NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
superior NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
hyperactive/impulsive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.005 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
missed NN O O
significance NN O O
on NN O O
nine NN O O
inattentive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.053 NN O O
, NN O O
d= NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
subjects NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
ATX NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1-2 NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
was NN O O
rehospitalized NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
violence NN O O
on NN O O
ATX NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
otherwise NN O O
tolerable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
stereotypy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
ATX NN O O
appears NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
some 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 I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
appears NN O O
as NN O O
large NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
intolerable NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17009251)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Initiative NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
arthroplasty NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Initiative NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
50-79 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
yielding NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
26,321 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
hysterectomies NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10,272 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
0.625 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
5,076 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
5,196 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
followup NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
7.1 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
hysterectomies NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16,049 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
progestin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
8,240 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
0.625 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
7,809 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
followup NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5.6 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
reported NN O O
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arthroplasties NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
procedure NN O I-OUT
codes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arthroplasties NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
were NN O O
censored NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
HRs 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
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-alone NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
arthroplasty NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.84 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.70-1.00 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
borderline NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
hip NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.73 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.52-1.03 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.87 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.71-1.07 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-plus-progestin NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
arthroplasty NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.99 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.82-1.20 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.14 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.83-1.57 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.91 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.72-1.15 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
arthroplasties NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
joint NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
observed NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
unopposed NN O O
estrogen NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
possibly NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
hip NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
knee NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17009630)

Studies NN O O
on NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
myometrium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
myomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gnRH NN O I-INT
analogue-treated NN O I-INT
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
if NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
myoma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
coding NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
isoforms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
uterine NN O O
myomas NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
unaltered NN O O
myometrium NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
RT-PCR NN O O
, NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O O
genes NN O O
and NN O O
leptin NN O O
receptor NN O O
genes NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
myomas NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
myometrium NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
myomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
cases NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O O
receptor NN O O
proteins NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
also NN O O
by NN O O
Western NN O O
blotting NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
myomas NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
myometrium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
expression NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
leptin NN O O
receptor NN O O
isoforms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
RT-PCR NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
Western NN O O
blotting NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
documented NN O O
the NN O O
identical NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
studied NN O O
tissues NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
studied NN O O
genes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
to NN O O
females NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myomas NN O I-PAR
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
direct NN O O
or NN O O
immediate NN O O
inter-relationship NN O O
exists NN O O
between NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
uterine NN O O
myomas NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
hand NN O O
and NN O O
estrogen NN O O
, NN O O
progesterone NN O O
and NN O O
leptin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

Expression NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
durable NN O O
nature NN O O
but NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
induce NN O O
such NN O O
expression NN O O
remain NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17010794)

Thrombus NN O O
aspiration NN O O
reduces NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
myocardial NN O O
contrast NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
REMEDIA NN O O
Trial 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
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
microembolization NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
genesis NN O O
of NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
PCI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
contrast NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MCE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
substudy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
REMEDIA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mechanical NN O I-PAR
Reduction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Distal NN O I-PAR
Embolization NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Thrombus NN O I-PAR
Aspiration NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Rescue NN O I-PAR
Angioplasty NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
defined NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
thrombus-aspirating NN O O
device NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
distal NN O O
microembolization NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thrombus NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
culprit NN O I-INT
lesion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
, NN O O
MCE NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
Sonovue NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
real-time NN O O
imaging NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
contrast NN O O
pulse NN O O
sequencing NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

Regional NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WMSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endocardial NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
abnormality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WML NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
thrombus-aspiration NN O O
filter NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
WMSI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CSI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WML NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CDL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MO NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
temporal NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Thrombus NN O O
aspiration NN O O
used NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
PCI NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MO NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
favorable NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
thrombus NN O O
aspiration NN O O
occurs NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
microvascular NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
additional NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
influencing NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
MO NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
strictly NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
post-infarct NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17014731)

Nordic NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
: NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Low NN O O
Back NN O O
Pain NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
all NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
western NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

Active NN O O
approaches NN O O
including NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
exactly NN O O
which NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
back NN O O
exercises NN O O
are NN O O
most NN O O
beneficial NN O O
or NN O O
whether NN O O
general NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
provide NN O O
similar NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
popular NN O O
and NN O O
fast NN O O
growing NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
Northern NN O O
Europe NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
persons NN O O
performing NN O O
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
longer NN O O
and NN O O
harder NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
walking NN O O
thereby NN O O
increasing NN O O
their NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
now NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
unsupervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stay NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
we NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
performing NN O I-PAR
supervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
advised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stay NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
supervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
and NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
doing NN O I-PAR
unsupervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialized NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
sector NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
centre NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
supervision NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specially NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
instructor NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Unsupervised NN O I-INT
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
instructor NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
talk NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stay NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
results NN O O
available NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Nordic NN O I-INT
Walking NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
LBP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17019627)

DTkid NN O O
: NN O O
interactive NN O O
simulation NN O O
software NN O O
for NN O O
training NN O O
tutors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Discrete-trial NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DTT NN O O
) NN O O
relies NN O O
critically NN O O
on NN O O
implementation NN O O
by NN O O
trained NN O I-PAR
tutors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
three NN O O
experiments NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
DTkid NN O O
-- NN O O
interactive NN O O
computer NN O O
simulation NN O O
software NN O O
that NN O O
presents NN O O
SIMon NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
realistic NN O O
virtual NN O O
child NN O O
with NN O O
whom NN O O
novice NN O O
tutors NN O O
can NN O O
learn NN O O
and NN O O
practise NN O O
DTT NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

Experiments NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
exposed NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
DTkid NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
procedural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
declarative NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DTT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Experiment NN O O
3 NN O O
confirmed NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
that NN O O
observation NN O O
of NN O O
DTkid NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
declarative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
procedural NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
DTT NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
DTkid NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
teaching NN O O
DTT NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
novice NN O I-PAR
tutors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17035531)

Adenosinergic NN O I-INT
mechanisms NN O I-INT
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
individual NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
deprivation-induced NN O I-PAR
changes NN O O
in NN O O
neurobehavioral NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
rhythmic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Large NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
on NN O O
neurobehavioral NN O O
functions NN O O
and NN O O
rhythmic NN O O
brain NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
adenosinergic NN O I-INT
mechanisms NN O I-INT
in NN O O
these NN O O
differences 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
prolonged NN O O
waking NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
adenosine NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sustained NN O O
vigilant NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
regional NN O O
electroencephalogram NN O O
( NN O O
EEG NN O O
) NN O O
power NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranges NN O O
of NN O O
theta NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
6.25-8.25 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
waking NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
slow NN O O
oscillation NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
sleep NN O O
. NN O O

Activity NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
frequencies NN O O
is NN O O
functionally NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
subjectively NN O I-PAR
caffeine-sensitive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
-insensitive NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
vigilance NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
PVT NN O O
) NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
EEG NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
intervals NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
11 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
h NN O O
waking NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
impaired NN O O
PVT NN O O
speed NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
caffeine-sensitive NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
caffeine-insensitive NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
counteracted NN O O
by NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Theta NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
waking NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
frontal NN O O
EEG NN O O
derivation NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
posterior NN O O
derivation NN O O
. NN O O

Caffeine NN O I-INT
attenuated NN O O
this NN O O
power NN O O
gradient NN O O
in NN O O
caffeine NN O O
sensitive NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
differently NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
distribution NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
Hz NN O O
in NN O O
non-rapid NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
caffeine NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
insensitive NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
mirrored NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
deprivation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sustained NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
regional NN O O
EEG NN O O
power NN O O
in NN O O
waking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
adenosinergic NN O I-INT
mechanisms NN O I-INT
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
waking-induced NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neurobehavioral NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
topography NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
deprivation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17037712)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fennel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mefenamic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
in NN O O
dysmenorrhoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
Kerman NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Islamic NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Iran NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fennel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mefenamic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
dysmenorrhoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
high-school NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
dysmenorrhoea NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
fennel NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
55 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
mefenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
55 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fennel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mefenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
girls NN O O
showed NN O O
complete NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fennel NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mefenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17045894)

Enhanced NN O O
baroreceptor NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
by NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
Fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
intention 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
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
arterial NN O O
baroreceptor NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
surviving NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
might NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
potentiation NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
baroreflexes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
enhance NN O O
baroreflex NN O O
function NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
beat-to-beat NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
Finapres NN O O
, NN O O
Ohmeda NN O O
Inc. NN O O
, NN O O
Englewood NN O O
, NN O O
Colorado NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
R-R NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O O
) NN O O
recording NN O O
; NN O O
baroreceptor NN O O
reflexes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
bradycardic NN O O
and NN O O
depressor NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
graded NN O O
neck NN O O
suction NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
computation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alpha NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
baroreflex NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
prolonged NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
g/die NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 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
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
R-R NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
reflex NN O I-OUT
depressor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bradycardic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
NS NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
respectively NN O O
from NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.01 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.01 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
x NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 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
from NN O O
1.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.9 NN O O
to NN O O
1.76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
ms NN O O
x NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
-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
but NN O O
not NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
baroreflex NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUFA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
from NN O O
8.99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
12.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.2 NN O O
ms NN O O
x NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
R-R NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
low-frequency NN O O
and NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
spectral NN O O
powers NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
markedly NN O O
potentiates NN O O
baroreflex NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
enhances NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17046466)

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
continuing NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
mainly NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
intensification NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
for NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ireland NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
750 NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
748 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
interim NN O O
maintenance NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
during NN O O
intensification NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analysed NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
obtained NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
adverse-event NN O O
reporting NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
to NN O O
seek NN O O
detailed NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
toxicities NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
Standard NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Number NN O O
26727615 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
name NN O O
ALL97 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
years 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
event-free NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
conferred NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
isolated NN O O
CNS NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
0.53 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.30-0.92 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
2.22 NN O O
, NN O O
1.20-4.14 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
infections NN O O
during NN O O
continuing NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
veno-occlusive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
representing NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
about NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
have NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
non-cirrhotic NN O I-OUT
portal NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
periportal NN O O
liver NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
or NN O O
nodular NN O O
regenerative NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6-thioguanine NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
excess NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
should NN O O
remain NN O O
the NN O O
thiopurine NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
continuing NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
lymphoblastic NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17047022)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Few NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
once-weekly NN O O
oral NN O O
bisphosphonate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
35 NN O O
mg NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
menopause 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
randomized NN O O
, 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
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
35 NN O O
mg/wk NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
N-telopeptide NN O I-OUT
cross-linked NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
N-terminal NN O I-OUT
propeptide NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
procollagen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone-specific NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
on NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

N-telopeptide NN O I-OUT
cross-linked NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
19.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
propeptide NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
procollagen NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
formation NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
26.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O O
on NN O O
active NN O O
therapy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Risedronate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
yr NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Risedronate NN O I-INT
once NN O O
weekly NN O O
prevented NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Early NN O O
measures NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17050770)

Classroom NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
illness-related NN O O
problem NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
growing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
physical NN O O
illness NN O O
and NN O O
problem NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Such NN O O
behavior NN O O
can NN O O
compromise NN O O
school NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, 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
evaluate NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
illness-related NN O O
problem NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
school NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
plus NN O O
medical NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
problem NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
completed NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
academic NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
intervention NN O O
alone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
setting NN O O
event NN O O
for NN O O
problem NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
algorithms NN O O
that NN O O
allow NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
select NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
specific NN O O
illnesses NN O O
and NN O O
contexts NN O O
is NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17051443)

The NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Toddlers NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCATA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
instrument NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
form NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Toddlers NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCATA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atypical NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
communicative NN O O
act NN O O
is NN O O
scored NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
form NN O O
, NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
role NN O O
and NN O O
complexity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SCATA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
communicative NN O O
ability NN O O
longitudinally NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
toddlers 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
Overall NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complexity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
child NN O O
took NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
did NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
toddlerhood NN O O
were NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
later NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
comments NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
predictive NN O O
association NN O O
than NN O O
requests NN O O
and NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17054808)

Endocrine NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cataract NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17064200)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O O
pharmacist NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hypertension NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
potential NN O O
threats NN O O
to NN O O
internal NN O O
and NN O O
external NN O O
study NN O O
validity NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
differential NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O I-PAR
pharmacist NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
identify NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
predispose NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
withdraw NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Network NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pharmacist NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
usual-care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pharmacist NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
collaboratively NN O I-INT
managed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacy NN O I-INT
specialist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
provider NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
provider NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
463 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
191 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
272 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59 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
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pharmacist NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
usual-care NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
insurance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
commercial NN O I-PAR
insurance NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
withdraw NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
insurance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
variable NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
heightened NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
between-group NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
balanced NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
internal NN O O
validity NN O O
was NN O O
preserved NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
reliably NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
exception NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
insurance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
external NN O I-PAR
validity NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
jeopardized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17069542)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
CX516 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
AMPA-modulating NN O I-INT
compound NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
fragile NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
4-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, 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
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ampakine NN O I-INT
compound NN O O
CX516 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
fragile NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FXS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
baseline NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FXS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
lead-in NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4-week NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12.5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CX516 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
subject NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention/executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CX516-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
many NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reproducible NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
test-retest NN O O
setting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
FXS NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
some NN O O
were NN O O
too NN O O
difficult NN O O
or NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FXS NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
valid NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
FXS NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Problems NN O O
with NN O O
potency NN O O
of NN O O
CX516 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
dosing NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
inadequate NN O O
for NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
it NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
AMPA-mediated NN O O
neurotransmission NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
FXS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1707337)

Evolution NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
and NN O O
myopathy NN O O
during NN O O
intensive NN O O
vincristine/corticosteroid NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
. NN O O

Neuropathy NN O O
and NN O O
myopathy NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
sequelae NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
contain NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
prospectively NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
and NN O O
myopathy NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
12-week NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
program NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-day NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
arbitrarily NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Cronassial NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
naturally NN O I-INT
occurring NN O I-INT
gangliosides NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
test NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
could NN O O
prevent NN O O
vincristine-induced NN O I-INT
neuropathy NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
weekly NN O O
or NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
prescribed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
neurologic NN O O
examinations NN O O
and NN O O
electrophysiologic NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nerve NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Weakness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
prominent NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myopathy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cronassial NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
( NN O O
IM NN O O
) NN O O
injection NN O O
daily NN O O
provided NN O O
no NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vincristine NN O I-INT
typically NN O O
impaired NN O O
fine-motor NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
initially NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
delayed NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
electrodiagnostic NN O O
studies NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
add NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
or NN O O
myopathy NN O O
appears NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
predictable NN O O
manner NN O O
during NN O O
intensive NN O O
vincristine/corticosteroid-based NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

Simple NN O O
clinical NN O O
tests NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
rapidly NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
toxic NN O O
effects NN O O
due NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
routine NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
tests NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
dose NN O O
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17073957)

Polydioxanone NN O I-INT
sternal NN O I-INT
sutures NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
sternal NN O O
dehiscence NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Sternal NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
troublesome NN O O
complications NN O O
following NN O O
median NN O O
sternotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Classic NN O O
sternal NN O O
approximation NN O O
with NN O O
stainless NN O O
steel NN O O
wires NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
ideal NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
predisposed NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
polydioxanone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
in NN O O
sternal NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
steel NN O O
wires NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
sternotomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PDS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
181 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
stainless NN O I-INT
steel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SS NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
185 NN O O
) NN O O
sternal NN O O
approximation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
aseptic NN O O
sternal NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
namely NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PDS NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SS NN O O
Group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
no NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PDS NN O O
Group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional NN O I-OUT
hazards NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
model NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
identified NN O O
female NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
insufficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
sternal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteoporosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corticosteroid NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
CPB NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
predisposing NN O O
factors NN O O
to NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
studied NN O O
sternal NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PDS NN O I-INT
suture NN O O
can NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
aseptic NN O I-OUT
sternal NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
sternotomy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
little NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
adoption NN O O
of NN O O
PDS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
other NN O O
subsets NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
obese NN O O
individuals NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
questioned NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17074147)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
senile NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
138 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
senile NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
complicating NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
senile NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

12.5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
release-controlling NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
orally NN O O
administrated NN O O
as NN O O
basic NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medication NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Besides NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
additionally NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
tablet NN O O
of NN O O
almitrine NN O I-INT
l/d NN O I-INT
and NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
oryzanol NN O I-INT
3/d NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
lasted NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
in NN O O
sitting NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
circadian NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
monitored NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABPM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
remarkably NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
with NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
ith NN O O
the NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
level NN O O
brt NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
tha NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
ere NN O O
alleviated NN O O
as NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HAMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
untoward NN O O
reactions NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perspiration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Antidepressant NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antianxiety NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
senile NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
and/or NN O O
anxiety NN O O
neurosis NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
antidepressants NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antianxiety NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
senile NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
complicating NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O O
or NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17076630)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
latanoprost NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
retinal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
choroidal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retrobulbar NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OAG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
OAG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
63.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
check NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fundus NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ocular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
confocal NN O O
scanning NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
flowmetry NN O O
, NN O O
color NN O O
Doppler NN O O
imaging NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
scanning NN O O
laser NN O O
ophthalmoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
therapies NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
lowering NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
13.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.5533 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0168 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lowered NN O O
resistance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0279 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Temporal NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
ciliary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0125 NN O O
and NN O O
0.0238 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Latanoprost NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of 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
differences NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
scanning NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
ophthalmoscopy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Heidelberg NN O I-OUT
Retinal NN O I-OUT
Flowmeter NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fixed NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorzolamide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
might NN O O
increase NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
OAG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
while NN O O
attaining NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
short-term NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17078451)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
psoriasis NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
yin NN O I-INT
xie NN O I-INT
ping NN O I-INT
granules NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-PAR
report NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17082978)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anger NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
described NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O O
behavioural NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
anger NN O O
management NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O I-INT
2-h NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
while NN O O
parents NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
parent NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Parent NN O O
reports NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
managing NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Qualitative NN O O
information NN O O
gathered NN O O
from NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
indicated NN O O
some NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
strategies NN O O
learned NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
setting NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
suggestions NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17083268)

The NN O O
protective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
blockade NN O O
with NN O O
olmesartan NN O I-INT
medoxomil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessel NN O O
remodeling NN O O
( NN O O
The NN O O
VIOS NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
VIOS NN O O
( NN O O
Vascular NN O O
Improvement NN O O
with NN O O
Olmesartan NN O I-INT
medoxomil NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
suppressing NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
olmesartan NN O I-INT
medoxomil NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
suppressing NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
drive NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
remodeling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
small NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessel NN O O
. NN O O

Remodeling NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
earliest NN O O
pathologic NN O O
finding NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
predate NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
apparent NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
characterized NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obtain NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
goal NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
140/90 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
Joint NN O O
National NN O O
Committee NN O O
( NN O O
JNC NN O O
) NN O O
-7 NN O O
. NN O O

Resistance NN O O
vessel NN O O
remodeling NN O O
is NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
gluteal NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
normotensive NN O O
healthy NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
efforts NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
whether NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
biologic NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
predict NN O O
and NN O O
track NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
morphologic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiologic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
regimen NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
percutaneous NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gluteal NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
pertinent NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAS NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
blockade NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
AT NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
receptors NN O O
may NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
remodeling NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ubiquitous NN O O
small NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
myocardium NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
glomeruli NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
affording NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O O
end-organ NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17089419)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
caregiving NN O O
experiences NN O O
in NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bulimia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
caregiving NN O I-INT
experience NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
carers NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
adolescents NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
Bulimia NN O I-PAR
Nervosa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/Eating 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
EDNOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
aiming NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
: NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
MH NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
carers NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
caregiving NN O O
predicts NN O O
carer NN O O
MH NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
which NN O O
factors NN O O
predict NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
caregiving NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BN/EDNOS NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
self-report NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
General NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Experience NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Caregiving NN O I-INT
Inventory NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Expressed NN O I-INT
Emotion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Self-report NN O I-INT
Family NN O I-INT
Inventory NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Inventory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Interpersonal NN O I-INT
Problems NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Over NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carers NN O O
reported NN O O
some NN O O
MH NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
experiencing NN O O
considerable NN O O
difficulties NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caregiving NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
carer NN O O
MH NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
expressed NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
caregiving NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Interventions NN O I-INT
focusing NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
reducing NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
prove NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
caregiver NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17093162)

Folate NN O O
and NN O O
arsenic NN O O
metabolism NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid-supplementation NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Populations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
Asia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
many NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
world NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
arsenic-contaminated NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
various NN O O
degrees NN O O
, NN O O
ingested NN O O
inorganic NN O O
arsenic NN O O
( NN O O
InAs NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
methylated NN O O
to NN O O
monomethylarsonic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
MMA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
dimethylarsinic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
DMA NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
folate-dependent NN O O
one-carbon NN O O
metabolism NN O O
; NN O O
impaired NN O O
methylation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
folate NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
arsenic NN O I-OUT
methylation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
arsenic-exposed NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
increase NN O O
arsenic NN O O
methylation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
/=9 NN O I-PAR
nmol/L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid-supplementation NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arsenic NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
microg/d NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
arsenic NN O I-OUT
excreted NN O O
as NN O O
DMA NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
arsenic NN O I-OUT
excreted NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
MMA NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
InAs NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
enhances NN O O
arsenic NN O O
methylation NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
persons NN O O
whose NN O O
urine NN O O
contains NN O O
low NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
DMA NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
MMA NN O O
and NN O O
InAs NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
and NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancers NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
vascular NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
arsenic-related NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17097398)

Topical NN O I-INT
retapamulin NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
wt/wt NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
versus NN O O
oral NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
secondarily NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results 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
New NN O O
antibacterial NN O O
agents NN O O
with NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
strains NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
established NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
secondarily NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SID NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
retapamulin NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
oral NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
SID NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SID NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
retapamulin NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
[ NN O O
bid NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
cephalexin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
microbiologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Retapamulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
: NN O O
85.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
89.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Microbiologic NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
87.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
retapamulin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
91.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Retapamulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
formulation NN O O
was NN O O
preferred NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LIMITATIONS NN O O
An NN O O
imbalance NN O O
existed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
retapamulin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2 NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
visits NN O O
( NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
withdraw NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
drug-related NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
removed NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
89.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
retapamulin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
89.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Retapamulin NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
oral NN O O
cephalexin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SID NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1710660)

New NN O O
hope NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Kawasaki NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Kawasaki NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
acquired NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
America NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
febrile NN O O
illness NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
formation NN O O
in NN O O
infected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVGG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
coronary NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
formation NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
aneurysm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
-30 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
IVGG NN O I-INT
presents NN O O
some NN O O
unique NN O O
challenges NN O O
for NN O O
nurses NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pediatric NN O O
nurse NN O O
must NN O O
educate NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
about NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
to NN O O
prepare NN O O
them NN O O
for NN O O
discharge NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17113685)

B-vitamins NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
beta NN O O
amyloid NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
plasma NN O O
homocysteine NN O O
( NN O O
tHcy NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
AD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
B NN O I-INT
vitamins NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
AD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
tHcy NN O O
lowering NN O O
vitamins NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
A-beta NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
1-40 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
299 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
2mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
25mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
B12 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S.E NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.0 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
8.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26.8 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
18.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
B NN O O
vitamins NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
AD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17123125)

Parent NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multi-site NN O O
acute NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O O
validity NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RATIONALE NN O O
Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
view NN O O
experimental NN O O
procedures NN O O
as NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
comply NN O O
with NN O O
study NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Designing NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
consumer NN O O
's NN O O
perspective NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
forge NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
alliance NN O O
between NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
researchers NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Participant NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
is NN O O
seldom NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
parent NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-site NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
elicit NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
perceptions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
appropriateness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
acceptability NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Ninety-six NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
95.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
80.0 NN O O
to NN O O
96.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
research NN O O
participation NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
or NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
90.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
definitely NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
families NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
92.7 NN O O
% NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
rejoin NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
do NN O O
it NN O O
all NN O O
over NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O

Ethnic NN O O
minority NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O O
than NN O O
white NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
learning NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Parents NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
satisfied NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supportive NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
their NN O O
views NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
sort NN O O
are NN O O
encouraged NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17126434)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
on NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
conserving NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
EORTC NN O O
trial NN O O
22881-10882 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
boost NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
after NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
conservative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
policy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
EORTC NN O I-PAR
22881-10882 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
77.4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
BCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50Gy NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
boost NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
16Gy NN O I-INT
boost NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=5318 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
boost NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
boost NN O I-INT
on NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
depends NN O O
on NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
However NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
threshold-age NN O O
for NN O O
boost NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
8.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
would NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
boost NN O I-INT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
5-year NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Changing NN O O
the NN O O
threshold-age NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
boost NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
boost NN O O
dose NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
absolute NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
however NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
ages NN O O
. NN O O

Applying NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
policy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
threshold-age NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
sparing NN O O
the NN O O
boost NN O O
to NN O O
1/3 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1712835)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
osteolysis NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
. NN O O

Progressive NN O O
bone NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
frequently NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
osteolysis NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
, NN O O
pathologic NN O O
fractures NN O O
, NN O O
vertebral NN O O
compression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypercalcemia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
173 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
etidronate NN O I-PAR
disodium NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EHDP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diphosphonate NN O I-PAR
compound NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
resorption NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
inhibiting NN O I-PAR
osteoclastic NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
EHDP NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/d NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
until NN O O
death NN O O
or NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
intolerance NN O O
or NN O O
refusal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
vertebral NN O O
deformity NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
vertebral NN O O
index NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
height NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypercalcemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
regularly NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
osteolytic NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
melphalan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypercalcemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
EHDP NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
less NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
vertebral NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
only NN O O
approached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
EHDP NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
dosage NN O O
schedule NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17133499)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Lessons NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
HALT-C NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IFN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-based NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
virologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
retreatment NN O O
with NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
score NN O O
( NN O O
Ishak NN O O
staging NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
1,046 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
Antiviral NN O I-PAR
Long-term NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
Cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HALT-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IFN NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
peginterferon NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
RBV NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Ishak NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
increasingly NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
bridging NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
( NN O O
Ishak NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
platelet NN O O
counts NN O O
> NN O O
125,000/mm3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
559 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
bridging NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
with NN O O
platelet NN O O
counts NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=125,000/mm3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
96 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
( NN O O
Ishak NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
platelet NN O O
counts NN O O
> NN O O
125,000/mm3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
198 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
with NN O O
platelet NN O O
counts NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=125,000/mm3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
193 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SVR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
increasingly NN O O
severe NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
percent NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
, NN O O
HCV NN O O
genotype NN O O
, NN O O
HCV NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
lowered NN O O
SVR NN O I-OUT
frequencies NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
cirrhosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
determinant NN O O
that NN O O
impaired NN O O
virologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
or NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
independent NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
New NN O O
strategies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
antiviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
difficult-to-cure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17140502)

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Antenatal NN O I-INT
Psychosocial NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALPHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
postpartum NN O O
depression NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Eliciting NN O O
known NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PPD NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
may NN O O
enable NN O O
primary NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
women NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
becoming NN O O
depressed 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
how NN O O
well NN O O
the NN O O
Antenatal NN O I-INT
Psychosocial NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALPHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
form NN O O
identified NN O O
antenatal NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
PPD NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS 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
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ALPHA NN O I-OUT
form NN O O
in NN O O
detecting NN O O
antenatal NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
postpartum NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intimate NN O I-OUT
partner NN O I-OUT
violence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
couple NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
antenatal NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
obstetricians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
midwives NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
diverse NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ontario NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
providers NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ALPHA NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
227 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ALPHA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
data NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
are NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
PPD NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Providers NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ALPHA NN O O
group NN O O
identified NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
antenatal NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
woman 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
mean NN O O
2.1 NN O O
vs.1.8 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
-1.96 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Providers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ALPHA NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
identified NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
women NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
= NN O O
5.243 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
witnessed NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
= NN O O
12.488 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
established NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
PPD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
ALPHA NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
eliciting NN O O
antenatal NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
PPD NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
raising NN O O
and NN O O
discussing NN O O
sensitive NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
remains NN O O
problematic NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
detection NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
standardized NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
during NN O O
routine NN O O
antenatal NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17149529)

Further NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alcohol NN O O
dependence NN O O
scale NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
Alcohol NN O I-INT
Dependence NN O I-INT
Scale NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ADS NN O O
) NN O O
yields NN O O
continuous NN O O
scores NN O O
purported NN O O
to NN O O
reflect NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dependence NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ADS NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
subscales NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
Statistical NN O O
Manual NN O O
of NN O O
Mental NN O O
Disorders NN O O
, NN O O
Fourth NN O O
Edition NN O O
( NN O O
DSM-IV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
physiological NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Treatment-seeking NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
alcohol-dependent NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Combining NN O I-PAR
Pharmacotherapies NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Behavioral NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Alcohol NN O I-PAR
Dependence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COMBINE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,372 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
ADS NN O O
, NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
interviews NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
before NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
tested NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
ADS NN O I-OUT
quartiles NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
alcohol- NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Areas NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
receiver NN O O
operating NN O O
characteristic NN O O
( NN O O
AUROC NN O O
) NN O O
curve NN O O
assessed NN O O
screening NN O O
accuracy NN O O
for NN O O
DSM-IV NN O O
physiological NN O O
dependence NN O O
( NN O O
tolerance NN O O
or NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ADS NN O O
quartiles NN O O
differed NN O O
on NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
episodes NN O O
. NN O O

Linear NN O O
correlation NN O O
showed NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
magnitude NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
alcohol-related NN O O
self-report NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

ADS NN O O
quartiles NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
AUROC NN O O
curves NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ADS NN O O
had NN O O
limited NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
measure NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
DSMIV NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AUROC NN O O
= NN O O
.75 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
.70-.79 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
.67 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
.60-.74 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.08 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
AUROC NN O O
= NN O O
.77 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
.74-.80 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
.74 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
.69-.79 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Screening NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparably NN O O
limited NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
ADS NN O O
subscales NN O O
reflecting NN O O
psychoperceptual NN O O
or NN O O
psychophysical NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
ADS NN O O
reflected NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
adequately NN O O
identify NN O O
physiological NN O O
dependence NN O O
or NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
in NN O O
treatment-seeking NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17149715)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
zonisamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
zonegran NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
essential NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
movement NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
inadequate NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zonisamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZNS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
antiepileptic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
ET NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ET NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ZNS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ZNS NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
initiated NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
escalated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Fahn-Tolosa-Marin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FTM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
days NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ZNS NN O I-INT
were NN O O
taking NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
160 NN O O
+/- NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FTM NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
subsections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tremor NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZNS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
endpoint NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
-0.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.72 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.79 NN O O
m/s NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
CGI-C NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ZNS NN O O
group NN O O
felt NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O O
felt NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
minimally NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
ZNS NN O O
discontinued NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
paresthesias NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
taking NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

ZNS NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
study NN O O
endpoint NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
modestly NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ZNS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
tremor NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
accelerometry NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1715416)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
PVB NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
VAB-6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
BVP NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
PEB NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
testicular NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

During NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
June NN O O
, NN O O
1985 NN O O
to NN O O
December NN O O
, NN O O
1987 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multi-center NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
PVB NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
VAB-6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
BVP NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
PEB NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatinum NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
testicular NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIIO NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IIIB2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIIC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seminomas NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
non-seminomatous NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
clinicopathological NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
either NN O O
PVB NN O O
, NN O O
VAB-6 NN O O
or NN O O
BVP NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
discretion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
achieved NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
calculated NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
stage NN O O
or NN O O
histologic NN O O
grouping NN O O
. NN O O

Salvage NN O O
treatments NN O O
mainly NN O O
with NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
tumors NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
appears NN O O
likely NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
extensive NN O O
disease NN O O
made NN O O
the NN O O
salvage NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
more NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
PEB NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
one NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
testicular NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17156222)

Midazolam NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
hysteroscopy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
urological NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ureteroscopy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
1-2 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
sevoflurane NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lungs NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
mask NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Midazolam NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
ondansetron NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The 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
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
predicted NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
underlying NN O I-PAR
risks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.018 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
ondansetron NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.017 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O O
using NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anti-emetic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
benefit NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17156651)

[ NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
extended-release NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
modification NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
niacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
niacin NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
modification NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
equivalents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
equivalents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3.5 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
niacin NN O I-INT
ER NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
initiating NN O O
from NN O O
500 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serums NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
niacin NN O O
ER NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
both 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
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
atorvastatin NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
niacin NN O O
ER NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
achieving NN O O
the NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
goal NN O O
of NN O O
The NN O O
National NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
Education NN O O
Program NN O O
( NN O O
NCEP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Adult NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Panel NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
ATP NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
73.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
and NN O O
niacin NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
47.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
42.1 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
Adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
flushing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
niacin NN O O
ER NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Niacin NN O O
ER NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
modulating NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elevating NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Combined NN O O
statin NN O O
with NN O O
niacin NN O O
may NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17164971)

Assisted NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bone NN O O
strength NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
brief NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
passive NN O O
range-of-motion NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
birth NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
VLBW NN O O
) NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
is NN O O
yet NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
assisted NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
VLBW NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
error NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
1,009 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
27.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
involved NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
range-of-motion NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
extremities NN O O
. NN O O

Biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
weekly NN O O
by NN O O
quantitative NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
tibial NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sound NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SOS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
SOS NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-108.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
33.7 NN O O
m/second NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
remaining NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.8 NN O O
m/second NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
postnatal NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
SOS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
VLBW NN O O
preterm NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
assisted NN O O
range-of-motion NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
osteopenia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premature NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17165495)

[ NN O O
Observation NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
picking NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
Graves NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
picking NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
Graves NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
thyroid NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
GD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pricking NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
respectively NN O O
with NN O O
pricking NN O I-INT
thyroid NN O I-INT
gland NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tapazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
And NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
triiodothyronine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TT3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
thyroxine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TT4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
T3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FT3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FT4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thyroxine NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRAb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
supersensitive NN O I-OUT
thyrotropin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S-TSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O O
effective NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
93.33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
76.67 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
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

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
TT3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TT4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FT3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FT4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
S-TSH NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
very NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TRAb NN O O
had NN O O
very NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
TT3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FT3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TRAb NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
TT4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FT4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
S-TSH NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Pricking NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
definite NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
Graves NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
through NN O O
regulating NN O O
thyroid NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17171539)

Treating NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
family-based NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
behavioural NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
High NN O I-PAR
Functioning NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-INT
involved NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
examined NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
child- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
parent- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teacher-report NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
participants NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
fulfilled NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
anxiety NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
conditions NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Discussion NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
behaviour NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
HFA NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
for NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17174704)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
highly NN O O
active NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
non-nucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
as NN O O
initial NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
CPCRA NN O O
058 NN O O
FIRST NN O O
Study NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Long-term NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
randomised NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
non-nucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NNRTI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
lacking NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
FIRST NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
compared NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
immunological NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
virological NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1397 NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral-treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
protease NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
nucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
NRTI NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n=470 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
non-nucleoside NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
transcriptase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NNRTI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NNRTI NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
NRTI NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n=463 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
three-class NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
NNRTI NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
NRTI NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n=464 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
AIDS-defining NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
200 NN O O
cells NN O O
per NN O O
mm3 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
PI NN O O
versus NN O O
NNRTI NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
average NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
32 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three-class NN O O
versus NN O O
combined NN O O
two-class NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00000922 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
1397 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-PAR
endpoint NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
388 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
302 NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
188 NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
NNRTI NN O O
versus NN O O
PI NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.02 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.79-1.31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.07 NN O O
( NN O O
0.80-1.41 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.95 NN O O
( NN O O
0.66-1.37 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.66 NN O O
( NN O O
0.56-0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

1196 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three-class NN O O
versus NN O O
combined NN O O
two-class NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
32 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
+234 NN O O
cells NN O O
per NN O O
mm3 NN O O
and NN O O
+227 NN O O
cells NN O O
per NN O O
mm3 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three-class NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
two-class NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

HRs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
three-class NN O O
vs NN O O
combined NN O O
two-class NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.15 NN O O
( NN O O
0.91-1.45 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.87 NN O O
( NN O O
0.75-1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

HRs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
three-class NN O O
vs NN O O
combined NN O O
two-class NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
CD4 NN O O
cell NN O O
counts NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
cells NN O O
per NN O O
mm3 NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
200 NN O O
cells NN O O
per NN O O
mm3 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.38 NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
HIV NN O O
RNA NN O O
concentrations NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
000 NN O O
copies NN O O
per NN O O
mL NN O O
and NN O O
100,000 NN O O
copies NN O O
per NN O O
mL NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.26 NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
the NN O O
three-class NN O O
strategy NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
two-class NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.58 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
NNRTI-based NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
PI-based NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
both NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17175376)

No NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
dinucleotide NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
polymorphism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intron NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
epidermal NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
EGFR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
tyrosine NN O O
kinase NN O O
receptor NN O O
EGFR NN O O
pathway NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oncogenic NN O O
signaling NN O O
cascades NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
mediating NN O O
the NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
gene NN O O
EGFR NN O O
. NN O O

First-intron NN O I-INT
polymorphisms NN O I-INT
with NN O O
greater NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
CA NN O O
dinucleotide NN O O
repeats NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
downregulate NN O O
EGFR NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
polymorphism NN O I-INT
may NN O O
modulate NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
hospital-based NN O I-INT
case-control NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CA NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
polymorphism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EGFR NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Korean NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
bimodal NN O O
pattern NN O O
appeared NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
57.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
CA NN O O
repeats NN O O
and NN O O
18.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
CA NN O O
repeats NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
distribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allele NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
among NN O O
histological NN O O
types NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17178532)

Dietary NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
tantrums NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
often NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
quantitative NN O O
Food NN O I-OUT
Frequency NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
prospectively NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
behaviours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
macronutrients NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitamins NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minerals NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O O
Dietary NN O O
Reference NN O O
Intakes NN O O
( NN O O
DRIs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
substantial NN O O
inter-participant NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
deficiencies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
DRI NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
participants NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pantothenic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
FFQs NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
K NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to 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
. NN O O

An NN O O
additional NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
reported NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
pilot NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17178774)

The NN O O
additional NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
eccentric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
midportion NN O I-PAR
Achilles NN O I-PAR
tendinopathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
is NN O O
of NN O O
added NN O O
benefit NN O O
on NN O O
functional NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
midportion NN O I-PAR
Achilles NN O I-PAR
tendinopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
set NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Sports NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Hague NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
18-70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sports NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tendon NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
localised NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2-7 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
insertion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
insertional NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
ruptures NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
tendons NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
eccentric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
( NN O O
night NN O O
splint NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
eccentric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O O
eccentric NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
heavy-load NN O I-INT
eccentric NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
eccentric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Victorian NN O I-OUT
Institute NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Sport NN O I-OUT
Assessment-Achilles NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VISA-A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trained NN O O
researcher NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
eccentric NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VISA-A NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eccentric NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
50.1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
68.8 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
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O I-PAR
splint NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
49.4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
67.0 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
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
VISA-A NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.815 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.261 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
night NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
eccentric NN O O
exercises NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
midportion NN O O
Achilles NN O O
tendinopathy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17179873)

Depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Psychosocial NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
offered NN O O
routinely NN O O
to NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
telephone-delivered NN O I-INT
psychosocial NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
decrease NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
three-wave NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
between-subjects NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-six NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
6-week NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
interpersonal NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TIP-C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
self-managed NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mixed-model NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
for NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
revealed NN O O
women NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TIP-C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
parallel NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
analyses NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
partners NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
partners NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O O
substantially NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TIP-C NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
telephone-delivered NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
AC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17194950)

Music NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
colposcopy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
music NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
colposcopy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
music NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
after NN O O
completing NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
postprocedure NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Study NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=170 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
28.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD=9.6 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
18-60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
formed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
racially NN O I-PAR
diverse NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Education/income NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
postprocedure NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mind-body NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
reported NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
anticipated NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
pain NN O O
or NN O O
started NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17198705)

Principal NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
follicular-fluid NN O I-INT
meiosis-activating NN O I-INT
sterol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
maturation NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
cumulus-enclosed NN O O
oocytes NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
applying NN O O
follicular-fluid NN O I-INT
meiosis-activating NN O I-INT
sterol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FF-MAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
to NN O O
immature NN O O
human NN O O
oocytes NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
bicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
partially NN O O
blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Third-level NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
including NN O O
reproductive NN O O
biology NN O O
and NN O O
genetics NN O O
laboratories NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Endocrinologically NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
intracytoplasmic NN O I-PAR
sperm NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
into NN O O
either NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
GnRH-agonist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
oocyte NN O I-INT
retrieval NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
minimally NN O I-INT
stimulated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vitro NN O I-INT
maturation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Retrieved NN O O
immature NN O O
oocyte NN O O
cumulus NN O O
complexes NN O O
were NN O O
cultured NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
or NN O O
36 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
IVM NN O I-INT
culture NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
FF-MAS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0.1-20 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Polar NN O O
body-extruded NN O O
oocytes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
IVO NN O O
and NN O O
IVM NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
processed NN O O
for NN O O
chromosomal NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metaphase NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
chromosomal NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
full NN O O
( NN O O
spectral NN O O
karyotyping NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
partial NN O O
( NN O O
fluorescent NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
hybridization NN O O
with NN O O
seven NN O O
probes NN O O
) NN O O
karyotyping NN O O
or NN O O
Giemsa NN O O
count NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metaphase NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
IVM NN O O
with NN O O
FF-MAS NN O O
supplements NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Oocyte NN O O
cumulus NN O O
complexes NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
IVO NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IVM NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
6.2 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
equal NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
IVO NN O O
, NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
germinal-vesicle NN O O
oocytes NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maturation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
hours NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
aneuploidy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
exposure NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
hours NN O O
doubled NN O O
the NN O O
aneuploidy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
20-muM NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
FF-MAS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
1-10 NN O O
microM NN O I-INT
FF-MAS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
30-hour NN O O
IVM NN O O
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17201277)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
mexicor NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thrombocyte NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
viscosity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
analyze NN O O
their NN O O
experience NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
mexicor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Russian NN O I-INT
cytoprotector NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
50patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
additional NN O O
to NN O O
cytoprotective NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
mexidor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
complex NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
CAD NN O O
lowers NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
eliminates NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
viscosity NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
lowers NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
favorable NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
hemorheological NN O O
parameters NN O O
improves NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lowers NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
retards NN O O
postinfarction NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
forms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17201540)

Unpacking NN O O
attitude NN O I-PAR
certainty NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
attitude NN O O
clarity NN O O
and NN O O
attitude NN O O
correctness NN O O
. NN O O

Attitude NN O I-PAR
certainty NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
considerable NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
attitudes NN O O
and NN O O
persuasion NN O O
literature NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
research NN O O
identifies NN O O
2 NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
attitude NN O I-PAR
certainty NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
distinctness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
constructs NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
attitude NN O O
certainty NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
conceptualized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
empirically NN O O
separated NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
attitude NN O O
clarity NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
sense NN O O
that NN O O
one NN O O
knows NN O O
what NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
attitude NN O O
is NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
attitude NN O O
correctness NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
sense NN O O
that NN O O
one NN O O
's NN O O
attitude NN O O
is NN O O
correct NN O O
or NN O O
valid NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
uses NN O O
factor NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
correlational NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
viewing NN O O
attitude NN O I-OUT
clarity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
attitude NN O I-OUT
correctness NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
separate NN O O
constructs NN O O
. NN O O

Experiments NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
attitude NN O I-OUT
clarity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attitude NN O I-OUT
correctness NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
have NN O I-OUT
distinct NN O I-OUT
antecedents NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consensus NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Experiment NN O O
4 NN O O
reveals NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
constructs NN O O
each NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
persuasion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
situations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
clarity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
correctness NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
become NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
counterattitudinal NN O O
persuasive NN O O
messages NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O I-PAR
attitude NN O I-PAR
strength NN O I-PAR
literature NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17207470)

Relationship NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
to NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
describe NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normative NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
GI NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
diaries NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
a NN O O
registered NN O O
pediatric NN O O
dietician NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
to NN O O
RDA NN O O
standards NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
calories NN O O
, NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
descriptors NN O O
of NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
using NN O O
cumulative NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Intake NN O O
of NN O O
calories NN O O
, NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
range NN O O
; NN O O
protein NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
211 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
RDA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reported NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
bulky NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
loose NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
reported NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
causes NN O O
. NN O O

Intake NN O O
was NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
calories NN O O
and NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
for NN O O
protein NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
exhibit NN O O
excessive NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
nutrient NN O O
intake NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
stool NN O O
consistency NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17208334)

Two NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrate 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
dapsone NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
new NN O O
aqueous NN O O
gel NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
dapsone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
that NN O O
allows NN O O
clinically-effective NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
dapsone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
topically NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
systemic NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dapsone NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3010 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
identically-designed NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dapsone NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Dapsone NN O I-INT
gel-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
superior NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
assessment 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
the NN O O
mean NN O O
percentage NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
noninflammatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
favoring NN O O
dapsone NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
over NN O O
vehicle NN O O
were NN O O
apparent NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
by NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
among NN O O
glucose-6-phosphate NN O O
dehydrogenase-deficient NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
rarely NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Adjunctive NN O O
topical NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
acne NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Dapsone NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
vulgaris NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1722167)

5 NN O O
alpha-metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
finasteride-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
pseudohermaphrodites NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inherited NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
alpha-reductase NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

Male NN O I-PAR
pseudohermaphrodites NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MPHs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inherited NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
alpha-reductase NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
dihydrotestosterone NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
defect NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
alpha-metabolism NN O O
affecting NN O O
both NN O O
C19 NN O O
androgen NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
C21 NN O O
steroid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decreased NN O O
5 NN O O
alpha-reduction NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O O
to NN O O
dihydrotestosterone NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
impaired NN O O
steroid NN O O
conversion NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
clinical NN O O
consequences NN O O
, NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
ambiguous NN O I-OUT
genitalia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-OUT
alpha-steroid NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MPHs NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
varying NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
alpha-reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Finasteride NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
C19 NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C21 NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
alpha-steroid NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
affecting NN O O
both NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
alpha-metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
5 NN O O
alpha-steroid NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
strikingly NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
MPHs NN O O
with NN O O
inherited NN O O
5 NN O O
alpha-reductase NN O O
deficiency NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O O
alpha-reductase NN O O
gene NN O O
codes NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
enzyme NN O O
with NN O O
affinity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
substrates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17224353)

Dynamic NN O O
surface NN O I-OUT
electromyographic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
by NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
electromyographic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
back NN O O
muscles NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
surface NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
two NN O O
subgroups NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
dynamic NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
stand NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
bend NN O O
forward NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
stay NN O O
fully NN O O
flexed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
standing NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
flexion-relaxation NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
flexing NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
EMG NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
full NN O O
flexion NN O O
. NN O O

Concentric NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eccentric NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
concentric NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
statistically NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
experienced NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
EMG NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
back NN O O
muscle NN O O
function NN O O
by NN O O
improving NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
symmetry NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
flexion-relaxation NN O I-OUT
phenomenon NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Active NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
together NN O O
with NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
treatments NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
function NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17241298)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
7-day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
14-day NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor-containing NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
neither NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
provides NN O O
acceptable NN O O
eradication NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
Korea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Although NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
a NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
is NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
anti-Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
debates NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ideal NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacies NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
7-day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
14-day NN O I-INT
PPI-containing NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-INT
gastrointestinal NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
PAC7 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
PPIs NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
PAC14 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PAC7 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
13 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
test NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
anti-ulcer NN O O
treatment NN O O
completion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
598 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
337 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PAC7 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
261 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PAC14 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two 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
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eradication NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PAC7 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PAC14 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
71.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
75.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
83.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
86.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Incidences NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
7-day NN O I-INT
PPI-containing NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
anti-H. NN O I-INT
pylori NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
14-day NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
provides NN O O
acceptable NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
reaching NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

New NN O O
combination NN O O
regimen NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
efficacy NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
eradication NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Korea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17244100)

Can NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
racial/ethnic NN O O
disparities NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O O
pain NN O O
control NN O O
? NN O O
Secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Minority NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
worse NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O O
than NN O O
do NN O O
their NN O O
white NN O O
counterparts NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
disparity NN O O
may NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
reflect NN O O
more NN O O
miscommunication NN O O
between NN O O
minority NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
their NN O O
physicians NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
disparities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-seven NN O I-PAR
English-speaking NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
minorities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
34 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
33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Experimental NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
20-minute NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
knowledge NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
self-management NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
redress NN O I-INT
personal NN O I-INT
misconceptions NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
rehearse NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
individually NN O I-INT
scripted NN O I-INT
patient-physician NN O I-INT
dialog NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
controlling NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0-10 NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
2-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
enrollment NN O O
, NN O O
minority NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
their NN O O
white NN O O
counterparts NN O O
( NN O O
6.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
minorities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.7 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
disparities NN O O
were NN O O
eliminated NN O O
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
disparities NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patient NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
racial/ethnic NN O I-OUT
disparities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Larger NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
validate NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
possible NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17252578)

Does NN O O
ambient NN O O
light NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
photodynamic NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
PDT NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
aminolevulinic NN O O
acid NN O O
HCl NN O O
( NN O O
ALA NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (1725537)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
silent NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

Silent NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
finding NN O O
when NN O O
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
is NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Silent NN O O
ischemia NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
worse NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
or NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
survivors NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
populations NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
coronary NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
silent NN O O
ischemia NN O O
improves NN O O
prognosis NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Holter NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
long-acting NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
5.6 NN O O
to NN O O
2.8 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
smaller NN O O
studies NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
reduces NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
are NN O O
conflicting NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
showing NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
reliably NN O O
reduce NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
silent NN O O
ischemia NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
clarified NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
upon NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
are NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17259154)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ulinastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
oesophagectomy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ulinastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
UTI NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
oesophagectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
oesophagectomy NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
UTI NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anesthesia NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
and NN O O
perioperative NN O O
management NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
protocols 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
in NN O O
UTI NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O I-INT
5000 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
UTI NN O I-INT
while NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
operation NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
two-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
jugular NN O O
vein NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
was NN O O
separated NN O O
and NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
-70 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
later NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
with NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
ELISA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bronchoalveoar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BAFL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
detection NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BALF NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-T NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
inplasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BALF NN O I-OUT
samples NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
UTI NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-T NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Inflammatory NN O O
responses NN O O
occur NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
oesophagectomy NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
inhibited NN O O
with NN O O
UTI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17276748)

Developmental NN O O
disabilities NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Global NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Scale NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aim NN O O
to NN O O
alleviate NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
measure NN O O
global NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Global NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Scale NN O O
was NN O O
modified NN O O
and NN O O
psychometric NN O I-INT
properties NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
revised NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DD-CGAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Developmental NN O O
disabilities-relevant NN O O
descriptors NN O O
were NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
DD-CGAS NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
administration NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
rater NN O O
consistency NN O O
. NN O O

Ratings NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
case NN O O
vignettes NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
inter-rater NN O O
reliability NN O O
and NN O O
temporal NN O O
stability NN O O
. NN O O

Validity NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
correlating NN O O
the NN O O
DD-CGAS NN O O
with NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
youngsters NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
with NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist-Irritability NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impressions-Improvement NN O O
subscale NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Inter-rater NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
intraclass NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ICC NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.79 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
ICC NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.86 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
excellent NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
DD-CGAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
DD-CGAS NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-.71 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Scale-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-.52 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
pre-post NN O I-OUT
DD-CGAS NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
.72 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
DD-CGAS NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
instrument NN O O
with NN O O
apparent NN O O
convergent NN O O
validity NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
global NN O O
functioning NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17276750)

Positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inattention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
elsewhere NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
about NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
hyperactive-inattentive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
present NN O O
secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
scope NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
symptoms NN O O
that NN O O
define NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
oppositional NN O O
defiant NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ODD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptom NN O O
domain NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
7.5 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
varying NN O O
sequences NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Methylphenidate NN O O
doses NN O O
used NN O O
approximated NN O O
.125 NN O O
, NN O O
.25 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
half-dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
afternoon NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Swanson NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Nolan NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Pelham NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
revised NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ODD NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PDD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
evident NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
.25- NN O O
and NN O O
.5-mg/kg NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impulsivity NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
inattention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
ODD NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Convergent NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
different NN O O
assessments NN O O
and NN O O
raters NN O O
confirms NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggested NN O O
significant NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17276969)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thermogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
immersion NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
. NN O O

Glucose NN O O
utilization NN O O
studies NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
sibutramine-induced NN O I-INT
thermogenesis NN O O
is NN O O
mediated NN O O
via NN O O
selective NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
brown NN O O
adipose NN O O
tissue 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
was NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
method NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
resting NN O O
metabolic NN O O
rate NN O O
is NN O O
enhanced NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
thermogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
groups-the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
12-wk NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
thermogenic NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-OUT
immersion NN O I-OUT
calorimetry NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
31.5+/-2.05 NN O O
kg/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
30.4+/-2.94 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
( NN O O
P=.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
33.5+/-4.1 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
30.9+/-4.8 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 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
the NN O O
sibutramine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
thermogenic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
1.27+/-0.29 NN O O
kcal/kg/h NN O O
to NN O O
1.44+/-0.13 NN O O
kcal/kg/h NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
1.56+/-0.27 NN O O
kcal/kg/h NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
changed NN O O
to NN O O
1.33+/-0.36 NN O O
kcal/kg/h NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
sibutramine NN O O
treatment NN O O
promotes NN O O
thermogenesis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
facilitating NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Calorimetry NN O O
enhances NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
heat NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17280773)

Desmopressin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nocturia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nocturia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=18 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nocturia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=2 NN O I-PAR
voids/night NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
3-wk NN O O
dose-titration NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
should NN O O
show NN O O
sufficient NN O O
response NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dose-titration NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=20 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
diuresis NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
return NN O O
of NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
diuresis NN O O
to NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
washout NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
then NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
3-wk NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
127 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=61 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
desmopressin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
voids NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
voids NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
with NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
absolute NN O O
difference NN O O
-0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
prolonged NN O O
by NN O O
108 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
41 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
parameters NN O O
evaluated NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mainly NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
desmopressin NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
nocturia NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
sleep NN O O
period NN O O
is NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17286730)

The NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
community NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
report NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
qualitative NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
views NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
consider NN O O
how NN O O
far NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
accord NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
staffs NN O O
' NN O O
views NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
constituted NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
wider 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
. NN O O

The NN O O
methodological NN O O
challenges NN O O
in NN O O
seeking NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
linking NN O O
qualitative NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
trial NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
RCT NN O I-PAR
joined NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
qualitative NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Official NN O O
documentation NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
were NN O O
accessed NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
staff NN O O
interviewed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
assumptions NN O O
underlying NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
interviews NN O I-INT
identified NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
picture NN O O
concerning NN O O
expectations NN O O
These NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
ideal NN O O
, NN O O
realistic NN O O
, NN O O
normative NN O O
and NN O O
unformed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hospital NN O O
philosophy NN O O
and NN O O
staff NN O I-OUT
views NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
service NN O O
delivery NN O O
were NN O O
closely NN O O
in NN O O
harmony NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
delivered NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
atmosphere NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
formal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
'hard NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
understood NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
primarily NN O O
concerned NN O O
with NN O O
'soft NN O O
' NN O O
or NN O O
process NN O O
issues NN O O
-- NN O O
where NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
care NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
identify NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
community NN O O
hospital NN O O
care NN O O
that NN O O
incorporates NN O O
technical NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
approach NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
welcomed NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
If NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
making NN O O
informed NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
staff NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
clearly NN O O
explained NN O O
. NN O O

Recommendations NN O O
are NN O O
made NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
scope NN O O
of NN O O
qualitative NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
about NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
views NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
where NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
expressing NN O O
critical NN O O
impressions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17290062)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
supplementing NN O O
usual NN O O
supportive NN O O
care NN O O
with NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
two-arm NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O O
centers NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
hospice NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
complementary NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postrandomization NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.9 NN O O
to NN O O
1.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postrandomization NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
1.9 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
also NN O O
described NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
both NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postrandomization NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
3.4 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
6.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
and NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
3.4 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
6.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Aromatherapy NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17297323)

Combination NN O O
of NN O O
arteriovenous NN O I-INT
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
assist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
porcine NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lavage-induced NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
arteriovenous NN O I-INT
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
assist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFOV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
lavage-induced NN O I-PAR
porcine NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
model NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
animal NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Saline NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4.1 NN O I-PAR
kg 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
, NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
Pao2 NN O O
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
53 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
stabilization NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
pressure-controlled NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
tidal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
; NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
PCV NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
tidal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
and NN O O
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
HFOV NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
HFOV NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
vein NN O O
were NN O O
cannulated NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
low-resistance NN O O
membrane NN O O
lung NN O O
was NN O O
interposed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
isolated NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
34 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
every NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
in NN O O
AV-ECLA-treated NN O I-INT
animals NN O O
was NN O O
normocapnia NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
Pao2 NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
Pao2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
HFOV-treated NN O O
animals NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
AV-ECLA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HFOV NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
normocapnia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
Pao2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
ventilator NN O O
pressure NN O O
amplitude NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
lung NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17297382)

Safety NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
microbicide NN O I-INT
cellulose NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Cellulose NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
vaginal NN O O
microbicide NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
microbicide NN O O
when NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
vaginal NN O O
intercourse NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
seven NN O O
consecutive NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
KY NN O I-INT
Jelly NN O I-INT
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
existing NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
users NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
burning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tingling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dysuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
warm NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
KY NN O I-INT
Jelly NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
gel NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
penis NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
burning NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
severe NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
preservative NN O O
benzyl NN O O
alcohol NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
gel NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17312647)

Injection NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
electrocoagulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
haemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
hemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
electrocoagulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
haemorrhoids NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
experimental NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
POF NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Wah NN O I-PAR
Cantt NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
detailed NN O O
history NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
and NN O O
proctoscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
then 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
Lottery NN O O
method NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
EC NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
to NN O O
IS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
machine NN O O
( NN O O
Wieda NN O O
, NN O O
China NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
direct NN O O
current NN O O
of NN O O
10-20 NN O O
mA NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
submucosal NN O O
plane NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
pile NN O O
core NN O O
for NN O O
5-7 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
IS NN O O
1-2 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
phenol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
almond NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
plane NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
pile NN O O
core NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
as NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
thirds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
having NN O O
symptoms NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
associated NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
another NN O O
third NN O O
had NN O O
associated NN O O
mucous NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
24.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
haemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
electrocoagulation NN O O
( NN O O
EC NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
EC NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
IS NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
fully NN O I-OUT
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
EC NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
IS NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
EC NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
satisfying NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
early NN O O
hemorrhoids NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17316832)

Ciprofloxacin/dexamethasone NN O I-INT
drops NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
tube NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
/dexamethasone NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
CIPRODEX NN O O
, NN O O
Alcon NN O O
, NN O O
Ft. NN O O
Worth NN O O
, NN O O
TX NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
post-operative NN O O
otorrhea NN O O
following NN O O
TT NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
evaluator-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
TT NN O I-PAR
placement NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
categorized NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
wet/dry NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
wet/wet NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
dry/dry NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
Ciprodex NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
post-operatively NN O I-INT
and NN O O
returned NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Physician-observed NN O I-OUT
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
4.95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
Ciprodex NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
39.39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
decreased NN O O
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
bilateral NN O O
effusion NN O O
( NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ciprodex NN O O
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O I-OUT
otitis NN O I-OUT
media NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
TT NN O O
placement NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ciprodex NN O O
reduced NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O I-OUT
OM NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effusion NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
TT NN O O
insertion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
greatest NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17321529)

Misoprostol NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
mug NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
5 NN O O
U NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
maternity NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
622 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
400 NN O O
mug NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
5 NN O O
U NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
shoulder NN O O
or NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
mg/L NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
1000 NN O I-OUT
mL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
placenta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or=38 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
misoprostol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or=10 NN O O
% NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
drop NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Shivering NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fever NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
microg NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
no NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
U NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
postpartum NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
self-limiting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17322624)

Dose-response NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
monitored NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
trans-telephonic NN O I-PAR
electrocardiography NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PAF/PAFL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
PAF/PAFL NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
28-day NN O I-PAR
observation NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
determine NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dose-response NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
flecainide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
143 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
123 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
set NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
remaining NN O O
free NN O O
from NN O O
PAF/PAFL NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
, NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
39.4 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
of NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
linear NN O I-OUT
dose-response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
dose-response NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
Caucasian NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
needed NN O O
cardioversion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ablation NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
frequent NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
PAF/PAFL NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/BID NN O O
of NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
neither NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
proarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
exerted NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
PAF/PAFL NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
inter-ethnic NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PAF/PAFL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17324094)

Do NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
rates NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
mammography NN O O
usage NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
underserved NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
designed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
increase NN O I-PAR
mammography NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
897 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
racial NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Native NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
county NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
and NN O O
followup NN O O
surveys NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
815 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
775 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
mammography NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lay NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
advisor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O I-INT
letter/brochure NN O I-INT
focusing NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Pap NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.70 NN O O
; NN O O
1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
2.21 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.38 NN O O
; NN O O
1.04 NN O O
, NN O O
1.82 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
risk NN O O
appropriate NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
by NN O O
racial NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
categorized NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
2 NN O O
sexual NN O O
partners NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
< NN O O
18 NN O O
years NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
sexual NN O O
intercourse NN O O
, NN O O
smoker NN O O
; NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
sexually NN O O
transmitted NN O O
disease NN O O
[ NN O O
STD NN O O
] NN O O
or NN O O
partner NN O O
with NN O O
treated NN O O
STD NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.88 NN O O
; NN O O
1.54 NN O O
, NN O O
2.28 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
Pap NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.25 NN O O
; NN O O
0.87 NN O O
, NN O O
1.79 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.221 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Pap NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
mammography NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
may NN O O
also NN O O
increase NN O O
Pap NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
minimal NN O O
intervention NN O O
focused NN O O
only NN O O
on NN O O
increasing NN O O
Pap NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17331650)

The NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
systematic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
syndrome NN O O
by NN O O
applying NN O O
xenogenic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
on NN O O
second-degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
xenogenic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
systematic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
reaction NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
SIRS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
reaction NN O O
of NN O O
burn NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
tissue NN O O
damage NN O O
upon NN O O
application NN O O
to NN O O
second-degree NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
second-degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
burn NN O O
surface NN O O
area NN O O
( NN O O
TBSA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
xenogenic NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
betadine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
gauzes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
porcine NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
covered NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
betadine NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
gauzes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
single NN O O
radial NN O O
immunodiffusion NN O O
method NN O O
on NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
postburn NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
14 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
CRP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
increased NN O O
slowly NN O O
, NN O O
descended NN O O
quickly NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
xenogenic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
porcine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
on NN O O
second-degree NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
SIRS NN O O
and NN O O
sepsis NN O O
incidence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17356056)

Pathological NN O O
features NN O O
and NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Non-eosinophilic NN O O
asthma NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
important NN O O
clinicopathological NN O O
phenotype NN O O
since NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
responds NN O O
poorly NN O O
to NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
airway NN O O
immunopathology NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Airway NN O O
immunopathology NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
using NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
biopsies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
wash NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
bronchoalveolar NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
mometasone NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
asthma NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
4.4 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
23 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
eosinophilic NN O O
asthma NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
controls 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
normal NN O O
subepithelial NN O I-OUT
layer NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.8 NN O O
microm NN O O
vs NN O O
10.3 NN O O
microm NN O O
in NN O O
eosinophilic NN O O
asthma NN O O
and NN O O
5.1 NN O O
microm NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Non-eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eosinophilic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
increased NN O O
mast NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
vs NN O O
8 NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
cells/mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
inhaled NN O O
mometasone NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
methacholine NN O I-OUT
PC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.5 NN O O
doubling NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
difference NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
9.1 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
asthma NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.0 NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
difference NN O O
0.27 NN O O
to NN O O
1.43 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Non-eosinophilic NN O O
asthma NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
pathologically NN O O
distinct NN O O
disease NN O O
phenotype NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
normal NN O O
subepithelial NN O I-OUT
layer NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
inhaled NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17356153)

Compliance NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
is NN O O
low NN O O
after NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
club NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
immobilisation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cast NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
club NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compliance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
posteromedial NN O I-PAR
release NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
club NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
machine NN O O
as NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
was NN O O
126 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
to NN O O
496 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
15.2 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10.0 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
20.6 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
18.7 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10.0 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
33.0 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
12.3 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7.4 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
19.4 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
18.9 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10.0 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
24.1 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
third NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
third NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
low NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
is NN O O
interpreted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17357577)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
dihydroergocryptine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fibrocystic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fibrocystic NN O I-PAR
mastopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fibrocystic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
blind NN O O
double NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
Alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
during NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
revised NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
monthly NN O O
way NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
signs NN O O
: NN O O
mastalgia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mammary NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nipple NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mastodinia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs NN O O
61.11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mastalgia NN O I-OUT
responded NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O O
dihidroergocriptine NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
64.86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Galactorrea NN O I-OUT
responded NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs NN O O
93.33 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nodules NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
alpha NN O O
dihidroergocriptine NN O O
disappeared NN O O
in NN O O
23.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
21.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Ultrasound NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Alpha NN O I-INT
dihidroergocriptine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
fribrocystic NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
minimum NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17365975)

The NN O O
NORwegian NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
DIstrict NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
NORDISTEMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Thrombolysis NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
transfer NN O I-PAR
delays NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
trial NN O O
compares NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
strategies NN O O
following NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
: NN O O
to NN O O
transfer NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
immediate NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiography NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
more NN O O
conservatively NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
NORwegian NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
DIstrict NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NORDISTEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
STEMI NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
expected NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
266 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
full-dose NN O I-INT
thrombolysis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
preferably NN O I-INT
pre-hospital NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The 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
NCT00161005 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
April NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
109 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombolysis NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
pre-hospital NN O O
to NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
transport NN O O
distance NN O O
from NN O O
first NN O O
medical NN O O
contact NN O O
to NN O O
catheterization NN O O
laboratory NN O O
was NN O O
155 NN O O
km NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
90-396 NN O O
km NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
2008 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17366257)

Providing NN O O
live NN O I-INT
supervision NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
teleconferencing NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
acquisition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
workshop NN O O
attendance NN O O
. NN O O

Teleconferencing NN O I-INT
Supervision NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
training NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Motivational NN O I-INT
Interviewing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
a NN O O
2-day NN O O
workshop NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-INT
supervision NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
counseling NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
facilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinicians NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
skill NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
post-workshop NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
post-training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
; NN O O
learning NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
MI NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Integrity NN O O
instrument NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
summary NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therapist NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
by NN O O
post-training NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
some NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Teleconferencing NN O I-INT
Supervision NN O I-INT
may NN O O
help NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
proficient NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
workshop NN O O
instruction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17367324)

p16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INK4a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Expression NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Spontaneous NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
CIN2 NN O O
) NN O O
lesions NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
recognized NN O O
since NN O O
1955 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
are NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
markers NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
p16 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
INK4a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
monitoring NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
CIN2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
Brazilian NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
CIN2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
papillomavirus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
excised NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
intervals NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
6.8 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
p16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INK4a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
paraffin-embedded NN O O
sections NN O O
using NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O I-INT
staining NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Among NN O O
the NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
experienced NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
showed NN O O
persistence NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
progressed NN O O
to NN O O
CIN3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
partial NN O O
regression NN O O
to NN O O
CIN1 NN O O
or NN O O
ASCUS NN O O
( NN O O
atypical NN O O
squamous NN O O
cell NN O O
undetermined NN O O
signifiance NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

p16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INK4a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
68.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
univariate NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
between NN O O
p16 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
INK4a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-negative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
-positive NN O I-INT
CIN2 NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.6-2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
p16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INK4a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CIN2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
CIN2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
high NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
regression NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
follow-up NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
management NN O O
option NN O O
of NN O O
CIN2 NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
and NN O O
compliant NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17375984)

Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmocodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
carriers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
porphyria NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
porphyrin NN O I-PAR
precursor NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Acute NN O O
intermittent NN O O
porphyria NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
autosomal NN O O
dominant NN O O
disorder NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
deficient NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
enzyme NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
haem NN O O
biosynthetic NN O O
pathway NN O O
, NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
deaminase NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
acute NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
neurological NN O O
attacks NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
precipitated NN O O
by NN O O
various NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
reproductive NN O O
hormones NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
acute NN O O
attacks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
porphyrin NN O O
precursors NN O O
5-aminolevulinic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
accumulate NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
excreted NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

Current NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
glucose NN O O
loading NN O O
and NN O O
parenteral NN O O
haem NN O O
replenishment NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
accumulation NN O O
of NN O O
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
intermittent NN O O
porphyria NN O O
mouse NN O O
model NN O O
which NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
phenobarbital NN O O
( NN O O
phenobarbitone NN O O
) NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
haem NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
, NN O O
mimics NN O O
the NN O O
biochemical NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
porphyric NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
9808 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
deaminase-deficient NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
substrate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
deaminase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
two-part NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
deaminase-deficient NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=4 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
reference NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Part NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
deaminase-deficient NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
enzyme NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Part NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
porphobilinogen NN O I-PAR
deaminase-deficient NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
same NN O O
enzyme NN O O
dosages NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
between NN O O
Parts NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
was NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recombinant NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
deaminase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
recombinant NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
deaminase NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography-tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
porphyrin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
porphyrin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enzyme NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
through NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
four NN O O
healthy NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
deaminase-deficient NN O O
subjects NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
recombinant NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
deaminase NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
experience NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
half-lives NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
highest NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recombinant NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
deaminase NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
between NN O O
1.7 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
healthy NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
deaminase-deficient NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
deaminase-deficient NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
below NN O O
measurable NN O O
levels NN O O
almost NN O O
instantaneously NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enzyme NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
porphobilinogen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
slowly NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
about NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
values NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
transitory NN O O
increment NN O O
in NN O O
porphyrin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
reflected NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
accumulated NN O O
metabolite NN O O
porphobilinogen NN O O
from NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
porphobilinogen NN O I-INT
deaminase NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
dose NN O O
proportionality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
elimination NN O O
half-life NN O O
was NN O O
about NN O O
2.0 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
highest NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
grounds NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
for NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
enzyme NN O O
during NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
overt NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
porphyria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17377092)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
laser-assisted NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
at NN O O
two NN O O
output NN O O
energies NN O O
for NN O O
enhancing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
topically NN O I-OUT
applied NN O I-OUT
LMX-4 NN O I-OUT
cream NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
venipuncture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Laser-assisted NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
facilitating NN O O
topical NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
LAD NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
venipuncture NN O I-INT
using NN O O
two NN O O
output NN O O
energies NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
and NN O O
3.5 NN O O
J/cm2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
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
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.57 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
low-energy NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
6.7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
high-energy NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
8.1 NN O O
) NN O O
lasers NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
LAD NN O I-INT
at NN O O
an NN O O
energy NN O O
of NN O O
2.0 NN O O
J/cm2 NN O O
( NN O O
570 NN O O
mJ NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
energy NN O O
of NN O O
3.5 NN O O
J/cm2 NN O O
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mJ NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
facilitating NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17383295)

Exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Sotalol-Amiodarone NN O O
Atrial NN O O
Fibrillation NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
SAFE-T NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Therapy NN O O
for NN O O
chronic 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
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
rate NN O O
versus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
but 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
common NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
maximal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
sotalol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amiodarone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
attempted NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
cardioversion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Age NN O O
, NN O O
obesity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
accompanying NN O O
AF NN O O
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
only NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
most NN O O
limited NN O O
initially NN O O
, NN O O
younger NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
obese NN O O
or NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
ventricular NN O O
rate NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Conversion NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
( NN O O
SR NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
25 NN O O
beat/min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
40 NN O O
beat/min NN O O
) NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O O
cardioversion NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
both NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
maintained NN O O
SR NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
intermittent NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cardioversion NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
SR NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
SR NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
younger NN O O
and NN O O
nonobese NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
limitations NN O O
initially NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17387189)

Middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
open NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
minimum NN O I-INT
alveolar NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
transcranial NN O O
Doppler NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
thermodilution NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

Middle NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
weaning NN O O
from NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
came NN O O
close NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pulsatility NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resistivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17387192)

Oral NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Between NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
septal NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Ao NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0.76 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.17 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
desaturation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Ao NN O I-PAR
Sat NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.89 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24-48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
pathologies NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
sildenafil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
28.61 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.80 NN O O
vs NN O O
39.40 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.80 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PA/Ao NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.28 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
0.001 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
crisis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
26.30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.66 NN O O
vs NN O O
28.49 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.93 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.366 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noticed NN O O
regarding NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
use NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
postoperative NN O O
PA NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Absence NN O O
of NN O O
rebound NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
availability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
its NN O O
major NN O O
advantages NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17388667)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
metabolites NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
polymorphisms NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
nationwide NN O O
. NN O O

Circulating NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
OH NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
hormone NN O O
1,25 NN O O
dihydroxyvitamin NN O O
D3 NN O O
( NN O O
1,25 NN O O
[ NN O O
OH NN O O
] NN O O
2D NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
, NN O O
operating NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
VDR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
inhibits NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
cell NN O O
proliferation NN O O
, NN O O
induces NN O O
differentiation NN O O
and NN O O
apoptosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
intriguing NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
1,25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
2D NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
several NN O O
VDR NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
levels NN O O
with NN O O
VDR NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
During NN O O
18 NN O O
y NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
14,916 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
1,066 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incident NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
496 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Gleason NN O I-PAR
7-10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fatal NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1,618 NN O I-PAR
cancer-free NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
smoking-matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Physicians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
prediagnostic NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1,25 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2D NN O I-INT
, NN O O
individually NN O O
and NN O O
jointly NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
aggressive NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
explored NN O O
whether NN O O
relations NN O O
between NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
metabolites NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
were NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
VDR NN O O
FokI NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
conditional NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
these NN O O
US NN O O
physicians NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
25 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
winter NN O O
or NN O O
spring NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
in NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
summer NN O O
or NN O O
fall NN O O
. NN O O

Nearly NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
summer/fall NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
winter/spring NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
deficient NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
20 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
summer/fall NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
winter/spring NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
insufficient NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
32 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
1,25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
vary NN O O
by NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O O
whose NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
and NN O O
1,25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
2D NN O O
were NN O O
below NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
above NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aggressive NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
1.2-3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
metabolites NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
pinteraction NN O O
= NN O O
0.23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
circulating NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VDR NN O I-OUT
FokI NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pinteraction 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
with NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
FokI NN O O
FF NN O O
or NN O O
Ff NN O O
genotype NN O O
, NN O O
men NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
functional NN O O
FokI NN O O
ff NN O O
genotype NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.9 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.1-3.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
aggressive NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.1-5.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
above NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
ff NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ff NN O O
genotype NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
above NN O O
versus NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
approximately NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aggressive NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
men NN O O
had NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
( NN O O
especially NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
winter/spring NN O O
season NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
and NN O O
1,25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
2D NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
interacts NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
VDR NN O I-INT
FokI NN O I-INT
polymorphism NN O I-INT
and NN O O
modifies NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Men NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
functional NN O O
FokI NN O O
ff NN O O
genotype NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
European-descent NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
susceptible NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17393618)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tests NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
4 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
, NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
humoral NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
obviously NN O O
higher NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
no NN O O
leukogenic NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
auxiliary NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17402204)

[ NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
regarding NN O O
breast NN O O
self-examination NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
mortality NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
self-examination NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BSE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
BSE NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
deaths NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
266 NN O I-PAR
064 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
519 NN O I-PAR
textile NN O I-PAR
factories NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Shanghai NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
BSE NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
979 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
133 NN O I-PAR
085 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
since NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Initial NN O O
instruction NN O O
in NN O O
BSE NN O O
group NN O O
would NN O O
include NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
proper NN O O
palpation NN O O
techniques NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
sessions NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
including NN O O
video NN O O
shows NN O O
, NN O O
BSE NN O O
instruction NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
BSE NN O I-INT
practice NN O O
under NN O O
medical NN O O
supervision NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
activities NN O O
were NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Attendance NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
events NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cohort NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
through NN O O
July NN O O
2000 NN O O
for NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
through NN O O
2001 NN O O
for NN O O
vital NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
analysis NN O O
methods NN O O
used NN O O
would NN O O
include NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
plots NN O O
, NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
Cox NN O O
modeling NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
women NN O O
under NN O O
instruction NN O O
, NN O O
864 NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
detected NN O O
and NN O O
133 NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
deaths NN O O
occurred NN O O
while NN O O
896 NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
and NN O O
130 NN O O
deaths NN O O
recorded 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
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TNM NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.39 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cumulative NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
and NN O O
smaller NN O O
fibroadenomas NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
instruction NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intensive NN O I-OUT
instruction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BSE NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
seem NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
have NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smaller NN O I-OUT
benign NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
lumps NN O I-OUT
could NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17404138)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
indicators NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
medical NN O O
home NN O O
between NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
National NN O O
Survey NN O O
of NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Health NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
parents NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
autism NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
needs NN O I-INT
report NN O O
receiving NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
Academy NN O O
of NN O O
Pediatrics NN O O
medical NN O O
home NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Population-based NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
National NN O I-INT
Survey NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
2003-2004 NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
495 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6716 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11,403 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Main NN O O
Exposures NN O O
Autism NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
special NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
needs NN O O
including NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Medical NN O O
home NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
personal NN O O
provider NN O O
and NN O O
preventive NN O O
; NN O O
family-centered NN O O
, NN O O
compassionate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
culturally NN O O
appropriate NN O O
; NN O O
accessible NN O O
; NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
coordinated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
reporting NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
consistent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
likely NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.45 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.30-0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
asthma NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.17 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.06-1.30 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
special NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
needs NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
[ NN O O
reference NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
persisted NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
condition NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
personal NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
insurance NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Specific NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
home NN O O
less NN O O
prevalent NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
special NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
needs NN O O
included NN O O
family-centered NN O O
, NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
coordinated NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
we NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
reasons NN O O
why NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
consistent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17404792)

Successful NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
gastrostomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E-PEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
gastrostomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
popular NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
swallowing NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
decompressant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gastrointestine NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
perioperative NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PEG NN O I-INT
have NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
peristomal NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
reduce NN O O
peristomal NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
gastrostomy NN O O
by NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
approach NN O O
under NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
observation NN O O
, NN O O
named NN O O
as NN O O
extra-corporeal NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E-PEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
for NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
using NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
approval NN O O
of NN O O
institutional NN O O
ethics NN O O
review NN O O
board NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
university NN O O
, NN O O
thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ordinary NN O I-INT
pull-method NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
aspiration NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
5-16 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
10.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.96 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
14-37 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
26.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.39 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
pull-method NN O O
PEG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
within NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
complicated NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Significance NN O O
differences NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
those NN O O
groups NN O O
observed NN O O
statistically NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
E-PEG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerable NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
speedy NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
ordinary NN O O
pull-method NN O O
PEG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17408924)

Single-dose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multi-dose NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
fails NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
infectious NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
single- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multi-dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
qualified NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
preoperatively NN O I-INT
( NN O O
single-dose NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
preoperatively NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5-day NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
seventh NN O O
days NN O O
postsurgery NN O O
: NN O O
trismus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphadenopathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
sensations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
5-day NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
days NN O O
postsurgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
seventh NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
examined NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Clindamycin NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
preoperative NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
subsequent NN O O
5-day NN O O
therapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
third NN O O
molar NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17410213)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
spring NN O O
of NN O O
urea NN O I-INT
fertiliser NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
reproductive NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
pasture-fed NN O I-PAR
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
if NN O O
raising NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
crude NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
pasture NN O O
in NN O O
spring NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
frequent NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
urea NN O I-INT
fertiliser NN O I-INT
would NN O O
affect NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reproductive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
farming NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Spring-calved NN O I-PAR
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
grazed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
paddocks NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-INT
fertilised NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fertilised NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
40-50 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/ha NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
4-6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
High-N NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Similar NN O O
generous NN O O
pasture NN O O
allowances NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pasture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Ovarian NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
luteal NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
. NN O O

Oestrous NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inseminations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pasture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
High-N NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
25.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
21.6 NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.4 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O O
and NN O O
urea NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervals NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
calving NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
insemination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
emergence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
dominant NN O I-OUT
follicle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
corpus NN O I-OUT
luteum NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
luteal NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interval NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
calving NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dominant NN O I-OUT
follicle NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
oestrous NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
cows NN O I-OUT
conceived NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Control NN O O
than NN O O
High-N NN O O
cows NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
urea NN O I-INT
fertiliser NN O I-INT
during NN O O
spring NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
consequent NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pasture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
negatively NN O O
affect NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
reproductive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pasture-fed NN O I-PAR
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1741218)

Acute NN O I-INT
prolactin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
responses NN O O
and NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
infant NN O O
suckling NN O O
and NN O O
artificial NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
lactating NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Breast-feeding NN O O
is NN O O
today NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
infant NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
postpartum NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
recent NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
modern NN O O
life-styles NN O O
have NN O O
raised NN O O
obstacles NN O O
to NN O O
successful NN O O
lactation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
include NN O O
infant NN O O
illness NN O O
and NN O O
maternal NN O O
responsibilities NN O O
outside NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
requiring NN O O
separation NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
mother NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O O
dynamics NN O O
of NN O O
infant NN O O
suckling NN O O
are NN O O
understood NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
artificial NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
pumps NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
US NN O O
market NN O O
which NN O O
vary NN O O
considerably NN O O
in NN O O
price NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
understand NN O O
better NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
pumps NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
lactation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
natural NN O O
infant NN O O
suckling NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
breast-feeding NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
serially NN O O
use NN O O
several NN O O
pumping NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
infant NN O O
suckling NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O O
being NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
10-minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
reveal NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
artificial NN O O
pumping NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
responses NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
electric NN O O
pulsatile NN O O
pump NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
responses NN O O
compare NN O O
favorably NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
natural NN O O
infant NN O O
suckling NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
causing NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
striking NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
breast-pumping NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
breast-feeding NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
large NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
found NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
to NN O O
enable NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
to NN O O
choose NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
appropriate NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
milk NN O O
expression 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- (17414940)

Neurophysiological NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
neurotoxin NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
free NN O O
of NN O O
complexing NN O O
proteins NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
neurotoxin NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
NT NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Xeomin NN O O
, NN O O
Merz NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
GmbH NN O O
, NN O O
Frankfurt NN O O
am NN O O
Main NN O O
, NN O O
Germany NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
over NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Electroneurographic NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
electrodes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NT NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
32 NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
extensor NN O I-INT
digitorum NN O I-INT
brevis NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EDB NN O O
) NN O O
muscle NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Botox NN O O
; NN O O
Allergan NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
( NN O O
Ireland NN O O
) NN O O
Ltd. NN O O
Westport NN O O
, NN O O
Ireland NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
contralateral NN O I-INT
EDB NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
NT NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
BTXCo NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
compound NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
M-wave NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
EDB NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
NT NN O O
201 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.195-1.370 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
BTXCo NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.309-1.167 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dose NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
compound NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
M-wave NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adjacent NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
abductor NN O O
digiti NN O O
quinti NN O O
and NN O O
abductor NN O O
hallucis NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
diffusion-induced NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
NT NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BTXCo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
NT NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
inducing NN O O
the NN O O
desired NN O O
paretic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1742482)

Recombinant NN O O
human NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
ameliorates NN O O
zidovudine-induced NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/AIDS-related NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recombinant NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O O
colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
AIDS-related NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ARC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
intolerant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
zidovudine NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neutropenia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
were 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

Zidovudine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
discontinued NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
instituting NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
restarted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
graduated NN O I-INT
fashion NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
full-dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,200 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
beginning NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
eight NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pneumocystis NN O I-PAR
carinii NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
homosexual NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
except NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bisexual NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
absolute NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
count NN O O
[ NN O O
ANC NN O O
] NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1,000/microL NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
taking NN O O
full-dose NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
CD4 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
37 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
/microL NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
44 NN O O
) NN O O
/microL NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
begun NN O O
on NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
microgram/kg/d NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
time NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
was NN O O
restarted NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
1,000/microL NN O O
; NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1,000/microL NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
3.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
either NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
was NN O O
restarted NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
1,000/microL NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
full-dose NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
concurrently NN O O
with NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
if NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
keep NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
1,000/microL NN O O
while NN O O
maintaining NN O O
full-dose NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neutrophils NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
increase NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
WBC NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
essentially NN O O
equal NN O O
. NN O O

Viral NN O I-OUT
replication NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
immunodeficiency NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
p24 NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ag NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remainder NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
changed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
major NN O O
toxicities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
were NN O O
fever NN O O
and NN O O
malaise NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (17426001)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
analgesic NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
relief NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
radical NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma 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
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
preemptive NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
radical NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
namely NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
n=22 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
n=22 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
n=22 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
preemptive NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
exclusive NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exclusive NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

VAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
measurement NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
V 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
Preemptive NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
postoperative NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
provides NN O O
more NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
prevents NN O O
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
increment NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
exclusive NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17426180)

Low NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
against NN O O
hookworm NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Vietnam NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
de-worming NN O O
effort NN O O
that NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
650 NN O O
million NN O O
school NN O O
children NN O O
regularly NN O O
by NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
Vietnam NN O O
is NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
oral NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Phardazone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg. NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
hookworm NN O I-PAR
infection 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 I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
271 NN O I-PAR
Vietnamese NN O I-PAR
schoolchildren NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
eggs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feces NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
of NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-9 NN O O
to NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
we NN O O
then NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
triple NN O O
dose NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
triple NN O O
dose NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
against NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
209 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
estimated NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
eggs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feces NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
30-81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
triple NN O O
mebendazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
47-88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
single NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
58-97 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
triple NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
oral NN O O
mebendazole NN O O
has NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
hookworm NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Vietnam NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
replaced NN O O
by NN O O
albendazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
relevance NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
entire NN O O
populations NN O O
with NN O O
ineffective NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recommend NN O O
that NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
anti-helminth NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
is NN O O
pilot NN O O
tested NN O O
before NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
national NN O O
gut NN O O
worm NN O O
control NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17432640)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
moxibustion NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
gastroparesis NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
optimize NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
moxibustion NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
gastroparesis NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PGS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PGS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
visiting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
warming NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
moxibustion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
auricular NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
sticking NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cured NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
methods NN O O
could NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
100.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
7.24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.87 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
9.83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.60 NN O O
) NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
75.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
15.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.81 NN O O
) NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 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
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
warming NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
moxibustion NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
PGS NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
high NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17433718)

Temporal NN O I-INT
judgements NN O I-INT
of NN O O
internal NN O O
and NN O O
external NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
When NN O O
participants NN O O
make NN O O
judgments NN O I-INT
about NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
self-initiated NN O O
movements NN O O
they NN O O
typically NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
occurred NN O O
earlier NN O O
than NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
[ NN O O
Obhi NN O O
, NN O O
S. NN O O
S. NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Haggard NN O O
, NN O O
P. NN O O
( NN O O
2004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Free NN O O
will NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
wo NN O O
n't NN O O
. NN O O

American NN O O
Scientific NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
, NN O O
358-365. NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
interpretation NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
feed-forward NN O O
processes NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
execution NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
reduced NN O O
preparatory NN O O
activity NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
voluntary NN O O
movement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
anticipatory NN O O
biases NN O O
are NN O O
exhibited NN O O
by NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-INT
watched NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dot NN O I-INT
move NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
circle NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pressed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
spacebar NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
revolution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
tone NN O O
either NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
voluntary NN O O
movement NN O O
or NN O O
was NN O O
computer NN O O
generated NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
made NN O O
anticipatory NN O O
judgements NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O O
movement NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
100 NN O O
ms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
and NN O O
tone NN O O
occurred NN O O
together NN O O
this NN O O
anticipatory NN O O
bias NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
event NN O O
participants NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
voluntary NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
this NN O O
representation NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17434069)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
in NN O O
screening NN O I-PAR
mammography NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RATIONALE NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
specific NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
which NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
is NN O O
best NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
mammography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
198 NN O I-PAR
English-speaking NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
personal NN O I-PAR
or 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
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
mammogram NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
women NN O O
filled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
demographic NN O O
data NN O O
form NN O O
and NN O O
answered NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
containing NN O O
nine NN O O
questions NN O O
about NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
screening NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brochure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
answers NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
items NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
addressed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
issues NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
depth NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
second NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specially NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
mammography NN O I-INT
technologist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
She NN O O
reviewed NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
's NN O O
answers NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
items NN O O
correcting NN O O
and/or NN O O
clarifying NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
third NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brochure NN O I-INT
together NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
technologist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
just NN O O
filled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
but NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
same NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
experience NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
study NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
investigated NN O O
groups 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
increase NN O O
between NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
different NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
All NN O O
three NN O O
interventions NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
three NN O O
interventions NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
educational NN O O
brochure NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
represent NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
convenient NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
costly NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
screening NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
present NN O O
for NN O O
screening NN O O
mammography NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17438178)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
aphthous NN O I-PAR
stomatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
stomatitis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
60-day NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
60-day NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
An NN O O
oral NN O O
medicine NN O O
specialist NN O O
referral NN O O
center NN O O
in NN O O
Manchester NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
passed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
aphthous NN O I-PAR
stomatitis NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pretrial NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
eligibility NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
deemed NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
or NN O O
withdrew NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
subjects NN O O
withdrew NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
unavailable NN O O
for NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
also NN O O
called NN O O
oxpentifylline NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
A NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
taking NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
had NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reported NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
taking NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
also NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
ulcer-free NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
those NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
some NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
stomatitis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
unresponsive NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17443855)

Long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Shouldice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transabdominal NN O I-INT
preperitoneal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repairs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
debate NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
inguinal NN O O
hernia NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
Shouldice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
and NN O O
transabdominal NN O I-INT
preperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Some NN O I-PAR
280 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
Shouldice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tension-free NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
TAPP NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
after NN O O
52 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
hernia NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
atrophy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Hernia NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
Shouldice NN O O
repair NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
each NN O O
after NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O O
and NN O O
TAPP NN O O
repairs NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
tension-free NN O I-OUT
repairs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Nerve NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
Shouldice NN O O
and NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O O
repairs NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greatest NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
TAPP NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Tension-free NN O O
repair NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-mesh NN O O
Shouldice NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
open NN O O
anterior NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
groin NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
demonstrable NN O O
nerve NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
TAPP NN O O
repair NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
experienced NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17445928)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemo-radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Following NN O O
our NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
experience NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adding NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
Gy/25 NN O I-INT
fx/5 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
teletherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
1-2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
Gy/2 NN O I-INT
fx NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
high-dose-rate NN O I-INT
intra-lumenal NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
spaced NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
apart NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
recruitment NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
unexpected NN O O
late NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
modified NN O O
to NN O O
66 NN O O
Gy/33 NN O O
fx/6.5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6-7 NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
RT NN O O
( NN O O
n=60 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Radiotherapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
47/60 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
58/65 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
41/65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
RTOG NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.29 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.08-1.11 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
strictures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.40 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.16-1.01 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
CRT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
alive NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
6-82 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
95/125 NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
year NN O O
projected NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
32.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
22.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
57.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
38.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
24.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
CRT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.65 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.44-0.98 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
manageable NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17450704)

Women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
information NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
mammographic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
density NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
mammographic NN O O
breast NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
MBD NN O O
) NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
experiment NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
618 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MBD NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
reporting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MBD NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
mammography NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
sent NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
, NN O O
more NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
term NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
correctly NN O O
and NN O O
recognized NN O O
it NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
annual NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months 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
on NN O O
other NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
perceived NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
women NN O O
their NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
lot NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
non-threatening NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
important NN O O
personalized NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17453398)

Similar NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
heterotopic NN O O
ossification NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
-- NN O O
the NN O O
COX-2 NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
has NN O I-INT
been NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
COX-2 NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
primary NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
( NN O O
THA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
186 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
indomethacin NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HO NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
graded NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
postoperative NN O O
radiographs NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Brooker NN O O
classification NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
186 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
discontinued NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
indomethacin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Brooker NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O O
The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
heterotopic NN O O
ossification NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
is NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
HO NN O O
follows NN O O
a NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17467265)

Chemoradiation NN O O
comparing NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
single NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
open NN O O
labelled NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locoregionally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
NPC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
206 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
105 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Planned NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
as-treated NN O O
principle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
26.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3-74.6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
arm NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
planned NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiation NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-two NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adjuvant NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leucopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
60.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.9613 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.70 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
0.50-0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
3 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
77.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
79.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
and NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.9884 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.83 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.63-1.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carboplatin NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
arm NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
locoregional NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17467416)

Behavioral/psychoeducational NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
overtaxed NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17471343)

Preliminary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
multicenter NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
rheopheresis NN O I-INT
for NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
( NN O O
MIRA-1 NN O O
) NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
present NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
Rheopheresis NN O I-INT
for NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
( NN O O
AMD NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
MIRA-1 NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
approved NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
rheopheresis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
placebo-control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
nonexudative NN O I-PAR
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
certain NN O I-PAR
hemorheologic NN O I-PAR
abnormalities NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
rheopheresis NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Best-corrected NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
and 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded 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
216 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vision NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
complete NN O O
one NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
to NN O O
198 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
27 NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
suspended NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
104 NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
logMAR NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.02 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.213 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
vision NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.02 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.20 NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.977 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
repeated NN O O
measure NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
patients NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Excluding NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
.001 NN O O
( NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
best NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
flawed NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
cases NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
worst NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
is NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
rheopheresis NN O I-INT
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
AMD NN O O
outside NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
approved NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17472664)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EFFIC NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild 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 I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
control NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
compliant NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
EFFIC NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
142 NN O I-PAR
client-owned NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
locations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Belgium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dogs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
breed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
dogs NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
84 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
benazepril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
over NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
doubling NN O O
this NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
if NN O O
considered NN O O
necessary NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
view NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
concomitant NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O O
with NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
oedema NN O O
and/or NN O O
ascites NN O O
, NN O O
supraventricular NN O O
tachyarrhythmia NN O O
and/or NN O O
dilated NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
evolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
New NN O I-OUT
York NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
imidapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
66 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
68 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
benazepril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
dogs NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nine NN O O
dogs NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
Imidapril NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
benazepril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17472838)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
very-low-protein NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
when NN O O
postponing NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
supplemented NN O I-INT
very-low-protein NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sVLPD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
postponing NN O O
dialysis NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
1-year NN O O
mortality NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O I-INT
and NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Italian NN O I-PAR
uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-PAR
filtration NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
mL/min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.08 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
0.12 NN O I-PAR
mL/s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Randomization NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
sVLPD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sVLPD NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
vegan NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
kcal NN O O
; NN O O
proteins NN O O
, NN O O
0.3 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
keto-analogues NN O O
, NN O O
amino NN O O
acids NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vitamins NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
sVLPD NN O I-INT
started NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
, NN O O
intractable NN O O
fluid NN O O
overload NN O O
, NN O O
hyperkalemia NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
appearance NN O O
of NN O O
uremic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
56 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
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
26.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
spent NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
10.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
sVLPD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
group NN O O
started NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
fluid NN O I-OUT
overload NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hyperkalemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
31 NN O O
deaths NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
28 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One-year NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
were NN O O
83.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
74.5 NN O O
to NN O O
94.0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
87.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
78.9 NN O O
to NN O O
96.5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
superiority NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-17 NN O O
to NN O O
+10 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.50 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.11 NN O O
to NN O O
2.01 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
unblinded NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
incomplete NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
sVLPD NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
postponing NN O O
dialysis NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17477785)

Can NN O O
a NN O O
home-visit NN O I-INT
invitation NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-PAR
Pap NN O I-PAR
smear NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Samliem NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Khon NN O I-PAR
Kaen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-visit NN O I-INT
invitation NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
and 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 I-PAR
From NN O O
May NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
quasi-randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
an NN O O
in-home NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
invitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
would NN O O
increase NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
304 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Samliem NN O I-PAR
inner-city NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Khon NN O I-PAR
Kaen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Northeast NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O O
screening NN O O
coverage NN O O
interviews NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
performed NN O O
: NN O O
58 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
158 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
146 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Pap NN O I-PAR
smear NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
First NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
visited NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
homes NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
researchers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
culturally-sensitive NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
emphasized NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
need NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
screening-coverage NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
were NN O O
again NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
health NN O O
education NN O O
for NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
comparison 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
baseline NN O I-OUT
Pap NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
screening-coverage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
zones NN O O
( NN O O
36.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
31.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.339 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
interviews NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
screening-coverage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
zone NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
zone NN O O
( NN O O
43.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
34.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.119 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
borderline NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
zone NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
36.7 NN O O
to NN O O
43.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.070 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
invitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
nominal NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
increasing NN O O
Pap NN O O
smear NN O O
coverage NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
4-month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17479312)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
electrothermal NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
vessel NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EBVS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
adrenalectomy NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Since NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
adrenalectomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
adopted NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adrenal NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
technology NN O O
for NN O O
vascular NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
dissection NN O O
manoeuvres NN O O
, NN O O
amongst NN O O
other NN O O
things NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
pivotal NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
further NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
electrothermal NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
vessel NN O I-INT
sealing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EBVS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
device NN O O
for NN O O
LA NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
LA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EBVS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
pts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
UltraSonic NN O I-INT
Shears NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
USS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
pts NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
diseases NN O O
were NN O O
similar 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
main NN O O
surgical NN O O
parameters NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
pt NN O O
) NN O O
concerned NN O O
operative NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
major NN O O
and NN O O
minor NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
conversion NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
and NN O O
histology NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
right NN O O
adrenalectomy NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OpT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
51.8 NN O O
mins NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
40-90 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
68.6 NN O O
mins NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
50-130 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
adrenalectomy NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
OpT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
72.2 NN O O
mins NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
55-100 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
94 NN O O
mins NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
65-140 NN O O
mins NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
83 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
210 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B 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

Complications NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.9 NN O O
and NN O O
3.1 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
EBVS NN O O
in NN O O
LA NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
short NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17481800)

Dissociation NN O O
between NN O O
cortical NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
under NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
hypotension NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
elevation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cortical NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O I-INT
etilefrine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
hypotensive NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double NN O O
blind NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
excitability NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
contingent NN O O
negative NN O O
variation NN O O
( NN O O
CNV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
foreperiod NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
frontal NN O O
( NN O O
F3 NN O O
, NN O O
Fz NN O O
, NN O O
F4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
( NN O O
C3 NN O O
, NN O O
Cz NN O O
, NN O O
C4 NN O O
) NN O O
scalp NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Etilefrine NN O I-INT
provoked NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frontal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
CNV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
shorter NN O O
reaction NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
following NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
CNV NN O O
attrition NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
performance NN O O
enhancement NN O O
. NN O O

Inhibitory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
baroreceptor NN O O
activation NN O O
on NN O O
cortical NN O O
excitability NN O O
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
cerebral NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
mediating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
cerebral NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17482439)

Fine NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
coupled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
real-time NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
painless NN O O
methodology NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
adaptive NN O O
functional NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
methodology NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obtaining NN O O
human NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
samples NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
fine NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
allows NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
extract NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
tissue NN O O
sample NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
invasive NN O O
manner NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
classic NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Multiplex NN O I-INT
tandem NN O I-INT
RT-PCR NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
mRNA NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
genes NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
ATP NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
biogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
muscle NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

Samples NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vastus NN O I-OUT
lateralis NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
fitness NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
principal NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
PGC-1alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
COX5B NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
PGC-1alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MT-CO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
mtDNA NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
MHCI NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspired NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
current NN O O
knowledge NN O O
on NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
physiology NN O O
and NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proposed NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
painless NN O I-INT
methodology NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
, NN O O
human NN O O
muscle NN O O
RNA NN O O
and NN O O
DNA NN O O
adaptations NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
physiological NN O O
and/or NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
method NN O O
has NN O O
major NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
its NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
clarifying NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underling NN O O
metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17490976)

Supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
dark NN O O
adaptation NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
rice NN O I-INT
in NN O O
iron-deficient NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nightblind NN O I-PAR
Nepali NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Nightblindness NN O O
affects NN O O
16-52 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
Nepal NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
cases NN O O
persists NN O O
after NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
affect NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
photoreceptor NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pilot NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
and NN O O
riboflavin NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pupillary NN O O
threshold NN O O
( NN O O
PT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
retinol NN O O
in NN O O
nightblind NN O O
, NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
Nepali NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-PAR
A-fortified NN O I-PAR
rice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Nightblind NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
d/wk NN O O
under NN O O
supervision NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A-fortified NN O I-INT
rice NN O I-INT
curry NN O I-INT
dish NN O I-INT
providing NN O O
850 NN O O
microg NN O O
retinal NN O O
activity NN O O
equivalents/d NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
30-mg NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6-mg NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FeR NN O O
+ NN O O
VA NN O O
) NN O O
capsule NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
VA NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
capsule NN O O
. NN O O

Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
riboflavin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Dark NN O O
adaptation NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
PT NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
iron NN O O
deficient NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
n=38 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PT NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
riboflavin NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Iron NN O O
and NN O O
riboflavin NN O O
supplements NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
riboflavin NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
iron NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
15 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
and NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
riboflavin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FeR NN O O
+ NN O O
VA NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VA NN O O
only NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Iron NN O O
deficiency NN O O
may NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
to NN O O
normalize NN O O
dark NN O O
adaptation NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
Nepali NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nightblindness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17491486)

Treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
periodontal NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17505437)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TISSEEL NN O I-INT
VH NN O I-INT
S/D NN O I-INT
fibrin NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
currently NN O I-INT
licensed NN O I-INT
TISSEEL NN O I-INT
VH NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
fibrin NN O O
sealant NN O O
indicated NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
during NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
next NN O O
generation NN O O
fibrin NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TISSEEL NN O I-INT
VH NN O I-INT
S/D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
frozen NN O O
, NN O O
ready-to-use NN O O
form NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
added NN O O
virus NN O O
inactivation NN O O
step NN O O
( NN O O
solvent/detergent NN O O
[ NN O O
S/D NN O O
] NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
added NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
convenience NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
currently NN O O
licensed NN O O
product NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS 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
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
TISSEEL NN O I-INT
VH NN O I-INT
S/D NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
TISSEEL NN O I-INT
VH NN O I-INT
during NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery 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
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
hemostasis NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
closure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
site NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
until NN O O
surgical NN O O
closure NN O O
was NN O O
88.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
S/D NN O O
and NN O O
89.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
proportions NN O O
, NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
S/D NN O O
minus NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
3.70 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lower NN O O
97.5 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
bound NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
margin NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
S/D NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
S/D NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
currently NN O O
licensed NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TISSEEL NN O O
VH NN O O
S/D NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17505452)

[ NN O I-INT
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
abdominal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
among NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
abdominal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
approach NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
234.1 NN O O
min NN O O
vs NN O O
137.3 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
5.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.9 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.4+/-1 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.9+/-1.2 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SF-12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1751081)

Is NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
necessary NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O O
flux NN O O
dialysis NN O O
? NN O O
One NN O O
important NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
dialysis NN O O
hypotension NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
osmolality NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
dialysate NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
decreases NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
episodes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-INT
flux NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
a NN O O
9 NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Na+ NN O O
= NN O O
140 NN O O
meq/L NN O O
) NN O O
basal NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
Na+ NN O O
= NN O O
149 NN O O
meq/L NN O O
) NN O O
linear NN O I-INT
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
step NN O O
drop NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
exponential NN O O
drop NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
was NN O O
changed NN O O
weekly NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
programs NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gained NN O I-OUT
interdialysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
predialysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postdialysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemoconcentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
Na+ NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
predialysis NN O O
and NN O O
postdialysis NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hypotensive NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cramps NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypertonic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
during NN O O
dialysis NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Na+ NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
should NN O O
always NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-INT
flux NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1751266)

Propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
act NN O O
synergistically NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
studied NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
unpremedicated NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
gynaecological NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
end-points NN O O
of NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
command NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
5-s NN O I-OUT
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
tetanic NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curves NN O O
for NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
synergistic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found 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
combination NN O O
having NN O O
1.44 NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
potency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
failed NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
produce NN O I-OUT
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
synergism NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
interaction NN O O
at NN O O
CNS NN O O
GABAA NN O O
receptors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17513813)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-INT
melanoma NN O I-INT
lysate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
Alfa-2b NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
Alfa-2b NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Resected NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
cutaneous NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
melanoma NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
active NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
OS NN O O
achieved NN O O
using NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
Ad NN O I-PAR
Hoc NN O I-PAR
Melanoma NN O I-PAR
Working NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
investigators NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
604 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
nodes NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
allogeneic NN O I-INT
melanoma NN O I-INT
lysates NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Active NN O O
specific NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
injected NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
SC NN O O
) NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bimonthly NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
begun NN O O
on NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
thrice NN O O
weekly NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
MU/m2 NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Eastern NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
1684 NN O O
study NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
32 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
surviving NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
exceeds NN O O
84 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
83 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Estimated NN O I-OUT
5-year NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
median NN O O
RFS NN O O
times NN O O
of NN O O
58 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
OS NN O O
and NN O O
RFS NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
active NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
were NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Long NN O O
RFS NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17516492)

Bright NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
antagonism NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
bright NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BLT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
suppresses NN O O
melatonin NN O O
release NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
disturbances NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
PD NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
BLT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PD NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UPDRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
I-IV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Beck NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Epworth NN O I-OUT
Sleepiness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
BLT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Illuminance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.500 NN O O
lux NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
950 NN O O
lux NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
BLT NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
UPDRS NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Follow NN O O
up NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
advanced NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
employing NN O O
longer NN O O
treatment NN O O
durations NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17519148)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hepatic NN O O
proteins NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
estrogen NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
combined NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CVR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
delivering NN O O
the NN O O
nonandrogenic NN O I-INT
progestin NN O I-INT
Nestorone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EE NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O O
key NN O O
estrogen-sensitive NN O O
hepatic NN O O
proteins NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
markers NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
or NN O O
venous NN O O
disease NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
androgenicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
progestin NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
formulations NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
hepatic NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
EE NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
selected NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-PAR
contraceptive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
delivering NN O O
the NN O O
androgenic NN O O
progestin NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O O
( NN O O
LNG NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
EE NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
comparator NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
route NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
hepatic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
estradiol NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
studied NN O O
with NN O O
EE NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
contraindications NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
OCs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CVR NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
NES/EE NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150/15 NN O I-INT
microg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
LNG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150/30 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Each NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
determinations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angiotensinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
estrogen-sensitive NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormone-binding NN O I-OUT
globulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SHBG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
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
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estrogen- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
androgen-sensitive NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CVR NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Within-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
repeated-measure NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
hepatic NN O O
proteins NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
TC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
within-group NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
presented NN O O
as NN O O
relative NN O O
percent NN O O
difference 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
were NN O O
greatest NN O O
for NN O O
angiotensinogen NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
CVR NN O O
: NN O O
227 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
195-262 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
OC NN O O
: NN O O
251.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
218-288 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
SHBG NN O O
[ NN O O
CVR NN O O
: NN O O
306 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
237-389 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
OC NN O O
: NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
30-86 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
small NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DBP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
within-group NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between-treatment NN O O
comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
third NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
as NN O O
covariate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
between-treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
angiotensinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
estrogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
estrogen- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
androgen-sensitive NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
presented NN O O
as NN O O
relative NN O O
percent NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
CVR-OC/OC NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
percent NN O O
difference NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
largest NN O O
for NN O O
SHBG NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
159 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
117-210 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
smaller NN O O
relative NN O O
percent NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
31.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
18.5-46.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
23.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
33.4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
TG NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
39.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
14.0-69.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
TC NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Vaginal NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
hormonal NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
EE-associated NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
estrogen-sensitive NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
after NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
OC NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
NES/EE NN O I-INT
CVR NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
LNG/EE NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
SHBG NN O O
, NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TG NN O O
, NN O O
proteins NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
androgen NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
estrogen NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
angiotensinogen NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
sensitive NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
estrogen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O O
treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
therefore NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
androgenicity NN O O
between NN O O
NES NN O O
and NN O O
LNG NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17519714)

Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
digital NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
blocks NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
new NN O O
long-acting NN O O
amide NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
its NN O O
introduction NN O O
in NN O O
1996 NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
infiltration NN O O
; NN O O
epidural NN O O
, NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
surgery NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
digital NN O O
blocks NN O O
. 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
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
digital NN O O
block NN O O
results NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
traumatic NN O I-INT
injuries NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
digits NN O I-INT
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
2.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
0.75 NN O O
% NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
2.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
digital NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
digital-brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
visually NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Lidocaine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
the NN O O
quickest NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
1.3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2.7 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
3.5 NN O O
to NN O O
5.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
2.4 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
21.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
less NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
analgesics NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
to NN O O
23 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
digital-brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
for NN O O
digital NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
blocks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
prolonged NN O O
operations NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
additional NN O O
injections NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17521473)

Pilot NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
in NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
advantages NN O O
and NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
of NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
paediatric NN O I-OUT
tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
planned NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
tonsillitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
tonsillectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Operative NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
intra-operative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
scheduled NN O O
for NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
post-operative NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
discomfort NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
zero NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Post-operative NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
managed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
12 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intra-operative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
21 NN O O
cm3 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
30 NN O O
cm3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
means NN O O
7.5 NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
potassium NN O O
titanyl NN O O
phosphate NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
means NN O O
8.5 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
equal NN O O
and NN O O
nearly NN O O
normal NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
reactionary NN O I-OUT
post-tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
post-tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
potassium NN O O
titanyl NN O O
phosphate NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
managed NN O O
conservatively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
were NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
easy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
tonsillectomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
better NN O O
post-operative NN O O
general NN O O
patient NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immediate NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
potassium NN O I-INT
titanyl NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
required NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
caused NN O O
more NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
recorded NN O O
complications NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
cause NN O O
little NN O O
damage NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tonsillar NN O O
bed NN O O
during NN O O
dissection NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
minimising NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17525360)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
re-training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sensory NN O O
thresholds NN O O
. NN O O

Nearly NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trigeminal NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
orthognathic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
impairing NN O I-PAR
sensation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sensory NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
face NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
sensory NN O I-INT
re-training NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-PAR
less NN O O
difficulty NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
residual NN O O
numbness NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
lip NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
performed NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
opening NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
re-training NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
impaired NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
neurosensory NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
tactile NN O O
function NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
observed NN O O
post-surgically NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
thresholds NN O O
for NN O O
contact NN O O
detection NN O O
, NN O O
two-point NN O O
discrimination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two-point NN O O
perception NN O O
, NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
tactile NN O O
detection NN O O
and NN O O
discriminative NN O O
sensitivities NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
tactile NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Post-surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
retrained NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
non-retrained NN O O
persons NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
two-point NN O O
perception NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
retrained NN O O
persons NN O O
experienced NN O O
or NN O O
interpreted NN O O
the NN O O
tactile NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
differently NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
non-retrained NN O O
persons NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17548021)

Lowering NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O O
in NN O O
critical NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Similar NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
medical-surgical NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
achieving NN O O
target NN O O
glucose NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
ranges NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
uncovering NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
anticipation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
15-bed NN O I-PAR
medical-surgical NN O I-PAR
university-affiliated NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
included NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
expected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
ketoacidosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2.2 NN O I-PAR
mmol/L NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inability NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obtain NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
concealed NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
allocation NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
range NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mmol/L NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
pretested NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dedicated NN O O
glucometer NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
glucose NN O O
values NN O O
was NN O O
calibrated NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
values NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-OUT
Physiology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APACHE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
pre-ICU NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
admissions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
9.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
682 NN O O
[ NN O O
42.4 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
1607 NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5- NN O O
to NN O O
7-mmol/L NN O O
range NN O O
; NN O O
250 NN O O
[ NN O O
38.7 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
660 NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8- NN O O
to NN O O
10-mmol/L NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Glucose NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
developed NN O O
7 NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
consequences NN O O
were NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected 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
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ICU NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
target NN O O
ranges NN O O
only NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
well-accepted NN O O
initiation NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
algorithms NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
will NN O O
require NN O O
refined NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
behavior NN O O
change NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
target NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (175669)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
split-course NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
unresectable NN O I-PAR
bronchogenic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
year NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
bronchogenic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
cell NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
TNM NN O O
staging NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
split-course NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
objective NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
squamous NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
small NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adrenocarcinoma NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Split-course NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
survival NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
doubt NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
roentgenographic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
squamous NN O O
cell NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
cell NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

Split-course NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
continuous NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
because NN O O
re-examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
split-course NN O O
therapy NN O O
permits NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
manifest NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
spares NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
the NN O O
futile NN O O
second NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17572835)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
simple NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Low-intensity NN O I-INT
back-strengthening NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
AND NN O O
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Back-strengthening NN O O
exercise NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vertebral NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
, NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
exercise NN O O
could NN O O
enhance NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
lift NN O O
their NN O O
upper NN O O
trunk NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
antigravity NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
neutral NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

Isometric NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Low-intensity NN O O
back-strengthening NN O O
exercise NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17574073)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
histology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Gynecologic NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
histology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Gynecologic NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
race NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serous=S NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
clear NN O I-OUT
cell=CC NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
endometrioid=E NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
various NN O I-INT
analytic NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
evaluate NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
probability NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
identify NN O I-INT
independent NN O I-INT
predictors NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Single NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
or NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
including NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
doxorubicin/cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AP NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
doxorubicin/paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AT NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
paclitaxel/doxorubicin/cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TAP NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
among NN O O
1203 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Breakdown NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
22.8 NN O O
% NN O O
stage NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
69.4 NN O O
% NN O O
recurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Histologic NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
CC NN O O
, NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
mixed NN O O
, NN O O
51.7 NN O O
% NN O O
E NN O O
and NN O O
18.1 NN O O
% NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
S/CC NN O O
patients NN O O
enrolled NN O O
on NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
advanced NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
III-IV NN O O
) NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
recurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
E NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
45 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
E=44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
S=44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CC=32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Histologic NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
PFS NN O O
included NN O O
race NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CC NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Histology NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
OS NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
S NN O O
histology NN O O
was NN O O
1.2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.02-1.4 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
was NN O O
1.51 NN O O
( NN O O
1.1-2.07 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced/recurrent NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
and/or NN O O
T NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
S NN O O
tumors NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Poorer NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
CC NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
types NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
shown NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
this NN O O
histology NN O O
represents NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
separate NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17575230)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Pemetrexed NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
varied NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
molecular NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
correlating NN O O
with NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-INT
P600 NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
900 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-INT
P900 NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
21-day NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
P600 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
P900 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
arms NN O O
had NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
17.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
7.7-30.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
6.5-29.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
stable NN O O
disease NN O O
per NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4.2 NN O O
and NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4.2 NN O O
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
arms NN O O
exhibited NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tumor NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
pemetrexed-related NN O I-INT
genes NN O O
. NN O O

Folylpolyglutamate NN O O
synthetase NN O O
and NN O O
thymidine NN O O
phosphorylase NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Best NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
high NN O O
versus NN O O
low NN O O
thymidine NN O O
phosphorylase NN O O
expression NN O O
were NN O O
27.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
6.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.9 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.076 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
folylpolyglutamate NN O O
synthetase NN O O
were NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
10.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.115 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
3.0 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

gamma-Glutamyl NN O O
hydrolase NN O O
expression NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
78.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
high NN O O
versus NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
low NN O O
gamma-glutamyl NN O O
hydrolase NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
yielded NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
biomarker NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
correlations NN O O
and NN O O
warrants NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17579182)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
DNAemia NN O I-INT
cut-off NN O I-INT
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
human NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
infection NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preemptively NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem-cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
qualitative NN O I-INT
pp65 NN O I-INT
antigenemia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
quantitative NN O I-INT
DNAemia NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
antigenemia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
starting NN O O
preemptive NN O O
antihuman NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
( NN O O
HCMV NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem-cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
DNAemia NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
on NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
DNAemia NN O I-INT
cut-off NN O I-INT
of NN O O
10 NN O O
000 NN O O
DNA NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antigenemia NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-INT
antigenemia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
, NN O O
178 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
unmanipulated NN O I-INT
HSCT NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
unrelated NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
HCMV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
DNAemia NN O O
and NN O O
antigenemia NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.259 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DNAemia NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
developed NN O O
HCMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
DNAemia NN O I-INT
cut-off NN O I-INT
avoids NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1759534)

Long-term NN O O
growth NN O O
hormone NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
growth NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
deficient NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
proved NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
recent NN O O
short-term NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
GH-deficient NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SEM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26.4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
completed NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
16.1 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
uninterrupted NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
1.3 NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
linear NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thigh NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
computerised NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thigh NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subscapular NN O I-OUT
skinfold NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Still NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thigh NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
72.6/27.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
77.9/22.1 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
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
GH NN O O
therapy 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
but NN O O
remained NN O O
lower NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
1.66 NN O O
( NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
2.13 NN O O
( NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
Nm/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
bicycle NN O I-OUT
ergometer NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
still NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
22.5 NN O O
( NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
37.4 NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
) NN O O
watt.min.kg-1 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1c NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
long-term NN O O
GH NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O O
adults NN O O
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O O
physiological NN O O
features NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
subnormal NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17595435)

Parenteral NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
in NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Aggressive NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
energy NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
deficit NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
acid-base NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cysteine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
acid-base NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
122 NN O I-PAR
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or=32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or=1850 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
g/kg/d NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
g/kg/d NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
hour NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hour NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-5 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
duration 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

Data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
0-3 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
43 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
clinically NN O O
stable NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
3-5 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
PN NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Acidosis NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
pH NN O O
< NN O O
7.25 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Acidosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
infants NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
patent NN O I-PAR
ductus NN O I-PAR
arteriosus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
early NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
vs NN O O
18 NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
birth NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
infants NN O O
without NN O O
PDA NN O O
. NN O O

Gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patent NN O I-OUT
ductus NN O I-OUT
arteriosus NN O I-OUT
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
acidosis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
develop NN O O
metabolic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Careful NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
fluids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
comorbidities NN O O
may NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
acidosis NN O O
and NN O O
promote NN O O
protein NN O O
accretion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17597498)

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
sensory NN O O
impairment NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
interaction 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
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
original NN O I-INT
Qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
methodology NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
clinical NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
sensory NN O O
impairment NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
socialization NN O O
, NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disturbances NN O O
and NN O O
bowel NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Cignolini NN O I-INT
methodology NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
original NN O I-INT
Qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
methodology NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
sensory NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
autism NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
methodology NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
increased NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
basic NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
standardized NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
abnormalities NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17603862)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-level NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tennis NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
low-level NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
tennis NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
contradictory NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tendinopathy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
tennis NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
904 NN O I-INT
Ga-As NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
CW NN O I-INT
, NN O O
frequency NN O O
50 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
intensity NN O O
40 NN O O
mW NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O O
density NN O O
2.4 NN O O
J/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
two NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
weeks NN O O
1-4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
weeks NN O O
5-8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
palpation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
epicondyle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
resisted NN O I-OUT
wrist NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
finger NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parameters NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
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
eighth NN O O
week NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
eighth NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
had NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
following NN O O
up NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
palpation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
finger NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
wrist NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight-test NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
plyometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
and NN O O
absolute NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17608965)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
tube-S NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Proseal NN O I-INT
laryngeal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
during NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
Laryngeal NN O I-INT
Tube NN O I-INT
Sonda NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
ProSeal NN O I-INT
Laryngeal NN O I-INT
Mask NN O I-INT
Airway NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
two NN O O
new NN O O
devices NN O O
introduced NN O O
for NN O O
maintaining NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O O
during NN O O
controlled NN O O
ventilation NN O O
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
investigation NN O O
compared NN O O
their NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-60 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
LTS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
PLMA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
airway NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
devices NN O O
were NN O O
inserted NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
correct NN O O
placement NN O O
was NN O O
verified NN O O
and NN O O
airway NN O O
leak NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
seal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibre-optic NN O I-OUT
view NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pharyngeal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

First-time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
second-time NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
vs. NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
vs. NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
LTS NN O O
and NN O O
PLMA NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
devices NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
attempts NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
LTS NN O O
and NN O O
PLMA NN O O
was NN O O
24.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.9 NN O O
and NN O O
28.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.3 NN O O
s. NN O O
Fixation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
manipulation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
54.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.2 NN O O
and NN O O
73.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Airway NN O I-OUT
seal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
cm NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
O NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
LTS NN O O
and NN O O
PLMA NN O O
was NN O O
20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.6 NN O O
and NN O O
24.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.8 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
questioned NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pharyngeal NN O I-OUT
morbidities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
hoarseness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LTS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
devices NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
secure NN O O
airway NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
insert NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
seal NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PLMA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17618948)

Parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
sparing NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
do NN O O
we NN O O
need NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
? NN O O
Although NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
an NN O O
anabolic NN O O
state NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
, NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
moderate NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
surgical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
supply NN O O
, NN O O
spare NN O O
protein NN O O
while NN O O
preventing NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
a NN O O
6-hour NN O O
stable NN O O
isotope NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
study NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
3-hour NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Travasol NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
Baxter NN O O
, NN O O
Montreal NN O O
, NN O O
Canada NN O O
] NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
0.02 NN O O
mL.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
mg.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
colorectal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Protein NN O I-OUT
breakdown NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
stable NN O O
isotope NN O O
tracer NN O O
kinetics NN O O
using NN O O
l- NN O O
[ NN O O
1- NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
C NN O O
] NN O O
leucine NN O O
and NN O O
[ NN O O
6,6- NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
H2 NN O O
] NN O O
glucose NN O O
. NN O O

Circulating NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
-16+/-4 NN O O
micromol.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fasted NN O O
state NN O O
to NN O O
16+/-3 NN O O
micromol.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
-17+/-7 NN O O
to NN O O
7+/-5 NN O O
micromol.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
.h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
nutrition NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P=.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
stimulated NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
10.1+/-1.9 NN O O
micromol/L NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
excluding NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
from NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
feeding NN O O
protocol NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
diminish NN O O
the NN O O
protein-sparing NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
avoids NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17621027)

Observer NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
traumatic NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
: NN O O
experience NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
international NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Accurate NN O O
and NN O O
consistent NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
observer NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
recently NN O O
completed NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
dexanabinol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
steps NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
such NN O O
variation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postinjury NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
extended NN O I-OUT
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
facilitated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
trial NN O O
centers NN O O
, NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
sample NN O O
cases NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
initial NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
. NN O O

Training NN O O
sessions NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessment NN O O
were NN O O
held NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
assigning NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
review NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Interobserver NN O O
variation NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
kappa NN O O
statistic NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Substantial NN O I-OUT
observer NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
sample NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
weighted NN O O
kappa NN O O
, NN O O
0.72 NN O O
; NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.68-0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
assigning NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
completed NN O O
structured NN O O
interviews NN O O
( NN O O
weighted NN O O
kappa NN O O
, NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.57-0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
large NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
discrepancies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29-37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
on NN O O
central NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
number NN O O
declined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
progressed NN O O
and NN O O
coincided NN O O
with NN O O
investigator NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
feedback NN O O
from NN O O
central NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

Centers NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
enrollment NN O O
rates NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Observer NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
head NN O O
injury NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Consistency NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
standardizing NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
assessors NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
monitoring NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
assessments NN O O
and NN O O
providing NN O O
feedback NN O O
to NN O O
interviewers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17631392)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
2400 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
2400 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
active-comparator-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
548 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.d. NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

Demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
three NN O O
co-primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
: NN O O
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
University NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC-PS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
Subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC-PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGADS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Each NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
utilizes NN O O
a NN O O
0-100 NN O O
mm NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the 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
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O I-OUT
squares NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
co-primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
fall NN O O
within NN O O
+/-10 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
co-primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
62.52 NN O O
to NN O O
70.14 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
superior NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LS NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
changes NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
WOMAC-PS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
-11.66 NN O O
( NN O O
-16.31 NN O O
, NN O O
-7.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-7.62 NN O O
( NN O O
-12.30 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.94 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
WOMAC-PFS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
-10.15 NN O O
( NN O O
-14.74 NN O O
, NN O O
-5.57 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-7.23 NN O O
( NN O O
-11.85 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.61 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
PGADS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
-11.65 NN O O
( NN O O
-16.81 NN O O
, NN O O
-6.50 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-8.11 NN O O
( NN O O
-13.30 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.92 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
2400 NN O O
mg. NN O O
All NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
etoricoxib NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

provides NN O O
superior NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
vs NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
2400 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
OA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17634259)

Protein NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
further NN O O
augments NN O O
S6K1 NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
in NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
following NN O O
resistance NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ribosomal NN O O
protein NN O O
S6 NN O O
kinase NN O O
( NN O O
S6K1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
S6 NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
untrained NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
cross-over NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
bout NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
0.3 NN O O
g NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
hydrolysate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHO+PRO NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CHO NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Muscle NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
postexercise NN O O
recovery NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
4E-BP1 NN O O
, NN O O
S6K1 NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
421 NN O O
) NN O O
/S NN O O
( NN O O
424 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
389 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
S6 NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
4E-BP1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-48 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO+PRO NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-15 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
14 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
4E-BP1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
experiments NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tended NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO+PRO NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.08 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
S6K1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
421 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/S NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
424 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-4 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
S6K1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
389 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO+PRO NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+78 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
S6K1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
389 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CHO+PRO NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
S6 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO+PRO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.69 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
0.35 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CHO NN O I-OUT
experiment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.45 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
0.07 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
protein NN O O
further NN O O
enhances NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
of NN O O
S6K1 NN O O
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
resistance NN O O
type NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17657694)

[ NN O O
Potentials NN O O
of NN O O
monocular NN O I-INT
augmented NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
in NN O O
automobile NN O O
production NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Augmented NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technologies NN O I-INT
can NN O O
enrich NN O O
the NN O O
real NN O O
environment NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
optimising NN O O
the NN O O
operator NN O O
's NN O O
working NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
context-sensitive NN O O
information NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
user NN O O
's NN O O
location NN O O
and NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
dominant NN O O
eye NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
semi-transparent NN O O
mirror NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
head-mounted NN O O
display NN O O
( NN O O
HMD NN O O
) NN O O
unit NN O O
that NN O O
works NN O O
with NN O O
retinal NN O O
laser NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
drawbacks NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
AR NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
tasks NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O O
working NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paper-based NN O I-INT
documents NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
additionally NN O O
wore NN O O
an NN O O
HMD NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
switched NN O I-INT
off NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
wore NN O O
a NN O O
functioning NN O O
HMD NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
BMS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
concentration NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
d2 NN O O
Aufmerksamkeits-Belastungs-Test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
concentration-test NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Around NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
noticed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blurred NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
headaches NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
complained NN O O
about NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
ergonomic NN O I-OUT
hardware NN O I-OUT
design NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
AR NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O O
ophthalmological NN O O
investigation NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
reduced NN O O
acceptance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HMD NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
non-ophthalmological NN O O
reasons NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
unit NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cable NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
specific NN O O
working NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
process NN O O
optimisation NN O O
and NN O O
operator NN O O
support NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17691581)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
electroacununcture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sex NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Sj?gren NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O I-INT
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
luteotropic NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follicle-stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Sj?gren NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
order NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
adjustment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
changes NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O O
into NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=27 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Shenshu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BL NN O I-INT
23 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Taixi NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
KI NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Hegu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etc NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hydroxyl-chloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
transfer NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Vit NN O I-INT
B1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Vit NN O I-INT
B2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Vit NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fish-liver NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
tablet/time NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
t.i.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
contents NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
abovementioned NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O I-INT
electro-chemiluminescent NN O I-INT
immunoassay NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLIA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Before NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
E2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
self-comparison NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
acupuncture NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
medication NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
markedly 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
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
basic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture 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
medication NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
regulating NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
hormones NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
adjust NN O O
E2 NN O O
, NN O O
T NN O O
and NN O O
LH NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
Sj?gren NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
improve NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
EA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17694216)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
liquid-polish NN O I-INT
coating NN O I-INT
on NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
biofilm NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
provisional NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
part NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Biofilm NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
provisional NN O I-OUT
restorations NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
tissues NN O O
' NN O O
integrity 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
test NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
biofilm NN O O
formation NN O O
on NN O O
polymethyl NN O I-INT
methacrylate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PMMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
self-cured NN O I-INT
acrylic NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
provisional NN O I-INT
crowns NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PMMA NN O I-PAR
surfaces NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
polished NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
polished NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bonding NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
polished NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
light-cured NN O I-PAR
liquid NN O I-PAR
polish NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
cavity NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
crown NN O I-INT
was NN O O
removed NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
confocal NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
microscope NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CLSM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
scanning NN O I-INT
electron NN O I-INT
microscope NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Biofilm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
250 NN O I-OUT
Mum NN O I-OUT
thick NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
CLSM NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
polished NN O O
acrylic NN O O
surface NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
less NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
crowns NN O O
coated NN O O
with NN O O
bonding NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
biofilm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
crowns NN O O
coated NN O O
with NN O O
liquid NN O O
polish NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SEM NN O O
examination NN O O
confirmed NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Bonding NN O O
resin NN O O
or NN O O
liquid NN O O
polish NN O O
coatings NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
early NN O O
biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
might NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
plaque NN O O
accumulation NN O O
on NN O O
provisional NN O O
restorations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17695603)

Eight NN O I-INT
in-office NN O I-INT
tooth NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
eight NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
ranging NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
contact NN O O
time NN O O
varied NN O O
from NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
color NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
colorimeter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
shade NN O I-INT
guide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
photos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
eight NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
bleaching NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Colorimeter NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
deltaE NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
6.77 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
bleaching NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
deltaE NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17698601)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
incident NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Depression NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
prevalent NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
functional NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
new-onset NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
initially NN O O
not NN O O
depressed NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
and NN O O
their NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
functional NN O O
recovery NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
139 NN O I-PAR
nondepressed NN O I-PAR
elderly 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
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
15-item NN O I-OUT
Geriatric NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
20.5 NN O O
% NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
dropouts NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
Cox-regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
yielded NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
subthreshold NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
premorbid NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
incident NN O I-OUT
depression 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

A NN O O
forward NN O O
, NN O O
conditional NN O O
procedure NN O O
identified NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.32 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
1.14-1.53 NN O O
, NN O O
Wald NN O O
chi NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
13.57 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.25 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.08-1.44 NN O O
, NN O O
Wald NN O O
chi NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
8.86 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Incident NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
favorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
identified NN O O
two NN O O
treatable NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
that NN O O
predicted NN O O
incident NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nondepressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hip-fracture NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17700083)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
center-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coping NN O I-PAR
abilities NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
describe NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
homes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
teacher NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
working NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
help NN O O
generalize NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
environment NN O O
and NN O O
assist NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
concerns NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
families NN O O
completed NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
assessing NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
empowerment NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
families NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
outcome NN O O
by NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
centers NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
revealed NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
lower NN O O
stressed NN O O
families NN O O
. 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
daily NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
of NN O O
skills NN O O
learned NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
center-based NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
involving NN O O
families NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
few NN O O
resources NN O O
and NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17702798)

Multitomographic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
palatal NN O I-INT
expansion NN O I-INT
appliances NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rapid NN O I-INT
palatal NN O I-INT
expansion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RPE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
transverse NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
deficiencies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Generally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
RPE NN O I-INT
appliances NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
banded NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bonded NN O I-INT
expanders NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
banded NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bonded NN O I-INT
appliances NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
14.8 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
banded NN O I-INT
RPE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15.1 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
bonded NN O I-INT
RPE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Multitomographic NN O O
radiographs NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
T0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
expansion NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
wearing NN O O
an NN O O
acrylic NN O O
mandibular NN O O
appliance NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
ball NN O O
bearings NN O O
and NN O O
bars NN O O
were NN O O
embedded NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measurements NN O O
at NN O O
T0 NN O O
and NN O O
T1 NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
paired NN O O
t-test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
assesed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-test 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
angle NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
axial NN O I-OUT
inclination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
premolar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
molar NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
5.34 NN O O
and NN O O
2.73 NN O O
degrees NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
premolars NN O O
, NN O O
5.17 NN O O
and NN O O
2.28 NN O O
degrees NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
premolars NN O O
, NN O O
11.83 NN O O
and NN O O
3.73 NN O O
degrees NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
molars NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9.75 NN O O
and NN O O
5.64 NN O O
degrees NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
molars NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
banded NN O O
and NN O O
bonded NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distance NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vestibular NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
plate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
palatal NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.17 NN O O
and NN O O
1.23 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
premolars NN O O
, NN O O
2.46 NN O O
and NN O O
1.09 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
premolars NN O O
, NN O O
2.75 NN O O
and NN O O
0.64 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
molars NN O O
, NN O O
2.23 NN O O
and NN O O
0.96 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
molars NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
banded NN O O
and NN O O
bonded NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
increases NN O O
indicated NN O O
buccal NN O I-OUT
tipping NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
tipping NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
molar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
premolar NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
banded NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bonded NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17715164)

Anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CO NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
both NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
anti-oxidant NN O O
capacities NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
chronic NN O O
obstructive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
COPD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
characterised NN O O
by NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
CO NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
use 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
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
100-125 NN O O
ppm NN O O
CO NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
ex-smoking NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-bronchodilator NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
expiratory NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FEV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1.20 NN O I-PAR
L NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
FEV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/forced NN O I-PAR
vital NN O I-PAR
capacity NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
inhalation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
h.day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
CO NN O O
on NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximal NN O O
individual NN O O
carboxyhaemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CO NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CO NN O O
inhalation NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
reduction NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
provocative NN O O
concentration NN O O
causing NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
FEV NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
0.85 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.63 NN O O
mg.mL NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
100-125 NN O O
ppm NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
sputum NN O O
eosinophils NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17717132)

Clinical NN O O
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
C-reactive NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
across NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
High-sensitivity NN O I-INT
C-reactive NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hsCRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
formulate NN O O
recommendations NN O O
regarding NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
regarding NN O O
several NN O O
key NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-INT
across NN O O
the NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
ACS NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
in NN O O
3225 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
suffered NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
cardiac NN O O
outcome NN O O
within NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
whom NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
within NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O O
onset NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
quartile NN O O
of NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quartile NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
adjusted NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
) NN O O
4.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
3.9 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
patients NN O O
with NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina/non-ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
STEMI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-INT
> NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
10-month NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
2.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
STEMI NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
mortality NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
at NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
8.2 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
10 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
adjHR NN O O
2.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Increased NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
ACS NN O O
spectrum NN O O
. NN O O

hsCRP NN O I-INT
measurement NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
presentation NN O O
and NN O O
index NN O O
diagnosis-specific NN O O
cutpoints NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17717526)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
alfuzosin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
extended-release NN O O
alfuzosin NN O I-INT
HCl NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
on NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
28-day NN O O
placebo NN O O
run-in NN O O
period 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
alfuzosin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O O
function NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Danish NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Symptom NN O O
Score NN O O
Sex NN O O
( NN O O
DAN-PSSsex NN O O
) NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
372 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
alfuzosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=186 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=186 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
355 NN O I-PAR
completing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
ejaculatory NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EjD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
the NN O O
320 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
DAN-PSSsex NN O O
, NN O O
alfuzosin NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ejaculatory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ED NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
marginal NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
with NN O O
alfuzosin NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.09 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
EjD NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
ejaculatory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
alfuzosin NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Dizziness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
with NN O O
alfuzosin NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
alfuzosin NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.d NN O O
. NN O O

significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
urinary NN O O
tract NN O O
symptoms/ NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ejaculatory NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17719303)

Sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
radiocontrast-induced NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
protecting NN O O
contrast-induced NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
single-center NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Several NN O O
protective NN O O
therapies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
contrast-induced NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CIN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
2 NN O O
other NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
CIN NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
264 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast-induced NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
baseline NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CIN NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.036 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.059 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
the NN O O
Mehran NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CIN NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.29 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Hydration NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
better NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
CIN NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
does NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
offer NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
hydration NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17721955)

A NN O O
1.5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
complicated NN O O
grief NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
recently NN O O
have NN O O
psychotherapeutic NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
complicated NN O O
grief NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
complicated NN O O
grief NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
present NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1.5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
complicated NN O I-PAR
grief NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
complicated NN O I-PAR
grief NN O I-PAR
indicators NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
Impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Event NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SF-12 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complicated NN O I-OUT
grief NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
1.5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17722826)

[ NN O O
Observation NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
paralysis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O O
different NN O O
opportunities NN O O
on NN O O
peripheral NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
paralysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=28 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
1-10 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
Dicang NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Jiache NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Yangbai NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GB NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etc. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
selected NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
shallow NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
acupoints NN O I-INT
selected NN O I-INT
routinely NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
stage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
78.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Early NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
for NN O O
achieving NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
facial NN O I-PAR
paralysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17722829)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
training NN O O
of NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Conductive NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
Approach NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
, NN O O
about NN O O
90 NN O O
sessions NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
training NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
60-90 NN O O
sessions NN O O
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Their NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
revised NN O I-OUT
Chinese NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Psycho-Educational NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
developmentally NN O I-OUT
disabled NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C-PEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
markedly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
55.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
15.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
projects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
scientific NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17723125)

Fondaparinux NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
mechanical NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clearly NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES 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
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
conjunction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
superiority NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
s.c. NN O O
for NN O O
5-9 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
6-8 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
main NN O O
safety NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Follow-up NN O O
lasted NN O O
32 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
1309 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
842 NN O O
( NN O O
64.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7/424 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fondaparinux-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
22/418 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
reduction NN O O
69.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
27.9-87.3 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fondaparinux NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7/417 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1/424 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
bleeds NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
10/635 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1/650 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
fondaparinux-treated NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
being NN O O
fatal NN O O
or NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
organ NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
day NN O O
32 NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
and NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fondaparinux NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
69.8 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17724294)

Statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
statins NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
brain NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
cerebral NN O O
ischemia NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
215 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hemispheric NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
to NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
admission NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
43 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
event NN O O
was NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Rankin NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
mRS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
score NN O O
> NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
END NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
previous NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
126 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
mRS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
2 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
60.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
39.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
END NN O O
( NN O O
65.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
20.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
[ NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
126 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
26 NN O O
[ NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-statin-withdrawal NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Statin NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4.66 NN O O
( NN O O
1.46 NN O O
to NN O O
14.91 NN O O
) NN O O
-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
8.67 NN O O
( NN O O
3.05 NN O O
to NN O O
24.63 NN O O
) NN O O
-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
END NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
37.63 NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
10.01 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
stroke NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
statins NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
statin NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
19.01 NN O O
( NN O O
1.96 NN O O
to NN O O
184.09 NN O O
) NN O O
-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
END NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
43.51 NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
21.91 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Statin NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
or NN O O
dependency NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
continued NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17762804)

Are NN O O
back NN O I-INT
supports NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
education NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
recovery NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
: NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
back NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
education NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
work-related NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WR-LBD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
while NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
considering NN O O
personal NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
occupational NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
occupational NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
No NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-PAR
industrial NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
exist NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
back NN O O
supports NN O O
plus NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
433 NN O I-PAR
actively NN O I-PAR
employed NN O I-PAR
hourly NN O I-PAR
union NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
WR-LBD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
wore NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-INT
specially NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
back NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Demographic NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
medical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
occupational NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
through NN O O
interview NN O O
or NN O O
abstraction NN O O
of NN O O
computer NN O O
files NN O O
; NN O O
individual NN O O
ergonomic NN O O
exposures NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lumbar NN O O
motion NN O O
monitor NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
evaluated NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
administrative NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurogenic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
administrative NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurogenic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
occupational NN O O
variable NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
was NN O O
plant NN O O
group NN O O
whereby NN O O
service NN O O
parts NN O O
operations NN O O
workers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
back NN O O
support NN O O
plus NN O O
education NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
WR-LBD NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
overall NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
self-reported NN O O
recovery NN O O
or NN O O
administrative NN O O
measures NN O O
or NN O O
lost NN O O
work NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
back NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
some NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
recurrent NN O O
WR-LBD NN O O
in NN O O
industrial NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
work NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-PAR
environments NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
perform NN O I-PAR
manual NN O I-PAR
material NN O I-PAR
handling NN O I-PAR
tasks NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
parts NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17767200)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
and NN O O
iontophoresis NN O I-INT
using NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Many NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
( NN O O
OA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
involves NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
modalities NN O O
like NN O O
, NN O O
heat NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
exercise NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
electrical NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
, NN O O
iontophoresis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
phonophoresis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DEX-P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.4 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
DEX-P NN O I-INT
iontophoresis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ION NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
53.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PH NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ION NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Ultrasound NN O O
waves NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
MHz NN O O
frequency NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
knee NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
current NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
sessions NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
University NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
meters NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PH NN O O
and NN O O
ION NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
metres NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modalities NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

DEX-P NN O I-INT
phonophoresis NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
DEX-P NN O I-INT
iontophoresis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1778354)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
6-year NN O O
Malm? NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
5-year NN O O
screening NN O O
programme NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
6,956 NN O I-PAR
47-49-year-old NN O I-PAR
Malm? NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
181 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O O
for NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
life-style NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
5-year NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
6-months NN O O
( NN O O
randomised NN O O
) NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
annual NN O I-INT
check-ups NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
2.3-3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
values NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
0.5-1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
non-intervened NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ml.min-1.kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
10-14 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
5-9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
accumulated NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
years NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperinsulinaemia NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
loading NN O I-OUT
preserved NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
fact NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
remainder NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cohort NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (17845737)

Expectancies NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
aroma NN O O
, NN O O
explain NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
lavender NN O I-INT
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
psychophysiological NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
relaxation NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
In NN O O
aromatherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lavender NN O I-INT
aroma NN O I-INT
is NN O O
reputed NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
with NN O O
relaxation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
much NN O O
anecdotal NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
empirical NN O O
literature NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O O
to NN O O
employ NN O O
adequate NN O O
placebos NN O I-INT
, NN O O
proper NN O O
blinding NN O O
, NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
screening NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
beliefs NN O O
about NN O O
aromatherapy NN O O
means NN O O
that NN O O
many NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
expectancy NN O O
biases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
whether NN O O
lavender NN O I-INT
aroma NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
expectancies NN O O
affect NN O O
post-stress NN O O
relaxation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
aroma NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
instruction NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
mixed-factorial NN O I-INT
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
undergraduate NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
exposed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
lavender NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
aroma NN O I-INT
during NN O O
physiologically NN O O
assessed NN O O
relaxation NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
arousing NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Where NN O O
an NN O O
aroma NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
instructional NN O O
priming NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
manipulate NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
expectancies NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
aroma NN O O
's NN O O
likely NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
relax NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aroma NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
galvanic NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
relaxation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
instructional NN O O
prime NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
expecting NN O O
the NN O O
aroma NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
relaxed NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
; NN O O
when NN O O
expecting NN O O
facilitation NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
relaxed NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
as NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
state NN O O
anxiety NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
towards NN O O
aromatherapy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
imply NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
lavender NN O I-INT
aroma NN O I-INT
with NN O O
assisted NN O O
relaxation NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
expectancy NN O O
biases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
expectancies NN O O
are NN O O
easily NN O O
manipulable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17848325)

Small-diameter NN O I-INT
hysteroscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Versapoint NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
resectoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
unipolar NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
septate NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
2 NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
metroplasty NN O O
: NN O O
resectoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
monopolar NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
small-diameter NN O I-INT
hysteroscopy NN O I-INT
fitted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Versapoint NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Task NN O O
Force NN O O
classification NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Endoscopic NN O I-PAR
gynecology NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred-sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
septate NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
abortion NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hysteroscopic NN O I-PAR
metroplasty NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
resection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
septum NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
26F NN O I-INT
resectoscope NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
unipolar NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
5-mm NN O I-INT
diameter NN O I-INT
hysteroscope NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Versapoint NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
managed NN O O
expectantly NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
lasting NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Operative NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reproductive NN O O
outcome NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abortion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
term NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
modality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
cerclage NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
23.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
16.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.7 NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
486.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
170.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
222.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
104.9 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reproductive NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
81.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
vs NN O O
76.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
experienced NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
abortions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
54/82 NN O O
) NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hysteroscopic NN O O
technique NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
metroplasty NN O O
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
vs NN O O
67.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
65.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
term NN O O
and NN O O
68.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O O
deliveries NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Small-diameter NN O O
hysteroscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
bipolar NN O O
electrode NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
incision NN O O
of NN O O
uterine NN O O
septum NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
resectoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
unipolar NN O O
electrode NN O O
regarding NN O O
reproductive NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17852793)

New NN O I-INT
mini-extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECC.O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
reaction NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

New NN O O
coated NN O O
and NN O O
closed NN O O
loop NN O O
circuit NN O O
systems NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
this NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mini-extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECC.O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ECC.O NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Routine NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both 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
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit-stay NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0069 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
perfusion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ECC.O NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
ECC.O NN O I-INT
system NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
it NN O O
maintains NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
level NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
CPB NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17853393)

Severe NN O O
enteropathy NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II/III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil/leucovorin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
minus NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cases NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
prospectively NN O O
during NN O O
NSABP NN O O
C-07 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II/III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
weekly NN O O
bolus NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FL NN O O
; NN O O
Roswell NN O O
Park NN O O
Regimen NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FLOX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
1857 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BWI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
characterized NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dehydration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-one NN O O
( NN O O
64.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
FLOX NN O I-INT
and NN O O
28 NN O O
( NN O O
35.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
FL NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Enteric NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ES NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
proven NN O I-OUT
bacteremia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
FLOX NN O I-INT
, NN O O
versus NN O O
8 NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
FL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
> NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
BWI NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
FLOX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
FL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Female NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BWI NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
FLOX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
FL NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
usually NN O O
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
or NN O O
fourth NN O O
week NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
required NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
fluids NN O O
, NN O O
antidiarrheals NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
5 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
enteropathy NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
ES NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
BWI NN O O
and NN O O
ES NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-one NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
resumed NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
FL NN O I-INT
after NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
FL NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
closely NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
aggressively NN O O
managed NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
if NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Society NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17868242)

Injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Certified NN O O
Safe NN O O
Farm NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
The NN O I-INT
Certified NN O I-INT
Safe NN O I-INT
Farm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
aims NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
occupational NN O O
injuries NN O O
and NN O O
illnesses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
promote NN O O
wellness NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
costs NN O O
to NN O O
farmers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
insurers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
stakeholders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Farms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
316 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
9-county NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
northwestern NN O I-PAR
Iowa NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
cohorts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-INT
farms NN O O
received NN O O
occupational NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
screenings NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
wellness NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on-farm NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
reviews NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
performance NN O I-INT
incentives NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
both NN O O
cohorts NN O O
, NN O O
quarterly NN O O
calls NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
collect NN O O
self-reported NN O O
occupational NN O O
injury NN O O
and NN O O
illness NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
costs NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
farmers NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
insurers NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Annual NN O I-OUT
occupational NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
farmer NN O O
paid NN O O
by NN O O
insurers NN O O
were NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
cohort NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
183 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
cohort NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
332 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
out-of-pocket NN O I-OUT
expenses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
cohorts NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
out-of-pocket NN O I-OUT
expenses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
cohort NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
374/year NN O O
per NN O O
farmer NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
cohort NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
512/year NN O O
per NN O O
farmer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
farmers NN O O
, NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
occupational NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
directly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
on-farm NN O O
safety NN O O
review NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Reported NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
$ NN O O
237 NN O O
per NN O O
farmer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
safest NN O O
farms NN O O
( NN O O
those NN O O
farms NN O O
scoring NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
tertile NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
$ NN O O
485 NN O O
per NN O O
farmer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
safe NN O O
farms NN O O
( NN O O
lowest NN O O
tertile NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
farmers NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
had NN O O
lower NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
occupational NN O O
injuries NN O O
and NN O O
illnesses NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O I-INT
farmers NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
cover NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
CSF NN O O
services NN O O
( NN O O
about NN O O
$ NN O O
100 NN O O
per NN O O
farm NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17872451)

Nateglinide NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Postprandial NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O O
observed 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 O
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
strict NN O I-INT
glycemic NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
by NN O O
nateglinide NN O O
on NN O O
common NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
far NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
labeled NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
78 NN O I-INT
drug-naive NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
diabetic NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
whose NN O I-INT
HbA1c NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
6.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
nateglinide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
270 NN O I-INT
mg/dL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nateglinide NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nateglinide NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-0.017+/-0.054 NN O O
mm/year NN O O
versus NN O O
0.024+/-0.066 NN O O
mm/year NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0064 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
nateglinide NN O O
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
highly-sensitive NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
further NN O O
strict NN O I-INT
glycemic NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
nateglinide NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17880325)

Timing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
insights NN O O
from NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
occur NN O O
following NN O O
non-ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSTE NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
index NN O O
event NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
26,466 NN O I-PAR
NSTE NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Global NN O I-PAR
Use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Strategies NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Open NN O I-PAR
Occluded NN O I-PAR
Arteries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Syndromes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GUSTO-IIb NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Platelet NN O I-INT
Glycoprotein NN O I-INT
IIb/IIIa NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Unstable NN O I-PAR
Angina NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Receptor NN O I-INT
Suppression NN O I-INT
Using NN O I-INT
Integrilin NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PURSUIT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Platelet NN O I-INT
IIb/IIIa NN O I-INT
Antagonism NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
Acute NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Syndrome NN O O
Events NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Global NN O O
Organization NN O O
Network NN O O
( NN O O
PARAGON NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
180 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
for NN O O
death NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
categorize NN O O
patients NN O O
into NN O O
low- NN O O
, NN O O
medium- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-risk NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
6.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
MI NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
15.7 NN O O
% NN O O
suffered NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
beyond NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O O
in NN O O
low- NN O O
, NN O O
medium- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-risk NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
dying NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
this NN O O
event NN O O
beyond NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
strata NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
important NN O O
insights NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
substantial NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
suffer NN O O
subsequent NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
after NN O O
their NN O O
index NN O O
NSTE NN O O
ACS NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
call NN O O
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
surveillance NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
efforts NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
therapies NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17884602)

Continuous NN O I-INT
event NN O I-INT
recorders NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
palpitations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Palpitations NN O O
can NN O O
generate NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease 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
due NN O O
to NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cardiac NN O O
abnormality NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O I-INT
event NN O I-INT
recorders NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CERs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
palpitations NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
patient NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-QoL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
carrying NN O O
a NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=244 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=127 NN O O
) NN O O
carried NN O O
a NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
during NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
formed NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
STAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form-36 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
inclusion NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
greater NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
healthy NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
diagnoses NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
UC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
influence NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
explain NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
CER NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
negatively NN O O
influence NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1788685)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
hetero-thermal NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leg NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
microcirculation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17899340)

How NN O O
can NN O O
we NN O O
help NN O O
witnesses NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
remember NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
It NN O O
's NN O O
an NN O O
( NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
open NN O O
and NN O O
shut NN O O
case NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
experiments NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
idea NN O O
that NN O O
instructing NN O O
a NN O O
witness NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
close NN O O
their NN O O
eyes NN O O
during NN O O
retrieval NN O O
might NN O O
increase NN O O
retrieval NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
watched NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
, NN O O
before NN O O
a NN O O
cued-recall NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
either NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
close NN O O
their NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
received NN O O
no-instructions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eye-closure NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
cued-recall NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
incorrect NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Experiments NN O O
2-5 NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
generality NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
over NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
material NN O O
( NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
live NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
test NN O O
format NN O O
( NN O I-INT
cued- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
free-recall NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
information NN O O
modality NN O O
( NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
details NN O I-INT
recalled NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
eye-closure NN O O
increased NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
detail NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
details NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
accompanying NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
false NN O I-OUT
details NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Collectively NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
convincingly NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
eye-closure NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
aid NN O O
to NN O O
retrieval NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
offer NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
why NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
usually NN O O
involves NN O O
eye-closure NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
eyewitness NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17901383)

Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
task-related NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
repeated NN O O
sensory NN O O
inputs NN O O
could NN O O
enhance NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
plasticity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
combining NN O O
electrically NN O O
induced NN O O
sensory NN O O
inputs NN O O
through NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
task-related NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
program NN O O
would NN O O
augment NN O O
voluntary NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
better NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
days NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measurements NN O O
included NN O O
Composite NN O I-OUT
Spasticity NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
torques NN O I-OUT
generated NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
contraction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plantarflexors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
ended NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
ankle NN O I-OUT
plantarflexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo+TRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
produced NN O O
earlier NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
plantarflexor NN O I-OUT
spasticity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In 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
20 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
TENS+TRT NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
program NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
plantarflexor NN O I-OUT
spasticity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plantarflexor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
placebo+TRT NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
improvements NN O O
can NN O O
even NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
ended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17901881)

The NN O O
logMAR NN O I-INT
Kay NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
logMAR NN O I-INT
acuity NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
crowded NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
uncrowded NN O I-INT
versions NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
logMAR NN O I-INT
acuity NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Kay NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
in NN O O
amblyopia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amblyopia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
strabismic NN O I-PAR
n=17 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
anisometropic NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
n=24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
amblyopia NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
severe/moderate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
0.250 NN O I-PAR
logMAR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=41 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.250 NN O I-PAR
logMAR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
uniocularly NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
crowded NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
uncrowded NN O I-OUT
logMAR NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
logMAR NN O I-OUT
crowded NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
uncrowded NN O I-OUT
Kay NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
random NN O O
orders NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
logMAR NN O I-INT
crowded NN O I-INT
Kay NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.343+/-0.150 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.084 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
outcome NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
crowded NN O I-INT
logMAR NN O I-INT
acuity NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.402+/-0.188 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe/moderate NN O I-PAR
amblyopia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.074+/-0.036 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0382 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
uncrowded NN O I-INT
logMAR NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
overestimated NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
logMAR NN O I-OUT
crowded NN O I-OUT
Kay NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
0.088+/-0.008 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-INT
logMAR NN O I-INT
crowded NN O I-INT
Kay NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
test NN O O
design NN O O
takes NN O O
the NN O O
crowding NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
provides NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
more NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
crowded NN O I-INT
logMAR NN O I-INT
acuity NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O O
uncrowded NN O O
logMAR NN O O
acuity NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
poorer NN O O
acuities NN O O
should NN O O
still NN O O
be NN O O
viewed NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17907108)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
1,707 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
45 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
glycosylated NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
HbA1C NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
: NN O O
-0.056 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
-0.161 NN O O
, NN O O
0.049 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
pNI NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
improved NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-HDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
doses NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
for NN O O
all NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
comparisons NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
versus NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
decreased NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
particle NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
agents NN O O
increased NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
oedema NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
tesaglitazar NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
similar NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17909199)

Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
erlotinib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
non NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
humanized NN O O
anti-vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
erlotinib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
reversible NN O O
, NN O O
orally NN O O
available NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
tyrosine NN O O
kinase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-small-cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single-arm NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
encouraging NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
preliminarily NN O O
assessed NN O O
these NN O O
combinations NN O O
versus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
nonsquamous NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
progressed NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
unexpected NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bevacizumab-erlotinib NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
bevacizumab-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.66 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.38 NN O O
to NN O O
1.16 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
bevacizumab-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.72 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.42 NN O O
to NN O O
1.23 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
bevacizumab-erlotinib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
57.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
bevacizumab-erlotinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
53.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
bevacizumab-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
33.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
for NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
favor NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
erlotinib NN O O
over NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second-line NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
unexpected NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
bevacizumab-erlotinib NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
is NN O O
favorable NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy-containing NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17912634)

Letrozole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
setting NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
P024 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
have NN O O
consistently NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hormone NN O O
receptor-positive NN O O
( NN O O
HR+ NN O O
) NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
HR- NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Preoperative NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
therefore NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
logical NN O O
alternative NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
gained NN O O
considerable NN O O
momentum NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O O
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AIs NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
HR+ NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
and NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
convincing NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
AI NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
P024 NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
multinational NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HR+ NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast-conserving NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
letrozole-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O I-OUT
breast-conserving NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
45 NN O O
vs. NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
letrozole NN O O
than NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
HER1/HER2+ NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HER2+ NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
fluorescent NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
hybridization NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
HER2- NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
ORR NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
subsets NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Biomarker NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
centrally NN O O
assessed NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor-positive NN O O
( NN O O
ER+ NN O O
) NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
marginally NN O O
ER+ NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
unlike NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
, NN O O
consistently NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
estrogen-regulated NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
progesterone NN O O
receptor NN O O
and NN O O
trefoil NN O O
factor NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
Ki67 NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
, NN O O
letrozole NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
letrozole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HR+ NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17917935)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
parallel 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 I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
cycled NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
% NN O O
cream NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sBCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-week NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
middle NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
tumour NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
19 NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
and NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
R1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
R2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
clearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
19 NN O O
for NN O O
R1 NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
R2 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
: NN O O
-14 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
clearance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
52 NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
R1 NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
R2 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
: NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
composite NN O O
median NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scores NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Five NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
alternate NN O O
week NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
sBCC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17931375)

A NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
bruising NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
injection NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
bruising NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
bruising NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
studied NN O O
and NN O O
described NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
injection NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
bruising NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
within-subject NN O O
, NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
sample NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
seconds NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
abdominal NN O O
site NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
abdominal NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

Injections NN O O
areas NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
bruising NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
48 NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bruising NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
applied NN O O
areas NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
transparent NN O O
millimetric NN O O
measuring NN O O
paper NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
stop-watch NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
chi-square NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
, NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
signed NN O O
ranks NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
correlation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
seconds NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30-second NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bruising NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30-second NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
30-second NN O O
injection NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
10-second NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
that NN O O
injection NN O O
duration NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
bruising NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
repeated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

RELEVANCE NN O O
TO NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
PRACTICE NN O O
When NN O O
administering NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
extend NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17934527)

Rehabilitation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
therapy-related NN O O
cognitive NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Neuropsychological NN O O
deficits NN O O
are NN O O
potential NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HSCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Systematic NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
consequences NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
deficits NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
in-patient NN O I-PAR
oncologic NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
individualized NN O I-INT
PC-supported NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
neuropsychological NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
in-patient NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
comprehensive NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
battery NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
specific NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

Neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
still NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
self-evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Sustained NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal-semantic NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
played NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
self-appraisal NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
designation NN O O
as NN O O
'neuropsychologically NN O O
impaired NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
revealed NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
deficits NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
HSCT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
differentiated NN O O
rehabilitative NN O O
measures NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
consequences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17934678)

An NN O O
exploratory NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
action NN O I-PAR
plans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
improving NN O O
asthma NN O O
management NN O O
- NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
individualised NN O I-INT
asthma NN O I-INT
action NN O I-INT
plans NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AAPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
poorly-controlled NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
by NN O O
providing NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
asthma-focused NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
for NN O O
practice NN O O
nurses NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
deliver NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
seminar NN O O
) NN O O
delivered NN O O
at NN O O
practice NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n=13 NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
6=intervention NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
7=control NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
against NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
routinely NN O I-OUT
available NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
beta2-agonist NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
courses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
poorly-controlled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
Mini NN O I-OUT
Asthma NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AQLQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Asthma NN O I-OUT
Control NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
consenting NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

ANALYSISs NN O O
: NN O O
Routine NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
629 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
236 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
provide NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
returning NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
practice 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
at NN O O
followup NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
practices NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Mini NN O I-OUT
AQLQ NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Estimates NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
sample NN O O
sizes NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
training NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Training NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
implementing NN O O
individualised NN O O
AAPs NN O O
impacted NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
disappointing NN O O
outcome NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
many NN O O
different NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
underestimating NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
supporting NN O O
practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
behaviour NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17935144)

Supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O I-INT
12-week NN O I-INT
supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
among NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
highly NN O I-PAR
distressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
therapist NN O O
's NN O O
training NN O O
or NN O O
experience NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
NCI NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Community NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CCOP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
2x2x19 NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cohort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
removing NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
extreme NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

Highly NN O I-PAR
distressed NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
derive NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Therapist NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
experience NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
might NN O O
productively NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1793881)

Midazolam NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
agent NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
randomized NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
narcotic NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
for NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
agents NN O O
: NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
thiopental NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eyelash NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shortest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
thiopental NN O O
; NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lesser NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
points NN O O
favoring NN O O
midazolam NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
during NN O O
intubation NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
cases NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
any NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17940245)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
valproate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
refractory NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
epilepticus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
teaching NN O O
hospital NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
valproate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
for NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
refractory NN O O
status NN O O
epilepticus NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
epilepticus NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
valproate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Refractory NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
epilepticus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
valproate NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diazepam NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
refractory NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
epilepticus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
valproate NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
diazepam NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
minutes NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
valproate NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
developed NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diazepam NN O O
group NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
required NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
developed NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
starting NN O O
diazepam NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
valproate NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
intravenous NN O O
sodium NN O O
valproate NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
diazepam NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
refractory NN O O
status NN O O
epilepticus NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
hypotension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17941914)

Maternal NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
and NN O O
intestinal NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
guide NN O O
the NN O O
compositional NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
microbiota NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
sources NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
bacteria NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
inoculum NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
microflora NN O O
of NN O O
newborn NN O O
infants NN O O
remain NN O O
elusive NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
maternal NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
and NN O O
fecal NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
and NN O O
infants NN O O
' NN O O
fecal NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
mother-infant NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
emphasis NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
placed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
maternal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bifidobacteria NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
analysed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
fecal NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
mothers NN O I-INT
at NN O O
30-35 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
infants NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
breast-milk NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
post-partum NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Fecal NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
adolescentis NN O O
and NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
bifidum NN O O
colonization NN O O
frequencies NN O O
and NN O O
counts NN O O
among NN O O
mother-infant NN O O
pairs NN O O
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
and NN O O
0.02 NN O O
for NN O O
frequencies NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
and NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
counts NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
colonized NN O O
with NN O O
B. NN O O
adolescentis NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
samples NN O O
contained NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
[ NN O O
median NN O O
1.4 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cells/mL NN O O
; NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
) NN O O
48.7-3.8 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Bifidobacterium NN O I-OUT
longum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
detected NN O O
species NN O O
in NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
. NN O O

Allergic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
non-allergic NN O O
mothers NN O O
[ NN O O
median NN O O
1.3 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cells/mL NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
22.4-3.0 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.6 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cells/mL NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
infants NN O O
had NN O O
concurrently NN O O
lower NN O O
counts NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
feces NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
3.9 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cells/g NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
6.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
mothers NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
bacterial NN O O
cells/g NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
-3.2 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
of NN O O
non-allergic NN O O
mothers NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.013 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Breast-milk NN O O
contains NN O O
significant NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maternal NN O O
allergic NN O O
status NN O O
further NN O O
deranges NN O O
the NN O O
counts NN O O
of NN O O
bifidobacteria NN O O
in NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
. NN O O

Maternal NN O O
fecal NN O O
and NN O O
breast-milk NN O O
bifidobacterial NN O O
counts NN O O
impacted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
' NN O O
fecal NN O O
Bifidobacterium NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Breast-milk NN O O
bacteria NN O O
should NN O O
thus NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
bacteria NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
establishment NN O O
of NN O O
infantile NN O O
intestinal NN O O
microbiota NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17943674)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
vacuum-compression NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
vacuum-compression NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
simple NN O I-PAR
nonprobability NN O I-PAR
sampling NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
stereologically NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Cavalieri NN O O
's NN O O
principle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
VCT NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
conventional NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
agents NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
antibiotics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
cleaning NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
offloading NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
dressings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
46.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.28 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
35.09 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.09 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 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
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
46.62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.03 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
42.89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 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
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
area 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
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

VCT NN O I-OUT
enhances NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
appropriate NN O O
wound NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17947724)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
menopausal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Tamoxifen NN O O
Exemestane NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
substudy NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Hormonal NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
increases NN O O
menopausal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
exemestane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O O
common NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
self-report NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
1,614 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
none NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flash NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
was NN O O
assigned NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
reported NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compliance NN O O
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
7,286 NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
vaginal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
bone/muscle NN O I-OUT
aches NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
alteration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
tamoxifen NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exemestane NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
bone/muscle NN O I-OUT
aches NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
dryness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
difficulty NN O I-OUT
sleeping NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) 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
hot NN O I-OUT
flash NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flash NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
exemestane NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
exemestane NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
dryness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone/muscle NN O I-OUT
aches NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
difficulty NN O I-OUT
sleeping NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17950167)

Covariation NN O O
of NN O O
adolescent NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
covariation NN O O
among NN O O
changes NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sedentary NN O I-INT
behaviors NN O I-INT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
among NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evidence NN O O
of NN O O
covariation NN O O
among NN O O
behaviors NN O O
would NN O O
suggest NN O O
multi-behavior NN O O
interventions NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
assessments NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
improved NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
SUN NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
comparison NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
878 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
11-15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
multiple NN O O
24-hour NN O O
recalls NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
grams NN O O
of NN O O
fiber NN O O
, NN O O
servings NN O O
of NN O O
fruit NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
calories NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
kcals/kg NN O O
) NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
7-day NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
recall NN O O
interviews NN O O
; NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
moderate-vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O O
from NN O O
accelerometery NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Covariation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calories NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fiber NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calories NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.53 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fiber NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruit/vegetables NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.53 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
calories NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruit/vegetables NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-.12 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
sample NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
values NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
findings NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
subgroups NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
strongest NN O O
covariation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
are NN O O
inherently NN O O
related NN O O
( NN O O
calories NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
fiber NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fruit/vegetables NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
covariation NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
within NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
other NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedentary NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
domains NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
these NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
need NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
specific NN O O
program NN O O
components NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
target NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17954768)

Lactoferrin NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Holstein NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preweaning NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postweaning NN O I-PAR
phases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
Holstein NN O I-PAR
calves NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
bulls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
preweaning NN O O
and NN O O
postweaning NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
56 NN O O
d NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
whole NN O O
milk NN O O
or NN O O
water NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
3 NN O O
dietary NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
0 NN O O
g/d NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
0.5 NN O O
g/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
g/d NN O O
. NN O O

Whole NN O O
milk NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
L/d NN O O
) NN O O
containing NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
was NN O O
fed NN O O
from NN O O
bottles NN O O
until NN O O
weaning NN O O
at NN O O
35 NN O O
d. NN O O
From NN O O
d NN O O
36 NN O O
to NN O O
56 NN O O
, NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
were NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
water NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fed NN O O
from NN O O
bottles NN O O
. NN O O

Lactoferrin 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
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
girth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
haptoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Calves NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
housed NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
pens NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
open-sided NN O O
barn NN O O
or NN O O
hutches NN O O
. NN O O

Calves NN O I-PAR
raised NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
barn NN O I-PAR
consumed NN O O
more NN O O
calf NN O O
starter NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
grew NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
calves NN O O
raised NN O O
in NN O O
hutches NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
lactoferrin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
benefits NN O O
during NN O O
different NN O O
feeding NN O O
conditions NN O O
or NN O O
milk NN O O
sources NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17954800)

Chlorhexidine-based NN O I-INT
antiseptic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
alcohol-based NN O I-INT
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheter NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
chlorhexidine-based NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
alcohol-based NN O I-INT
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
than NN O O
aqueous NN O O
povidone-iodine NN O O
for NN O O
skin NN O O
disinfection NN O O
at NN O O
catheter NN O I-PAR
insertion NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
their NN O O
abilities NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Consecutively NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
inserted NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
jugular NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subclavian NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
disinfected NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.025 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
benzalkonium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
benzylic NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Solutions NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
skin NN O O
disinfection NN O O
before NN O O
catheter NN O O
insertion NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
30-second NN O O
applications NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
long NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
dryness NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
as NN O O
single NN O O
applications NN O O
during NN O O
subsequent NN O O
dressing NN O O
changes NN O O
( NN O O
every NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
earlier NN O O
if NN O O
soiled NN O O
or NN O O
wet NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
538 NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
481 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
89.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
produced NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
culture NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
chlorhexidine-based NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
9.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
18.3 NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
catheter-days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
bloodstream NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.09 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.4 NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
catheter-days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
catheter NN O O
insertion NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
jugular NN O O
vein NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
2.01 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.24-3.24 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
1.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.18-2.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Chlorhexidine-based NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
replacement NN O O
for NN O O
povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
alcohol-based NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
in NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (17958625)

Oral NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
oral NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pyoderma NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Bamako NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Mali NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pyoderma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
extremely NN O O
common NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
tropical NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
these NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
pyogenes NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
etiological NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Apart NN O O
from NN O O
epidemics NN O O
of NN O O
poststreptococcal NN O O
glomerulonephritis NN O O
where NN O O
mass NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
benzathine-penicillin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
recommendation NN O O
exists NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pyoderma NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pyoderma NN O O
in NN O O
Mali NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
Bamako NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pyoderma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
graded NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
grounds NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
infections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follicular NN O O
appendage NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
povidone NN O O
iodine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
openly NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
seventh NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cure NN O O
or NN O O
marked NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Three 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

Treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
57 NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
amoxicillin NN O O
vs. NN O O
58 NN O O
of NN O O
65 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
erythromycin NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.00 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Amoxicillin NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
efficacious NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
erythromycin NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
pyoderma NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Mali NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Owing NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
availability NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
compound NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
country NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perhaps NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
countries NN O O
where NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
presents NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
way NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17959585)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Different NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
formulations NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
propofol NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
remains NN O O
an NN O O
unresolved NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

acetaminophen NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
20-gauge NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
superficial NN O O
radial NN O O
vein NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
occlusion NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
drainage NN O O
, NN O O
Groups NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
were NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occlusion NN O O
was NN O O
released NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
one-fourth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
was NN O O
injected NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
vein NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
s. NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
solution NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
recorded NN O O
as NN O O
0-3 NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Chi2 NN O O
and NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

acetaminophen NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
attenuating NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17959958)

Low-dose NN O O
intravenous NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
etomidate-induced NN O O
myoclonus 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
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cardioversion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Myoclonic NN O O
movements NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
unpremedicated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
etomidate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
III-IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cardioversion 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
0.015 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
90 NN O O
s NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
etomidate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Myoclonic NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
between NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Pulse NN O I-OUT
oximetry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
noninvasive NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
myoclonic NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
etomidate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
such NN O O
movements NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
particular 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
recovery NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
etomidate NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
IV NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.015 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
administered NN O O
90 NN O O
s NN O O
before NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
etomidate NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
myoclonic NN O O
movements NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
prolong NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
unpremedicated NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
short NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17961229)

How NN O O
well NN O O
do NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
predict NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
intakes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
Canadian NN O I-PAR
lactating NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
An NN O O
observational NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
1998 NN O O
, NN O O
mandatory NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
fortification NN O O
of NN O O
white NN O I-INT
flour NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
select NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
grain NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
Canada NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
intakes NN O I-INT
of NN O O
reproducing NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Folic NN O O
acid NN O O
fortification NN O O
has NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
dramatic NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
folate NN O O
concentrations NN O O
among NN O O
reproductive NN O O
age NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
neural NN O O
tube NN O O
defect NN O O
( NN O O
NTD NN O O
) NN O O
-affected NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
blood NN O O
folate NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
are NN O O
asking NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
NTD NN O O
prevention NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
reliably NN O O
high NN O O
RBC NN O O
folate NN O O
concentrations NN O O
predict NN O O
folate NN O O
intakes NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
protective NN O O
against NN O O
NTDs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
how NN O O
predictive NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
well-educated NN O I-PAR
lactating NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
synthetic NN O I-PAR
folate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
weighed NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
records NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
university-educated NN O I-PAR
lactating NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
4- NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16-wk NN O I-PAR
postpartum NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
above NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
RBC NN O O
folate NN O O
cut-off NN O O
levels NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
deficiency NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
and NN O O
317 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
cut-off NN O O
for NN O O
NTD-risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
906 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
modest NN O O
associations NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 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
RBC NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
16-wk NN O O
postpartum NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
16-wk NN O O
postpartum NN O O
correctly NN O O
identified NN O O
the NN O O
quartile NN O O
of NN O O
folate NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
women NN O O
consuming NN O O
151-410 NN O O
microg/d NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
folate NN O O
( NN O O
2nd NN O O
quartile NN O O
of NN O O
intake NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
consuming NN O O
> NN O O
410 NN O O
microg/d NN O O
( NN O O
3rd NN O O
and NN O O
4th NN O O
quartile NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Folate NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
food NN O O
composition NN O O
tables NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
not NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
in NN O O
Canadian NN O O
lactating NN O O
women NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Synthetic NN O O
intakes NN O O
> NN O O
151-410 NN O O
microg/d NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
women NN O O
produced NN O O
little NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
maximizing NN O O
RBC NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
NTD NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
such NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
planning NN O O
a NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
should NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
consume NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
of NN O O
400 NN O O
microg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17967671)

Mode NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
immediate NN O O
postbypass NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
modes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
immediate NN O O
postbypass NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
modes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
high-frequency/low-volume NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
received NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
cm NN O I-INT
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
O NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
disconnected NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
deflation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spirometry NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
chest NN O O
opening NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
inducing NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
from NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
chest NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
Pao NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
groups NN O O
studied NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Lung NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
bypass NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
versus NN O O
group NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
mL/cm NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
O NN O O
vs NN O O
20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
mL/cm NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
O NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mode NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
CPB NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
immediate NN O O
postbypass NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17968030)

Long-term NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
economy NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reading-writing NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
service NN O O
evaluation NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
, NN O O
societal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
cost NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psychoeducational NN O O
intervention NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome/high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS/HFA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reading NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
writing NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RD/WD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
service NN O O
evaluation NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

Every NN O O
other NN O O
boy NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
assessments NN O O
the NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
and NN O O
economic NN O O
resource NN O O
consequences NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ADHD NN O O
, NN O O
AS/HFA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
RD/WD NN O O
all NN O O
had NN O O
severe NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
societal NN O O
costs NN O O
were NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
index NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
underscore NN O O
the NN O O
very NN O O
long-term NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
support NN O O
including NN O O
individually NN O O
tailored NN O O
reevaluations NN O O
and NN O O
carefully NN O O
monitored NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
family NN O O
needs NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
child NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17971587)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
failure-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
rhabdomyosarcoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Rhabdomyosarcoma NN O O
Study-IV NN O O
experience NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Soft NN O O
Tissue NN O O
Sarcoma NN O O
Committee NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Initial NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
predicts NN O O
failure-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
osteosarcoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ewing NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
sarcoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Rhabdomyosarcoma NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
IRS NN O O
) NN O O
IV NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
rhabdomyosarcoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O O
reported NN O O
response NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
anatomic NN O O
imaging NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
predicted NN O O
FFS NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
444 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
anatomic NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
starting NN O O
after NN O O
week NN O O
9 NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
institutions NN O O
coded NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
cohort NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
was NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
response NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
FFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.57 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
hundred NN O O
seventy-two NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
standard-timing NN O O
RT NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
only NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
PR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
influence NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
alveolar NN O O
histology NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
thirty-two NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
RT NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
( NN O O
up-front NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
PR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
response NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
FFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
RT NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
( NN O O
protocol NN O O
violation NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
FFS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
IRS-IV NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
histology NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
FFS NN O I-OUT
overall NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17972048)

Robotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
novel NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
upper-limb NN O I-OUT
neurorehabilitation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17972479)

Hitting NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
: NN O O
relatively NN O O
easy NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
absolutely NN O O
difficult NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
agreed NN O O
that NN O O
absolute-direction NN O I-PAR
judgments NN O I-PAR
require NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
eye NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
relative-direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
eye-position NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
during NN O O
monocular NN O O
viewing NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
matter NN O O
of NN O O
debate NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
either NN O O
binocular NN O O
eye NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
viewing-eye NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
crucial NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
more NN O O
ecologically NN O O
valid NN O O
stimulus NN O O
situations NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
LED NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
two NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
observers NN O I-INT
threw NN O I-INT
darts NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fixated NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
monocularly NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
binocularly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
observers NN O I-INT
aimed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
gun NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
fixating NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
rear NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
front NN O I-INT
gunsight NN O I-INT
monocularly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
monocularly NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
binocularly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
precision NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
observers NN O O
' NN O O
absolute- NN O O
and NN O O
relative-direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
relative-direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
were NN O O
precise NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
phoria NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
monocular NN O O
absolute-direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
were NN O O
inaccurate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inaccuracy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
predictable NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
phoria NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
relative-direction NN O O
judgments NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
eye NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
binocular NN O O
eye-position NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
crucial NN O O
when NN O O
judging NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
monocular NN O O
and NN O O
binocular NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17974096)

Sivelestat NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
hydrate NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
alveolar NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

Sivelestat NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
hydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sivelestat NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
polymorphonuclear NN O O
leukocyte NN O O
elastase NN O O
( NN O O
PMN-E NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
administered NN O O
sivelestat NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
examine NN O O
its NN O O
usefulness NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
artificial NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PMN-E NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SP-D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
sivelestat NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
artificial NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
PMN-E NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SP-D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
sivelestat NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
administration NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17979862)

Exploring NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
treadmill NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
cohorts NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
treadmill NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
1.9 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
lower-intensity-generalized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
higher-intensity-individualized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
another NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10.4 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
2.2 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
19.2 NN O O
, NN O O
21.4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23.9 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
HI NN O O
, NN O O
LG NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
HI NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
younger NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
gait NN O O
follow-up NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
between NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
walking NN O O
onset NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
gait NN O O
patterns NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
six NN O O
basic NN O O
gait NN O O
parameters NN O O
including NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stride NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stride NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Post-hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
stride NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
gait NN O O
parameter NN O O
largely NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
overall NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
HI NN O O
group NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
stride NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.030 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
HI NN O O
treadmill NN O O
intervention NN O O
significantly NN O O
promoted NN O O
earlier NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
elicited NN O O
more NN O O
advanced NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
stride NN O O
length NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1797999)

Home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
advantages NN O O
and NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O

Home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Its NN O O
major NN O O
advantages NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
ease NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
techniques NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
learned NN O O
, NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
measurement NN O O
and NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
normotensive NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
tell NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
subject NN O O
has NN O O
normal NN O O
or NN O O
abnormal NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
prospective NN O O
mortality/morbidity NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
decide NN O O
whether NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
decision NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
repeated NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
exclude NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O O
out-of-office NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
readings NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
precisely NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Home NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
'white-coat NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Tecumseh NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
with NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
in NN O O
Tecumseh NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
show NN O O
repeated NN O O
elevated NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
their NN O O
life NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
their NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
elevated NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
white-coat NN O O
hypertension NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
followed NN O O
and NN O O
managed NN O O
through NN O O
non-pharmacologic NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (17983307)

The NN O O
value-congruence NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
cultural NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-PAR
self-reports NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
3 NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
found NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
value-congruence NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
that NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
cultural NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
made-in-the-U.S. NN O I-INT
scenario NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
accurate NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Asian NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
their NN O O
retrospective NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
judgments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
made-in-Japan NN O I-INT
scenario NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
less NN O O
accurate NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
Asian NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
value NN O O
orientation NN O O
mediates NN O O
the NN O O
CulturexType NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Event NN O I-OUT
congruence NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Study NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
event NN O I-INT
sampling NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
congruence NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O O
approval NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
sum NN O O
, NN O O
emotional NN O O
events NN O O
congruent NN O O
with NN O O
personal NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
remain NN O O
in NN O O
memory NN O O
longer NN O O
and NN O O
influence NN O O
retrospective NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
judgments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
do NN O O
incongruent NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17984242)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE 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
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
35-48 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=8 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=8 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=8 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
fasting NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
running NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
corresponding NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
75-85 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
sets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
stations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
corresponding NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
50-60 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
one-repetition NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
maximum NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
repetitions NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
station NN O O
was NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
negative NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist-to-hip NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
training NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
endurance NN O O
and NN O O
resistance NN O O
training NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
resistance NN O O
and NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Endurance NN O O
and NN O O
resistance NN O O
training NN O O
caused NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
adiponectin NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17985004)

Cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CURE NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
nearly NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
hospitalizations NN O O
in NN O O
Canada NN O O
and NN O O
consume NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
illnesses NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
increasing NN O O
trends NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
strategies NN O O
is NN O O
vital NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Clopidogrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
Recurrent NN O O
Events NN O O
( NN O O
CURE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Percutaneous NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
CURE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI-CURE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Canadian NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Estimates NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
costs NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
2003 NN O O
cost NN O O
schedules NN O O
released NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Health NN O O
Funding NN O O
and NN O O
Costing NN O O
Branch NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Alberta NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Wellness NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Case NN O O
Mix NN O O
Group NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Life NN O O
expectancy NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Saskatchewan NN O O
Health NN O O
Database NN O O
. NN O O

Cost-effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
costs NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clopidogrel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
$ NN O O
10,000 NN O O
per NN O O
event NN O O
prevented NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
$ NN O O
4,000 NN O O
per NN O O
life-year NN O O
gained NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
life-year NN O I-OUT
gained NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
$ NN O O
20,000 NN O O
was NN O O
0.975 NN O O
for NN O O
CURE NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
0.904 NN O O
for NN O O
PCI-CURE NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
economic NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
as NN O O
antiplatelet NN O O
therapy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
openly NN O O
reimbursed NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
therapies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Canadian NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1799472)

Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
chlorambucil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CB NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
( NN O O
alfa-2b NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
in NN O O
low-grade NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
interim NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Lymphoma NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Alpha NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
initial NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
low-grade NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
( NN O O
NHL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nodular NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
chlorambucil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CB NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
CB NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
million NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/m2 NN O I-PAR
subcutaneously NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
similar NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
( NN O O
62.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
64.7 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
interferon NN O O
alfa-2b NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
phase NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
favourable NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
chlorambucil NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
seen NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
longer NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
conclusion NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
further NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
chlorambucil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (17998493)

Short-course NN O O
nitrofurantoin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
cystitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
nitrofurantoin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
cystitis NN O O
in NN O O
regimens NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence-based NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
is NN O O
increasingly NN O O
important NN O O
as NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
resistance NN O O
among NN O O
uropathogens NN O O
increases NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
nitrofurantoin NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
338 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
cystitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
double-strength NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nitrofurantoin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-treated NN O I-INT
women NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
uropathogen NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nitrofurantoin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
-5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-13 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microbiological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-nonsusceptible NN O O
isolate NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole-susceptible NN O O
isolate NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
5-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
nitrofurantoin NN O O
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
microbiologically NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
3-day NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
fluoroquinolone-sparing NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
cystitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (17999404)

Obesity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
RTOG NN O O
85-31 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Greater NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
prostate-specific NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
PSA NN O O
) NN O O
failure NN O O
following NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
BMI NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer-specific NN O O
mortality NN O O
( NN O O
PCSM NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
945 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
85-31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immediate NN O I-INT
goserelin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
goserelin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
recurrence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Height NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
788 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cox NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
relations NN O O
between NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PCSM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonprostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Covariates NN O O
included NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
prostatectomy NN O O
, NN O O
nodal NN O O
involvement NN O O
, NN O O
Gleason NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BMI NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
PCSM NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
25 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
BMI NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=25 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
BMI NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=30 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
Gray NN O O
's NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
greater NN O O
BMI NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
PCSM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
for NN O O
BMI NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=25 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
1.52 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
1.02-2.27 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
BMI NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=30 NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
1.64 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.01-2.66 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
nonprostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Greater NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
PCSM NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
cancer-specific NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
alters NN O O
disease NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18035192)

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, 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
parallel-group NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
Korea NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
17 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
well-established NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
. NN O O

Amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
newer NN O O
formulation NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
generic NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
stability NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
properties NN O O
and NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
, 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
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
cardiology NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Korea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sitting NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SiDBP NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
90- NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
antihypertensives NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
QD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=140/ NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=90 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
Hg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
SiDBP NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=10 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
Hg NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
QD NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trough NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
duplicate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sitting NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
values NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
calculated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
history NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laboratory NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compliance NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
counts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
sitting NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SiSBP NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
previously NN O O
received NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
versus NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
not 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
189 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
105 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
65.8 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
0 NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
use NN O O
any NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
188 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
94 NN O O
patients NN O O
per NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
ITT NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
161 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perprotocol NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
80 NN O O
for NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
81 NN O O
for NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
analysis NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
consistent NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
or NN O O
protocol NN O O
violation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
SiSBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
from NN O O
146.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
12.3 NN O O
] NN O O
/96.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.4 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
127.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
14.8 NN O O
] NN O O
/83.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
7.7 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
[ NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
from NN O O
146.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
12.8 NN O O
] NN O O
/96.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.1 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
128.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
10.1 NN O O
] NN O O
/83.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
7.5 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
[ NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
SiSBP/SiDBP NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SiDBP NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
antihypertensives NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
56/69 NN O O
[ NN O O
81.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
83/92 NN O O
[ NN O O
90.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
28.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
3/94 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
1/94 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
these NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18051010)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
ferrule NN O I-INT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
clinical NN O O
crown NN O O
length NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
fracture NN O O
resistance NN O O
of NN O O
premolars NN O I-PAR
restored NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
dowel-and-core NN O I-PAR
systems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
crown-lengthening NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
fracture NN O O
resistance NN O O
of NN O O
endodontically-treated NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
restored NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
dowel-core NN O I-PAR
systems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
premolars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
sectioned NN O O
perpendicular NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
axis NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
point NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
occlusal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
buccal NN O O
cementoenamel NN O O
junction NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
endodontic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
cast NN O I-INT
Ni-Cr NN O I-INT
alloy NN O I-INT
dowel-core NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cast NN O I-INT
Ni-Cr NN O I-INT
alloy NN O I-INT
dowel-core NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prefabricated NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
fiber-reinforced NN O I-INT
dowel-resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
B1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
fiber-reinforced NN O I-INT
dowel-resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
specimen NN O O
was NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
self-cured NN O O
acrylic NN O O
resin NN O O
block NN O O
from NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
apical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
margins NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cast NN O O
Ni-Cr NN O O
alloy NN O O
crown NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
loaded NN O O
at NN O O
150 NN O O
degrees NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
axis NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
testing NN O O
machine NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
crosshead NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm/minute NN O O
until NN O O
fracture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Fisher NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
exact NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
alpha NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
loads NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
kN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
A1 NN O O
, NN O O
A2 NN O O
, NN O O
B1 NN O O
and NN O O
B2 NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
1.46 NN O O
( NN O O
S.D NN O O
. NN O O

0.45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.07 NN O O
( NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.13 NN O O
( NN O O
0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.02 NN O O
( NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
teeth NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
cast NN O I-INT
Ni-Cr NN O I-INT
dowel-cores NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
ferrules NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
root NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
dowel NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
fiber-reinforced NN O I-INT
dowel-resin NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
, NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

Crown NN O I-INT
lengthening NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
2.0 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
apical NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
ferrule NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
endodontically-treated NN O O
teeth NN O O
restored NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O O
dowel-core NN O O
systems NN O O
and NN O O
cast NN O O
metal NN O O
crowns NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
carbon NN O O
fiber-reinforced NN O O
dowel-resin NN O O
core NN O O
system NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
root NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18056791)

Leucine-enriched NN O O
essential NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
ingestion NN O O
following NN O O
resistance NN O O
exercise NN O O
enhances NN O O
mTOR NN O O
signaling NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recently NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
resistance NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EAA+CHO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
independently NN O O
stimulate NN O O
mammalian NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
rapamycin NN O O
( NN O O
mTOR NN O O
) NN O O
signaling NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

Providing NN O O
an NN O O
EAA+CHO NN O O
solution NN O O
postexercise NN O O
can NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
muscle NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
enhanced NN O O
mTOR NN O O
signaling NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
muscle NN O O
protein NN O O
synthesis NN O O
when NN O O
leucine-enriched NN O O
EAA+CHOs NN O O
are NN O O
ingested NN O O
during NN O O
postexercise NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EAA+CHO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
EAA+CHO NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
ingested NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
nutrient NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
mTOR NN O I-OUT
signaling NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
immunoblotting NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
muscle NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mixed NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
synthetic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
stable NN O O
isotope NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

Muscle NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4E-BP1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postexercise NN O I-OUT
FSR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
even NN O O
further NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EAA+CHO NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
postexercise NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O I-OUT
FSR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
enhanced NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
of NN O O
mTOR NN O O
and NN O O
S6K1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Akt NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
h 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
it NN O O
remained NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EAA+CHO NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

4E-BP1 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
but NN O O
became NN O O
elevated NN O O
when NN O O
EAA+CHO NN O O
was NN O O
ingested NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

eEF2 NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
postexercise NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
enhanced NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mTOR NN O O
signaling NN O O
pathway NN O O
is NN O O
playing NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
proteins NN O O
when NN O O
resistance NN O O
exercise NN O O
is NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
EAA+CHO NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18062520)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
comfort NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
under NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
intravenous NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
sedation NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
performed NN O O
under NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pethidine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anaesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
1-111 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
40-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sub-arachnoid NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
standardized NN O O
premedication NN O O
, NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
oxygen NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
pethidine NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
institution NN O O
of NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Monitoring NN O O
included NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory 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
sedation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complications NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Monitoring NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
interviewed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
ambulation NN O O
and NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
OR NN O O
experience NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= 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
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
and NN O O
surgeon NN O O
's NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Midazolam-tramadol NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
midazolam-pethidine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
performed NN O O
under NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18067498)

Enhancing NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
intentions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
donor NN O I-INT
recruitment NN O I-INT
brochure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
little NN O O
empiric NN O O
evidence NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
recruitment NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
, NN O O
research NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
simple NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
knowledge NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
motivate NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
recent NN O O
donor NN O O
motivation NN O O
studies NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
cope NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
crucial NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
donation NN O O
intention NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
recruitment NN O O
materials NN O O
that NN O O
specifically NN O O
address NN O O
these NN O O
constructs NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
outperform NN O O
traditional NN O O
educational NN O O
brochures NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
read NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
brochures NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
brochure NN O I-INT
addressing NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
concerns NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
suggesting NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
center NN O I-INT
brochure NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
brochure NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
healthy NN O I-INT
eating NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Standardized NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
brochures NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attitude NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
brochure NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
reading NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
brochure NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
attitude NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
standard NN O O
donation NN O O
brochure NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
common NN O O
donor NN O O
fears NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
useful NN O O
coping NN O O
suggestions NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
donation NN O I-OUT
recruitment NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18070300)

Transthoracic NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
transesophageal NN O I-INT
cardioversion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
atrial NN O I-INT
fibrillation NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Electrical NN O I-PAR
cardioversion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ECV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of 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
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
5-10 NN O O
% NN O O
failure NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
expense NN O O
arising NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
perceived NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
approach NN O O
using NN O O
light NN O O
sedation NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
augmenting NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
avoiding NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
success NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
energy NN O O
requirement NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
biphasic NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
might NN O O
eliminate NN O O
any NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
ECV NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
persistent NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
transesophageal NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
transthoracic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sedation NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
depth NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O O
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
restored NN O O
in NN O O
29/30 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
shocks NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
vs NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
procedure NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
14.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
vs NN O O
13.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
similar NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs NN O O
4.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
AF NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
cardioverted NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
depth NN O O
renders NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
approach NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
transesophageal NN O O
ECV NN O O
shows NN O O
no NN O O
clear NN O O
advantage NN O O
, NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
cardioversion NN O O
should NN O O
remain NN O O
the NN O O
approach NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
choice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18077065)

Mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
propulsion NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
wheelchair NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
7-week NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
hand NN O O
rim NN O O
wheelchair NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
submaximal NN O O
metabolic NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
propulsion NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
able-bodied NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
over NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
wheelchair NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
reserve NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O I-INT
pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-tests NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
submaximal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
stationary NN O I-INT
wheelchair NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
output NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
angles NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Video NN O O
recordings NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FINDINGS NN O O
Mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Push NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
cycle NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
preferred NN O O
double-looping NN O O
over NN O O
propulsion NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
mainly NN O O
used NN O O
single-looping NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
propulsion NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-test NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
A NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
, NN O O
7-week NN O O
training NN O O
protocol NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
wheelchair NN O O
propulsion NN O O
in NN O O
able-bodied NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
improved NN O O
mechanical NN O O
efficiency NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
propulsion NN O O
technique NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18078449)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
controlled NN O O
release NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
delayed NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
impaired NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
impaired NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
CR NN O I-INT
melatonin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
gradually NN O O
increased NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
showed NN O O
optimal NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
caregiver NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
somnologs NN O O
and NN O O
wrist NN O O
actigraphs NN O O
. NN O O

Clinician NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O O
disorder NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
global NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
stress NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
2-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
hygiene NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
open-label NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Recordings NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
night-time NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
clinician NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
additional NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-label NN O I-OUT
somnolog NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
longest NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-label NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
47 NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18082528)

Comparison NN O O
with NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
of NN O O
two NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
devices NN O O
for NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O O
for NN O O
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AAAs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
become NN O O
more NN O O
cost NN O O
effective NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reliable NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
device NN O O
is NN O O
available 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
2-dimensional NN O O
, NN O O
handheld NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
scanner NN O I-INT
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
bladder NN O O
scan NN O O
technology NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
AAA NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
146 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
127 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
screened NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
AAAs NN O O
( NN O O
diameter NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
CT. NN O O
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
handheld NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
device NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
scanner NN O O
. NN O O

Maximal NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

AAAs NN O O
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
by NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
116 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
< NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Limits NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
and NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-6.6 NN O O
to NN O O
9.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
exceeded NN O O
the NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
acceptability NN O O
( NN O O
+/-5 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
excellent NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
coefficient NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
scanner NN O O
and NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.86 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
agreement NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
kappa NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
0.73 NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
cut-off NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
> NN O O
56 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
receiver-operating NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
scanner NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
AAA NN O O
were NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
2-dimensional NN O O
, NN O O
handheld NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
device NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
volume NN O O
scanner NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AAAs NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18093356)

Can NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
prove NN O O
helpful NN O O
when NN O O
monitoring NN O O
titration NN O O
of NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
paediatric NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
reflect NN O O
correct NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
during NN O O
titration NN O O
of NN O O
sedatives NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
126 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
66 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
without NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bispectral NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
included NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
respiratory NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
saturation NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O O
, NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
sedatives NN O O
, NN O O
awakening NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
subdivided NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
into NN O O
age-related NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
demographic NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Monitoring NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
revealed NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
2.09 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
kg NN O O
per NN O O
hr NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.36 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
similarly NN O O
lowers NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ketamine NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
2.07 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
kg NN O O
per NN O O
hr NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
not NN O O
monitored NN O O
being NN O O
2.93 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.45 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.96 NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.51 NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O O
was NN O O
2.09 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.36 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
ketamine NN O O
1.78 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.27 NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
2.89 NN O O
with NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.28 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.62 NN O O
with NN O O
deviation NN O O
of NN O O
0.69 NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
again NN O O
being NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.033 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
regarding NN O O
dosages NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
ages NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
When NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
catheterization NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
noted NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ketamine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18096070)

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
acid-base NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
horses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Sodium NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NaAcetate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
received NN O O
some NN O O
attention NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alkalinizing NN O O
agent NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
alternative NN O O
energy NN O O
source NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
horse NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
remain NN O O
largely NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
physicochemical NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
acid-base NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
NaAcetate/acetic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
NAA NN O O
) NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
horses NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Jugular NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
from NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
exercise-conditioned NN O I-PAR
horses NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
separate NN O I-PAR
occasions NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
competition NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CET NN O O
) NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
simulate NN O O
the NN O O
speed NN O O
and NN O O
endurance NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
3-day NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
CETs NN O O
horses NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
water NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
8 NN O O
L NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
NaAcetate/acetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
via NN O O
nasogastric NN O O
tube NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O I-INT
hay/grain NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NAA NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
hay/grain NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Control NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Oral NN O O
NAA NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
profound NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
alkalosis NN O I-OUT
marked NN O O
by NN O O
decreased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
H+ NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
TCO2 NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
HCO3- NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
alkalosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
SID NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O O
[ NN O O
Na+ NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
plasma NN O O
[ NN O O
Cl- NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increased NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
Atot NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
acetate NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
contributed NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
acidifying NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
NaAcetate NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
both NN O O
an NN O O
alkalinizing NN O O
agent NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
energy NN O O
source NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
horse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1815520)

Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
after NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
marketed NN O O
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Neo-Gilurytmal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
2589-47-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
two-fold NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
subject NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-OUT
metabolizer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
metabolic NN O O
status NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
oral NN O O
formulations NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-Tlast NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-infinity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Ae NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
24h NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prajmalium NN O O
bitartrate NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
tablet NN O O
amounted NN O O
to NN O O
112 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
poor NN O O
metabolizer NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
oral NN O O
formulations NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
AUCs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
terminal NN O I-OUT
half-lives NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prajmalium NN O I-OUT
bitartrate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18161677)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
upper NN O O
arm NN O O
brachial NN O O
basilic NN O O
and NN O O
prosthetic NN O O
forearm NN O O
arteriovenous NN O O
fistula NN O O
on NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Creation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
arteriovenous NN O O
fistula NN O O
( NN O O
AVF NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brachial-basilic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
AVF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
prosthetic NN O I-INT
brachial-antecubital NN O I-INT
forearm NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PTFE NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
BB-AVF NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
prosthetic NN O I-INT
brachial-antecubital NN O I-INT
forearm NN O I-INT
loop NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
AVF NN O I-PAR
creation NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
an NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
U-test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
relative NN O O
increase NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relative NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
parameters 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
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
artery NN O O
was NN O O
1680+/-156 NN O O
and NN O O
1450+/-221 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
PTFE NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
BB-AVF NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
After NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PTFE NN O I-PAR
AVFs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Also NN O O
access NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
creation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fistula NN O O
on NN O O
LV NN O O
structure NN O O
were NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Longer NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
time NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
vascular NN O O
accesses NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18164307)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
coenzyme NN O I-INT
Q10 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18166533)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
16-community NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
promote NN O I-PAR
judicious NN O I-PAR
antibiotic NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Massachusetts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Reducing NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
priority NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
size NN O O
or NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
mixed NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multifaceted NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
community-wide NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
overall NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
on NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
's NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
commercially NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Medicaid-insured NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
community-level NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cluster-randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
nonoverlapping NN O I-PAR
Massachusetts NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
implemented NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O I-INT
behavior-change NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
guideline NN O I-INT
dissemination NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
small-group NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
frequent NN O I-INT
updates NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prescribing NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parents NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
mail NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
practices NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pharmacies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
settings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
health-plan NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
dispensed NN O O
per NN O O
person-year NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
resided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
insured NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
commercial NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
plan NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
data NN O O
include NN O O
223,135 NN O I-PAR
person-years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
observation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Antibiotic-use NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
1.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.4 NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
per NN O O
person-year NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
downward NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
prescribing NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
effect NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
aged NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
48 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
aged NN O O
48 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
Medicaid-insured NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
sustained NN O O
, NN O O
multifaceted NN O O
, NN O O
community-level NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
modestly NN O O
successful NN O O
at NN O O
decreasing NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
substantial NN O O
secular NN O O
trends NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
more NN O O
robust NN O O
impact NN O O
among NN O O
Medicaid-insured NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
medication NN O O
classes NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
argument NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
targeting NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
physician NN O O
behavior NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18184678)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
heated NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
humidifier NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
CPAP NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cool NN O I-PAR
sleeping NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
are NN O O
conflicting NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
a NN O O
heated NN O I-INT
humidifier NN O I-INT
to NN O O
nasal NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnoea NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSAS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
heated NN O O
humidification NN O O
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
prefer NN O O
a NN O O
cold NN O O
bedroom NN O O
environment NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-ever NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
OSAS NN O I-PAR
measured NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
heated NN O I-INT
humidification NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
heated NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
humidifier NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ThermoSmart NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Fisher NN O O
and NN O O
Paykel NN O O
Healthcare NN O O
, NN O O
Auckland NN O O
, NN O O
New NN O O
Zealand NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O O
laboratory NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
room NN O O
temperature NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
condensation NN O I-OUT
formed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
heated NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
humidifier NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mL NN O O
versus NN O O
35.3 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
stages NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
phases NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
side-effect NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
heated NN O O
humidification NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
on NN O O
nasal NN O O
continuous NN O O
positive NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
desiring NN O O
a NN O O
cool NN O O
bedroom NN O O
temperature NN O O
could NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
heated NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
humidification NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
( NN O O
with NN O O
inputs NN O O
from NN O O
ambient NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
set NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
flow NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1818543)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
refractory NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe 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
from NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AZA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Initial NN O O
mean NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
AZA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
4.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
1.7 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
AZA NN O I-INT
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
3.4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
of NN O O
side-effects NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
monthly NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
observers NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
outcome NN O O
parameters NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
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
a NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
CSA NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
persons NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
reason NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
CSA NN O I-INT
recipients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
AZA NN O I-INT
recipients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
four NN O I-OUT
inefficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
withdrew NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
prematurely NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
became NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
four NN O O
required NN O O
anti-hypertensive NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
not NN O O
requiring NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
CSA NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
both NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
azathioprine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
effective NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

CSA NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
predictable NN O O
and NN O O
manageable NN O O
but NN O O
required NN O O
close NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1819001)

Response NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
felodipine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18205945)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of 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
artesunate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
versus NN O O
two NN O O
daily NN O O
intakes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
falciparum NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Artesunate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
coblistered NN O O
ACT NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
tablets NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
( NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
allowing NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
divide NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Senegal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Cameroon NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
artesunate NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
amodiaquine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
versus NN O O
two NN O O
daily NN O O
intakes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
three-day NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
14-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O I-PAR
subject NN O I-PAR
weighting NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
paroxysm NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
parasitaemia NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,000/microl NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
dosage NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
authorized NN O O
person NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
investigating NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
biologist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
D14 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
WHO NN O O
definition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two-sided NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
on NN O O
intent NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
population NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
acceptance NN O O
limit NN O O
for NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Three-hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
strictly NN O O
comparable NN O O
on NN O O
D0 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
adequate NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
on NN O O
D14 NN O O
, NN O O
PCR-corrected NN O O
( NN O O
99,4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
one-daily NN O O
intake NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
99,3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
administering NN O O
artesunate/amodiaquine NN O O
as NN O O
two NN O O
intakes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
main NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pruritus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
artesunate NN O O
plus NN O O
amodiaquine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administrated NN O O
either NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
daily NN O O
intakes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18208642)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
anaemia NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
target NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
Hb NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anaemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
haemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
1-3 NN O O
times/week NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
18-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
haemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
upon NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
Hb NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
10.5-12.5 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
intra-individual NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
test-reference NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
Hb NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
weekly NN O O
dose/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
anti-erythro NN O I-OUT
poietin NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
313 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
155 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
158 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
146 NN O O
and NN O O
145 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
switched NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
11.35 NN O O
( NN O O
8.96-14.22 NN O O
) NN O O
g/dL NN O O
and NN O O
11.54 NN O O
( NN O O
8.74-13.84 NN O O
) NN O O
g/dL NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
epoetin NN O O
zeta NN O O
and NN O O
epoetin NN O O
alfa NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
test-reference NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
0.09-0.28 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
equivalence NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
+/-0.6 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
92.68 NN O O
( NN O O
12.74-398.41 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/kg/wk NN O O
and NN O O
92.58 NN O O
( NN O O
10.53-393.07 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/kg/wk NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
and NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
test-reference NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
-4.67 NN O O
and NN O O
4.29 NN O O
IU/kg/wk NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
equivalence NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
+/-45.00 NN O O
IU/kg/wk NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
minor NN O O
nominal NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustments NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
crossover NN O O
. NN O O

AE NN O O
profile NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
products NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infestations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
26.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
epoetin NN O O
zeta NN O O
and NN O O
23.6 NN O O
% NN O O
receiving NN O O
epoetin NN O O
alfa NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
anti-erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Epoetin NN O I-INT
zeta NN O I-INT
is NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
epoetin NN O O
alfa NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
target NN O O
Hb NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
anaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
unexpected NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18215978)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
efavirenz NN O I-INT
hypersusceptibility NN O O
with NN O O
virologic NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
ACTG NN O I-INT
368 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
abacavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
efavirenz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
indinavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IDV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
nucleoside NN O I-PAR
analog NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
efavirenz NN O O
hypersusceptibility NN O O
( NN O O
EFV-HS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
EFV NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
indinavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFV+IDV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
EFV+IDV NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
abacavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
283 NN O I-PAR
nucleoside-experienced NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.509 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
discontinuations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
virologic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
either NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
3 NN O O
different NN O O
genotypic NN O O
scoring NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
EFV-HS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
virologic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
nucleoside-sparing NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
nucleoside-resistance NN O O
mutation NN O O
L74V NN O O
was NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
uncommonly NN O O
occurring NN O O
EFV-resistance NN O O
mutations NN O O
K103N+L100I NN O O
; NN O O
L74V NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
detected NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
variant NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
clonal NN O O
sequence NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
nucleoside-sparing NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Premature NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
discontinuations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
EFV-HS NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
variants NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
likely NN O O
made NN O O
it NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
EFV+IDV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
L74V NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
K103N+L100I NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
confer NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
virus NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
nucleoside NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18217284)

[ NN O I-OUT
Optimization NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
adenotonsillectomy NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18235123)

Osteosarcoma NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
muramyl NN O I-INT
tripeptide NN O I-INT
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
improves NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
three-drug NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
four-drug NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
osteosarcoma NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
muramyl NN O I-INT
tripeptide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
enhances NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
osteosarcoma NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteosarcoma NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
detectable NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
identical NN O O
cumulative NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
underwent NN O O
definitive NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
MTP NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
each NN O O
intervention NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
better NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
MTP NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
MTP NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
improved NN O O
6-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
MTP NN O O
was NN O O
0.71 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.52 NN O O
to NN O O
0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
ifosfamide NN O O
to NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
, NN O O
doxorubicin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
osteosarcoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
MTP NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
better NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18235151)

Reduced NN O O
albuminuria NN O O
with NN O O
sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
monocyte NN O O
chemoattractant NN O O
protein-1 NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
albuminuria NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
as NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
or NN O O
thiazolidinedione NN O I-INT
, NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
molecules NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relations NN O O
to NN O O
albuminuria NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
thiazolidinedione NN O I-INT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
arteriosclerosis NN O I-PAR
obliterans NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
albumin-to-creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
wk NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
the NN O O
sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
albumin-to-creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
albumin-to-creatinine NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
thiazolidinedione NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemoattractant NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
albumin-to-creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sarpogrelate NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
albuminuria NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
monocyte NN O O
chemoattractant NN O O
protein-1 NN O O
levels NN O O
while NN O O
increasing NN O O
plasma NN O O
adiponectin NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
via NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
or NN O O
thiazolidinedione NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18242415)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
during NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
on NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Guatemalan NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Substantial NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
indirect NN O O
, NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
improving NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
economic NN O O
investment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
on NN O O
adult NN O O
economic NN O O
productivity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
obtained NN O O
economic NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
1424 NN O I-PAR
Guatemalan NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
25-42 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
accounted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2392 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
0-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
1969-77 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
initial NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
villages NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
a NN O O
nutritious NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
atole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
villages NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
nutritious NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fresco NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
estimated NN O O
annual NN O O
income NN O O
, NN O O
hours NN O O
worked NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
average NN O O
hourly NN O O
wages NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O O
economic NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
potentially NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
economic NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
atole NN O I-INT
or NN O O
fresco NN O I-INT
at NN O O
specific NN O O
ages NN O O
between NN O O
birth NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Exposure NN O O
to NN O O
atole NN O I-INT
before NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
hourly NN O I-OUT
wages NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
atole NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
0.67 NN O O
per NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.16-1.17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
meant NN O O
a NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
wages NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
tendency NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
worked NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
incomes NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
atole NN O I-INT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Improving NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
substantial NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
wage NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
investments NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
nutrition NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
long-term NN O O
drivers NN O O
of NN O O
economic NN O O
growth NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18248651)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
omission NN O I-INT
on NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cortisol NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Hypoglycaemia NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
occurrence NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
deficient NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
so NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
fasting 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
GH NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
cortisol NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
fasted NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22.00-12.00 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
occasions NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
pituitary NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ACTH NN O I-PAR
sufficient NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PHDC+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
ACTH NN O I-PAR
deficient NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PHDC- NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
adrenal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PAF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
administered NN O O
or NN O O
omitted NN O I-INT
their NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ketones NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
04.00 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
regularly NN O O
from NN O O
07.00 NN O O
to NN O O
12.00 NN O O
h. NN O O
Insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
HOMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BG NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
/= NN O O
3.3 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
BG NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
subject NN O O
became NN O O
hypoglycaemic NN O O
on NN O O
or NN O O
off NN O O
therapy NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
07.00 NN O O
h. NN O O
Five NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
aged NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
hypoglycaemic NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
07.00 NN O O
and NN O O
12.00 NN O O
h NN O O
off NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
BG NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
PHD NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.45 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
off NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
PHDC+ NN O O
patients NN O O
off NN O O
GH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
negative NN O O
relationship NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
minimum NN O O
BG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ketone NN O I-OUT
bodies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
-0.20 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
NEFA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
-0.35 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PHDC- NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
off NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
BG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Unrecognized NN O O
overnight NN O O
hypoglycaemia NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
pituitary NN O O
hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
is NN O O
uncommon NN O O
but NN O O
BG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
quickly NN O O
become NN O O
abnormal NN O O
when NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
meals NN O O
are NN O O
omitted NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
antagonistic NN O I-OUT
actions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
hypoglycaemia NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PHD NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
altered NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18249478)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-INT
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
unvaccinated NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HBV NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
needs NN O O
3 NN O O
injections NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
immunity NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvants NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
inducing NN O O
earlier NN O O
immune NN O O
protection NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
highly NN O O
desirable NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
adjuvants NN O O
may NN O O
act NN O O
by NN O O
inducing NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
interferons NN O O
( NN O O
IFNs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
deserve NN O O
a NN O O
special NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potent NN O O
immunomostimulatory NN O O
activity NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
mouse NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
dendritic NN O O
cell NN O O
functions 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
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HBV NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
unvaccinated NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
enhancing NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
costimulatory NN O O
molecule NN O O
expression NN O O
on NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
IFN-mediated NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
antigen NN O O
presenting NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
natural NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
act NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HBV NN O O
vaccine NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
unvaccinated NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18261537)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Renin-Angiotensin NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
As NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAS NN O O
) NN O O
activity NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
determination NN O O
by NN O O
PCR NN O O
of NN O O
RAS NN O O
genotypes NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzymes NN O O
( NN O O
ACE NN O O
I/D NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
angiotensinogens NN O O
( NN O O
AGT NN O O
M235T NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
receptors NN O O
( NN O O
ATR1 NN O O
A1166C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
E NN O I-INT
( NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
L NN O I-INT
( NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
third NN O O
positive NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
E NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
( NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
+ NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
negative NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
medication NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

High-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
hs-CRP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
( NN O O
TA NN O O
) NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
antioxidative NN O O
markers NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
to NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
retesting NN O O
hs-CRP NN O O
and NN O O
TA NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
hs-CRP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
increased NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
analyzing NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
RAS NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
hs-CRP NN O O
or NN O O
TA NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
CC NN O O
genotype NN O O
of NN O O
ATR1 NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
hs-CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAS NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
hs-CRP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
genotype NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
ATR1 NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
E NN O O
and/or NN O O
L NN O O
reduced NN O O
hs-CRP NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
TA NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAS NN O O
genotype NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18270751)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
glomerulopathy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
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

Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
glomerulopathy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
normoalbuminuric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
in 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

In NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
kidney NN O O
biopsies NN O O
and NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Kidney NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
with NN O O
light NN O O
and NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopy NN O O
, NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
renal NN O O
plasma NN O O
flow NN O O
determined NN O O
with NN O O
inulin NN O O
and NN O O
para-aminohippuric NN O O
acid NN O O
clearances NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
needed NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
developed NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
did NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mesangial NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mesangial NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
candesartan NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
morphological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Office NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up 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

Deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
morphological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
become NN O O
worse NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
morphological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
might NN O O
influence NN O O
future NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
glomerulopathy NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18271235)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
limb NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
; NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
limb NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
neurosurgical NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Mannitol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Citioline NN O I-INT
Sodium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cefeazidime NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etc. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
While NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
after NN O O
operation NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
stages NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
acupoints NN O O
selected NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
situation NN O O
was NN O O
stable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
selected NN O I-INT
main NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
Neiguan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PC NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Qu-chi NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Waiguan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Hegu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Binao NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Jianyu NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Fengshi NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GB NN O I-INT
31 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Xuehai NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Yinlingquan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Sanyinjiao NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Taichong NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LR NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etc.. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
limb NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
10-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FMA NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Early NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
limb NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1827322)

Controversies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-INT
of NN O O
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18273636)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
fast-track NN O I-INT
elective NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
infrarenal NN O I-INT
aneurysm NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Fast-track NN O O
programs NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
surgical NN O O
fields NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Morbidity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
elective NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
infrarenal NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
as NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
ranges NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O I-PAR
infrarenal NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
no NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
exist NN O O
to NN O O
introduce NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
such NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomization NN O O
of NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fast-track NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Main NN O O
differences NN O O
consisted NN O O
in NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
( NN O O
none NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
l NN O O
cleaning NN O O
solution NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
analgesia NN O O
( NN O O
patient NN O O
controlled NN O O
analgesia NN O O
vs. NN O O
patient NN O O
controlled NN O O
epidural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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
on NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
assisted NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
LOS NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fast-track NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
vs. NN O O
20 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fast-track NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
16.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
35.7 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
introduced NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
an NN O O
optimized NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
infrarenal NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
fast-track NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1827602)

Chronology NN O O
of NN O O
panic NN O O
and NN O O
avoidance NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Cross-National NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Panic NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chronology NN O O
between NN O O
panic NN O O
disorder NN O O
and NN O O
avoidance NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
medium NN O O
or NN O O
late NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
panic NN O O
disorder NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cross-national NN O I-INT
collaborative NN O I-INT
panic NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CNCPS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
basic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
avoidance NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
less NN O O
often NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
agoraphobia NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
suffered NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
from NN O O
agoraphobia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medium NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neither NN O O
the NN O O
chronology NN O O
between NN O O
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
alprazolam NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
imipramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18278302)

Microtensile NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
repair NN O O
composite NN O O
to NN O O
leucite-reinforced NN O O
feldspathic NN O O
ceramic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
microtensile NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
repair NN O O
composite NN O O
resin NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
leucite-reinforced NN O O
feldspathic NN O O
ceramic NN O O
( NN O O
Omega NN O O
900 NN O O
, NN O O
VITA NN O O
) NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
surface NN O O
conditionings NN O O
methods NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
etching NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
hydrofluoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
silane NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tribochemical NN O I-INT
silica NN O I-INT
coating NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
surface NN O O
treatments NN O O
can NN O O
generate NN O O
similar NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
ceramic NN O I-PAR
blocks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6x6x6 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fabricated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conditioning NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
G1- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
hydrofluoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
application NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
rinsing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
drying NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
silane NN O I-INT
application NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
G2- NN O I-PAR
airborne NN O O
particle NN O O
abrasion NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
microm NN O O
silica NN O O
oxide NN O O
particles NN O O
( NN O O
CoJet-Sand NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
chairside NN O O
air-abrasion NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
CoJet NN O O
System NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
silane NN O O
application NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Single NN O O
Bond NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
surfaces NN O O
and NN O O
light NN O O
cured NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Z-250 NN O O
composite NN O O
resin NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
incrementally NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
ceramic NN O O
surface NN O O
to NN O O
build NN O O
a NN O O
6x6x6 NN O O
mm NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Bar NN O O
specimens NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
adhesive NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
composite-ceramic NN O O
blocks NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
per NN O O
block NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
microtensile NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
G1 NN O O
( NN O O
10.19 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.1 NN O O
MPa NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
G2 NN O O
( NN O O
10.17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.1 NN O O
MPa NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.982 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
; NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
accepted NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
surface NN O O
conditioning NN O O
methods NN O O
provided NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
microtensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strengths NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
repair NN O O
composite NN O O
resin NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ceramic NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
using NN O O
long-term NN O O
aging NN O O
procedures NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18288059)

[ NN O O
How NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NSCLC NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
? NN O O
IFTC NN O O
0702 NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
As NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
gains NN O O
wider NN O O
acceptance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
earlier NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
and NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
face NN O O
a NN O O
growing NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
second-line NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
initial NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
or NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
platinum-based NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
largely NN O O
undefined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
classical NN O O
mono NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
doublet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Arm NN O O
: NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
cycles NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
cycles NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
stabilisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arm NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
cycles NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
cycles NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
stabilisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EXPECTED NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1829841)

[ NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
balloon-expandable NN O I-INT
endoprosthesis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Experimental NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
application NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
4-year NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
balloon-expandable NN O I-INT
Palmaz NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
of NN O O
iliac NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
occlusive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
recorded NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
indicate NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
after NN O O
stenting NN O I-PAR
2/62 NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
after NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
5/69 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
patency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
original NN O O
lumen NN O O
size NN O O
upon NN O O
stent NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
inflation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
stenting NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
stenting NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
. NN O O

Parallel NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
canine NN O I-PAR
artery NN O O
stenting NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
patency NN O O
of NN O O
stents NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
restricted NN O O
flow NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
neointimal NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
normally NN O O
perfused NN O O
stents NN O O
and NN O O
stents NN O O
with NN O O
artificially NN O O
reduced NN O O
flow NN O O
: NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
the NN O O
neointimal NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
flow-restricted NN O O
stents NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
histological NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neointima NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
normally NN O O
perfused NN O O
stents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18299305)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cold-adapted NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trivalent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
influenza-related NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Vaccination NN O O
of NN O O
close NN O O
household NN O O
contacts NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
indirect NN O O
protection NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
live NN O O
, NN O O
cold-adapted NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
trivalent NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadvertent NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
to NN O O
vaccine NN O O
viruses NN O O
from NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
contacts NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cold-adapted NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
trivalent NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
intranasally NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Healthy NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
intranasally NN O O
35 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Reactogenicity NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
through NN O O
28 NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
dose NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
31 NN O O
received NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
28 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
30 NN O O
received NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
31 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
16-week NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccine NN O O
, NN O O
recipients NN O O
experienced NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
35.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
runny NN O I-OUT
nose NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
63.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
dose NN O O
1 NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
dose NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
reactogenicity NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
recipients 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
reactogenicity NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
cold-adapted NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
trivalent NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
cold-adapted NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
trivalent NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18303031)

Prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
staging NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
French NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-INT
staging NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
Okuda NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Liver NN O I-INT
Italian NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLIP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Barcelona NN O I-INT
Clinic NN O I-INT
Liver NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
prognostic NN O O
classification NN O O
among NN O O
French NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
main NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
pooled NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
palliative NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
F?d?ration NN O I-PAR
Francophone NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
Cancerologie NN O I-PAR
Digestive NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
416 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Performances NN O O
of NN O O
Okuda NN O O
, NN O O
CLIP NN O O
and NN O O
BCLC NN O O
scores NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
Akaike NN O O
information NN O O
criterion NN O O
, NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
ability NN O O
( NN O O
Harrell NN O O
's NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Royston NN O O
's NN O O
D NN O O
statistics NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
monotonicity NN O O
of NN O O
gradients NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
accuracy NN O O
( NN O O
Schemper NN O O
statistics NN O O
Vs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
explore NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
classifications NN O O
, NN O O
univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
model NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
pooled NN O O
database NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
538 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
5.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
4.6-6.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
statistics NN O I-OUT
CLIP NN O I-OUT
staging NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Performances NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
staging NN O O
systems NN O O
were NN O O
rather NN O I-OUT
disappointing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
CLIP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
alpha-fetoprotein NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
BCLC NN O O
allowed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O I-INT
CLIP NN O I-INT
staging NN O I-INT
seems NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
palliative NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
by NN O O
associating NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18307223)

Closure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
artery NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Angio-Seal NN O O
, NN O O
StarClose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
manual NN O O
compression NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
Angio-Seal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
StarClose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Closure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
artery NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
catheterization NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
through NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Today NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
can NN O O
choose NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
devices NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
arterial NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prospective NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
450 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
MC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
mobilized NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
hr NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
hr NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
MC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Devices NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
138/150 NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
AS NN O O
and NN O O
124/150 NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
SC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
MC NN O O
experienced NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
sheath NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bed NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
less NN O O
comfortable NN O O
. NN O O

Oozing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
bandage NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
37 NN O O
AS NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
SC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
38 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

Hematoma NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
AS NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O O
SC NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
MC NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
14 NN O O
vs. NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
closure NN O O
. NN O O

SC NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
not NN O O
used NN O O
or NN O O
successfully NN O O
deployed NN O O
. NN O O

SC NN O O
patients NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
had NN O O
continuing NN O O
oozing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
closure NN O O
devices NN O O
performed NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
MC NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
ambulation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
closure NN O O
device NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O

AS NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
closure NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
catheterization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18320520)

Bevacizumab-augmented NN O I-INT
retinal NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
proliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-masked NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
on NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
proliferative NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
fellow-eye NN O O
sham NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
characteristic NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
cases NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
Early NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Diabetic NN O O
Retinopathy NN O O
Study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Avastin-assigned NN O O
eyes NN O O
received NN O O
1.25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Genentech NN O O
Inc. NN O O
, NN O O
San NN O O
Francisco NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
laser NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Fluorescein NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
proliferative NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
masked NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
39-68 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
87.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
Avastin-injected NN O O
eyes NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
sham NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
PDR NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sizable NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Avastin-treated NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
became NN O O
identical NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=1.000 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
partial NN O O
regression NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
Avastin-treated NN O I-INT
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
A1c NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
proliferative NN O I-OUT
diabetic NN O I-OUT
retinopathy NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravitreal NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
remarkably NN O O
augmented NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
scatter NN O O
panretinal NN O O
laser NN O O
photocoagulation NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O O
characteristic NN O O
proliferative NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
short-lived NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
showed NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Alternative NN O O
dosing NN O O
( NN O O
multiple NN O O
and/or NN O O
periodic NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
Avastin NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18321372)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
resection NN O O
techniques NN O O
( NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
liver NN O O
metastases NN O O
from NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
on NN O O
hematogenous NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
dissemination NN O O
- NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Surgical NN O I-INT
hepatic NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
despite NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
this NN O O
procedure NN O O
provides NN O O
long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
50-75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
develop NN O O
intra- NN O O
and/or NN O O
extrahepatic NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
possible NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
hematogenous NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
dissemination NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
mechanical NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
during NN O O
hepatic NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Surgical NN O O
technique NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
hematogenous NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
spread NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
hematogenous NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
dissemination NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
approach NN O O
technique NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
liver NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
superiority NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
liver NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
metastases NN O I-INT
from NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

150 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
intraoperatively NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
exploration NN O I-PAR
just NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
approach NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
haematogenous NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
dissemination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
secondary NN O O
objectives NN O O
we NN O O
examine NN O O
five NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
relevance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
answer NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
dissemination NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
add NN O O
further NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
prognostic NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
advantages NN O O
and NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
- NN O O
ISRCTN45066244 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18322594)

[ NN O I-OUT
Specific NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
immunoresponse NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recombinant NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
anti-HBV NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
1b NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
W24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
cells NN O O
that NN O O
secrete NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
detection NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
W24 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
cases NN O O
showed NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
vaccine NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0446 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
turned NN O O
negative NN O O
in NN O O
6/24 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
vaccine NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HBeAg/Anti-HBe NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
negative NN O O
in NN O O
7/24 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
undetectable NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HBeAg/Anti-HBe NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
24W NN O O
of NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
ELISPOT NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
undetectable NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
vaccine NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HBeAg/Anti-HBe NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HBeAg NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
showed NN O O
undetectable NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
case NN O O
had NN O O
HBeAg/Anti-HBe NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18322606)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Kang NN O I-INT
Gang NN O I-INT
Qian NN O I-INT
Granule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
KGQG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. 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
KGQG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
57 NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
45 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
KGQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
KGQG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
routine NN O O
medications NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PCIII NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CIV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
57 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
KGQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PCIII NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CIV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
KGQG NN O I-INT
could NN O O
effectively NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
inhibition NN O O
and NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
therapeusis NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
this NN O O
hard-to-cure NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1832287)

Atrial NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
factor NN O O
inhibits NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
stimulated NN O O
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Atrial NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
ANF NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
selectivity NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
aldosterone NN O O
suppressing NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ANF NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ANF NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

Metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
slow NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
volunteer NN O O
was NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
D-glucose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ANF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
99-126 NN O O
) NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
pmol NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Metoclopramide NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
approximately NN O O
170 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels 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

Concomitant NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
ANF NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
pmol NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
pmol NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
this NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
approximately NN O O
130 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
110 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
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ANF NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
non-selective NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
ANF NN O O
on NN O O
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18328090)

Long-term NN O O
retention NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
or NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
selective NN O O
cyclooxygenase-2 NN O O
( NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
establish 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
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
OA NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
o.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
o.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
on NN O O
retention NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
52-week NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
spine NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
( NN O O
1:2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
755 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1,519 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
758 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
non-inferiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lumiracoxib NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
OA NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Arthritis NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Retention NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d. NN O O
, NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

groups NN O O
( NN O O
46.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
47.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
45.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
celecoxib NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
curves NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
reason NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
generally NN O O
yielded NN O O
comparable NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lumiracoxib NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
OA NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
o.d NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
NCT00145301 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18328868)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Family NN O I-INT
Systems NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O O
and NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
parent-adolescent NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
revised NN O O
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Family NN O I-INT
Systems NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Diabetes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BFST-D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
BFST-D. NN O I-INT
Family NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problem-solving NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
rating NN O O
of NN O O
videotaped NN O O
family NN O O
problem-solving NN O O
discussions NN O O
. NN O O

BFST-D NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
individual NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adolescents NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
fathers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BFST-D NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
SC NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ES NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
family NN O O
communication NN O O
were NN O O
differentially NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BFST-D NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
solving NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
SC NN O O
and NN O O
modestly NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
ES NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18333888)

The NN O O
dipeptidyl NN O I-INT
peptidase-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
PHX1149 NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PHX1149 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
dipeptidyl NN O O
peptidase-4 NN O O
( NN O O
DPP4 NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre 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
, NN O O
4-week NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suboptimal NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
haemoglobin NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1c NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HbA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1c NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
7.3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
11.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
once-daily NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
PHX1149 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
background NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
metformin NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
metformin NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
glitazone NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
or NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
PHX1149 NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+0.11 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.50 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.08 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.51 NN O O
, NN O O
-1.73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.49 NN O O
and NN O O
-1.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.48 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
, NN O O
0.008 NN O O
and NN O O
0.004 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postprandial NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
glucagon-like NN O I-OUT
peptide-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
principal NN O O
mediator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
DPP4 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
3.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.83 NN O O
, NN O O
11.63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.86 NN O O
, NN O O
16.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.72 NN O O
and NN O O
15.75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.71 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
x NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.053 NN O O
, NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
0.002 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-corrected NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
PHX1149 NN O O
was NN O O
-0.28 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DPP4 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
was NN O O
53 NN O O
, NN O O
73 NN O O
and NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postdose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
PHX1149 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
PHX1149-treated NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DPP4 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
PHX1149 NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O O
or NN O O
metformin NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
glitazone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18337049)

Nurse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-PAR
telehealth NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
nurse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
telehealth NN O O
modes NN O O
: NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
longitudinal NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nurse NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O O
a NN O O
90-day NN O O
home-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Telephone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
videophone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
interactions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
audio NN O O
taped NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Roter NN O I-OUT
Interaction NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Nurses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
open-ended NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
back-channel NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
friendly NN O I-OUT
jokes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
checks NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compliments NN O I-OUT
given NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partnership NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
videophone NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
approval NN O I-OUT
comments NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
more NN O O
closed-ended NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nurses NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
and NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
did NN O O
their NN O O
perceptions NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
and NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PRACTICE NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
critical NN O O
to NN O O
match NN O O
technologies NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
needs NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
complex NN O O
technology NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
considering NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
videophone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
should NN O O
critically NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
trade-offs NN O O
between NN O O
additional NN O O
complexities NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18339046)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
sport-tinted NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
for NN O O
contrast NN O O
enhancement NN O O
on NN O O
retinal NN O O
straylight NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
tinted NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
for NN O O
outdoor NN O O
sports NN O O
activity NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
psychometric NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
straylight NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
compensation NN O O
comparison NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
emmetropic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
fitted NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
tinted NN O I-INT
Nike NN O I-INT
Maxsight NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Bausch NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Lomb NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Rochester NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
NY NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
USA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
CL NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
contralateral NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
fitted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clear NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Optima NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Bausch NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Lomb NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O O
valid NN O O
straylight NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
eye NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
lens NN O O
insertion NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
lens NN O O
stabilization NN O O
had NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
straylight NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
0.95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clear NN O O
Optima NN O O
38 NN O O
CL NN O O
. NN O O

Straylight NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.97 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
and NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
log NN O O
units NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
amber NN O O
and NN O O
grey-green NN O O
tinted NN O O
CL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
straylight NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
without NN O O
CL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clear NN O O
CL NN O O
in NN O O
place NN O O
were NN O O
neither NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.066 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
amber NN O O
CL NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.052 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
grey-green NN O O
CL NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
straylight NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clear NN O O
CL NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
grey-green NN O O
CL NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
zero NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
showing NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
straylight NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
tinted NN O O
CL NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
consistent NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
those NN O O
showing NN O O
higher NN O O
or NN O O
lower NN O O
changes NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
tinted NN O O
lens NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
trend NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
lens NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.736 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
increases NN O O
having NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
straylight NN O O
values NN O O
with NN O O
tinted NN O O
contact NN O O
lenses NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
function NN O O
under NN O O
photopic NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
grey-green NN O O
CL NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
straylight NN O O
values NN O O
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
amber NN O O
CL NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
tinted NN O O
CL NN O O
could NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
wavelength NN O O
dependence NN O O
of NN O O
straylight NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
investigated NN O O
further NN O O
by NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
pupil NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
pigmentation NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
neutral NN O O
density NN O O
filters NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18339093)

Teaching NN O O
picture-to-object NN O O
relations NN O O
in NN O O
picture-based NN O O
requesting NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
error NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
error NN O I-INT
correction NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
experience NN O O
major NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
learning NN O O
relations NN O O
between NN O O
objects NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
graphic NN O O
representations NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
teaching NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
that NN O O
minimize NN O O
their NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
acquiring NN O O
these NN O O
relations NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
teaching NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
correction NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
relations NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
objects NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
picture-to-object NN O O
requesting NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
taught NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
correction NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O I-INT
error NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
measures NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
child NN O O
were NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correspondences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
taught NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
pairs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
correspondences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
combinations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
pairs NN O I-OUT
presented NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
them NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O O
prevention-based NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
made NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
errors NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
teaching NN O O
phases NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
learning NN O O
outcome NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
correspondences NN O O
between NN O O
all NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
pictures NN O O
and NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
error NN O O
prevention NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
would NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
and NN O O
ecologically NN O O
valid NN O O
method NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O O
correction NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
teaching NN O O
relations NN O O
between NN O O
objects NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
graphic-based NN O O
referents NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
methodology NN O O
were NN O O
suggested NN O O
for NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
error NN O O
correction NN O O
and NN O O
error NN O O
prevention NN O O
teaching NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18339525)

Pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
radiation NN O I-PAR
proctitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
with NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
for NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
benefit NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
and NN O O
larger NN O O
randomised NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
durations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pentoxifylline NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
justified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18341602)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
proteins NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
class-II NN O O
furcation NN O O
involvements NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
furcations NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
proteins NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pair NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
contralateral NN O I-PAR
class-II NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
furcation NN O I-PAR
involvements NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
probing NN O I-PAR
depths NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDs NN O I-PAR
) 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
( NN O I-PAR
BOP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=15 NN O O
) NN O O
- NN O O
open NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
debridement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OFD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+24 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethylenediaminetetraacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
test NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=15 NN O O
) NN O O
- NN O O
OFD+24 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
EDTA NN O I-INT
conditioning+EMD NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BOP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
margin NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
vertical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
horizontal NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RVCAL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RHCAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vertical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
horizontal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VBL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HBL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
furcation NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
surgeries NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
RVCAL NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
0.39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.00 NN O O
and NN O O
0.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.95 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
RHCAL NN O I-OUT
gains NN O O
were NN O O
1.21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.28 NN O O
and NN O O
1.36 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.26 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VBL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HBL NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
1.04 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.12 NN O O
and NN O O
1.00 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.79 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.82 NN O O
and NN O O
1.17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.38 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
class-II NN O I-OUT
furcations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
control 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
in NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EMD NN O I-INT
in NN O O
proximal NN O O
furcations NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
PD NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
osseous NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
class-II NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
class-I NN O I-OUT
furcation NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18343039)

Testosterone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gonadotropins NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
estrogen NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
estrogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
three-time NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
17beta-estradiol NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
norethisterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age=38.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD=9.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
repeatedly 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

Sex NN O I-OUT
hormones NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
17beta-estradiol NN O I-OUT
, 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
, NN O I-OUT
follicle-stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dehydroepiandrosterone NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
two NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
and/or NN O O
placebo NN O O
phases NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
different NN O O
spatial NN O O
ability NN O O
tasks NN O O
- NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spatial NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
paper-and-pencil NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
estrogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
exploratory NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flexibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
task NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
very NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
physiological NN O O
hormone NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
estrogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1835223)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soft-tissue NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Teicoplanin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
glycopeptide NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
with NN O O
potent NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
bacteria NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
that NN O O
allow NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
skin NN O O
and NN O O
soft-tissue NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Of NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
97 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
iv NN O O
and NN O O
93 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
im NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
iv NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
im NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
microbiologically NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
24-48 NN O O
hours NN O O
posttherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Persistence NN O O
of NN O O
organisms NN O O
frequently NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
abscess NN O I-OUT
cavities NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
usually NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
bearing NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
38 NN O O
teicoplanin NN O O
iv NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
im NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reactions NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
resolved NN O O
with NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
most NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
teicoplanin NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacious NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
convenient NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
hospital NN O O
staff NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
and NN O O
soft-tissue NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O O
parenteral NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18355797)

Resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
care NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
vacuum-assisted NN O I-INT
closure 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
diabetic NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
negative-pressure NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NPWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Vacuum-Assisted NN O I-INT
Closure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V.A.C NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
moist NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
162 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-amputation NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trans-metatarsal NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
V.A.C NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
every NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
MWT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
retrospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
in-patient NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

More NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
debridement NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
120 NN O O
vs NN O O
43 NN O O
NPWT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dressing NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
118.0 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
12-226 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
MWT NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
6-140 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
NPWT 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
MWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-106 NN O O
) NN O O
outpatient NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0-47 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NPWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
treated NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
$ NN O O
27,270 NN O O
and NN O O
$ NN O O
36,096 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NPWT NN O O
and NN O O
MWT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
$ NN O O
25,954 NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
NPWT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
43 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
$ NN O O
38,806 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
MWT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
amputation NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
NPWT NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
obtaining NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MWT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1835619)

Clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
sizofiran NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Adjuvant NN O I-INT
immunochemotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
antitumour NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
sizofiran NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SPG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
extract NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
culture NN O O
broth NN O O
of NN O O
Schizophyllum NN O O
commune NN O O
Fries NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
randomly NN O O
for NN O O
386 NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
SPG NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
264 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
curatively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
year NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
sizofiran-administered NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
264 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
curative NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
nodal NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
21.426 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
9.262 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sizofiran NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
6.507 NN O O
, 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
primary NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
9.345 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
curatively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
prognosis NN O O
when NN O O
sizofiran NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
antitumour NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18357902)

[ NN O O
Isometric NN O O
hip NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
in NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
below-knee NN O I-PAR
amputees NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND/AIM NN O O
Traumas NN O O
and NN O O
war NN O O
injuries NN O O
, NN O O
next NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O O
occlusive NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus-derived NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
limbs NN O O
amputation NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
affect NN O O
mostly NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
need NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
activities NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
very NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O O
performance NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
providing NN O O
their NN O O
social NN O O
reintegration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
below-knee NN O O
amputation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
isometric NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
on NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
in NN O O
below-knee NN O I-PAR
amputees NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
war NN O I-PAR
wounding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
below-knee NN O I-PAR
amputees NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
war NN O I-PAR
wounding NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
35.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prosthetics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
therapeutical NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Isometric NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
flexors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extensors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abductors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adductors NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
dynamometer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Newton NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Average NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
34.1 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
isometric NN O O
hip NN O O
flexors NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-1.99346 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
extensors NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-4.629073 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
abductors NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-4.9408 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
adductors NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-2.00228 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
amputated NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
nonamputated NN O O
side NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
highest NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
amputated NN O O
and NN O O
nonamputated NN O O
limbs NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
hip NN O O
abductors NN O O
( NN O O
26.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
extensors NN O O
( NN O O
23.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
examined NN O O
hip NN O O
muscles NN O O
after NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
and NN O O
prosthetics NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
legs NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hip NN O O
abductor NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
amputated NN O O
side NN O O
was NN O O
for NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
weaker NN O O
after NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-amputated NN O O
limb NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Decreases NN O O
of NN O O
isometric NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
examined NN O O
hip NN O O
muscles NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amputated NN O O
limb NN O O
. NN O O

Rehabilitation NN O O
with NN O O
prosthetics NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
isometric NN O O
hip NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
amputated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-amputated NN O I-PAR
limbs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
war NN O I-PAR
wounded NN O I-PAR
below-knee NN O I-PAR
amputees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18362489)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
suburethral NN O O
prostatic NN O O
microvessel NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematuria NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
microvessel NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
MVD NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
prostatic NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematuria NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gross NN O I-PAR
hematuria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cystoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
resected NN O O
suburethral NN O O
and NN O O
hyperplastic NN O O
prostate NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
sent NN O O
for NN O O
histopathologic NN O O
MVD NN O O
determination NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
MVD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
suburethral NN O I-OUT
portion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
finasteride NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
9.08 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.6 NN O O
and NN O O
13.94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.90 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
MVD NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hyperplastic NN O I-OUT
portion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
finasteride NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
14.21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.10 NN O O
and NN O O
19.75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.73 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
potential NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O O
on NN O O
hematuria NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
BPH NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
suppressive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
MVD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
suburethral NN O O
tissue NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18368792)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duodenal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
bulb NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duodenal NN O O
mucosa NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
bulb NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DBU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DBU NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Helicobacter NN O I-INT
pylori NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
stomach NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
duodenum NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
carried NN O I-INT
out NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Giemsa NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rapid NN O I-INT
urease NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
Jatrox-HP NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Rohm NN O I-INT
Pharma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Germany NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
polymerase NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
detect NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
fragment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ureC NN O I-INT
HP NN O I-INT
gene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Helicopol NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Lytech NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Russia NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Regions NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
metaplasia NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
duodenum NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
periodic NN O O
acid-Schiff NN O O
and NN O O
alcian NN O O
blue NN O O
( NN O O
Serva NN O O
) NN O O
staining NN O O
( NN O O
pH NN O O
1.0 NN O O
; NN O O
2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
Duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
( NN O O
DU NN O O
) NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
within NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Estimation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
metaplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duodenum NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
non-complicated NN O O
DU NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
73 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
such NN O O
complications NN O O
as NN O O
bleeding NN O O
, NN O O
perforation NN O O
, NN O O
penetration NN O O
, NN O O
pyloroduodenal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
revealed NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O I-OUT
metaplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duodenum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
64 NN O O
or NN O O
87.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
73 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
non-complicated NN O O
DU NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
51 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
complicated NN O O
DU NN O O
within NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
facts NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
DU NN O O
complication NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
83.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
92.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
88.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
7.5 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
0.11 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
odds NN O O
ration NN O O
of NN O O
65.4 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
and 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
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
metaplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
duodenum NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
non-complicated NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
DU NN O O
in NN O O
HP-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
within NN O O
an NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
10-year NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18371465)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
cardioprotective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MC-1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
MC-1 NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Eliminate NN O O
Necrosis NN O O
and NN O O
Damage NN O O
in NN O O
Coronary NN O I-OUT
Artery NN O I-OUT
Bypass NN O O
Graft NN O O
Surgery NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
MEND-CABG NN O O
) NN O O
II NN O O
-- NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
rationale NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
bypass NN O O
graft NN O O
( NN O O
CABG NN O O
) NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
angina NN O O
and NN O O
improving NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
recurrent NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
neurological NN O O
injury NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
can NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MC-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
pyridoxal NN O O
5'-phosphate NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
agent NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
myocardial NN O O
necrosis NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
cellular NN O O
calcium NN O O
overload NN O O
after NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
CABG NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O O
these NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
MEND-CABG NN O O
II NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
MC-1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
after NN O O
CABG NN O O
. NN O O

High-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
MC-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
through NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
3023 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
anticipated NN O I-PAR
shortly NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
completion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90-day NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
MEND-CABG NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
establish NN O O
whether NN O O
peri- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
MC-1 NN O I-INT
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intermediate-term NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
CABG NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18382824)

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
a NN O O
multi-dimensional NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50-87 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1-28 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
leg NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
arm NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
3 NN O O
1-hour NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
19 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
post-stroke NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
paretic NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
independently NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.229 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O O
fitness NN O O
and NN O O
paretic NN O O
leg NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
significant NN O O
determinants NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
walking NN O O
capacity NN O O
among NN O O
chronic NN O O
stroke NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rather NN O O
weak NN O O
relationship NN O O
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.229 NN O O
) NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
not NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18391640)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
ST NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
concurrent NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
ST NN O I-INT
program NN O O
on NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
52+/-2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ST+aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
rigorously NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
pre-post NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
simultaneous NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
applanation NN O I-OUT
tonometry NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
carotid-femoral NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
vasoreactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
pressor NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
ST NN O O
performed NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
improved NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
carotid-femoral NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ST+aerobic NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
stretching NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
carotid NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
vasoconstrictor NN O I-OUT
hormones NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
vasoreactivity NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Thirteen NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
ST NN O I-INT
two NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18395723)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
intestinal NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
equol NN O O
on NN O O
menopausal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
soy NN O I-INT
isoflavones NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
isoflavones NN O I-INT
on NN O O
menopausal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
produce NN O I-PAR
equol NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
daidzein NN O O
metabolite NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
96 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
taking NN O O
take NN O O
135 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
isoflavones NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
equol-producing NN O O
( NN O O
EP NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
non-EP NN O O
group NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
equol NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

Menopausal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
Kupperman NN O O
Index NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT 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
the NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
excessive NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
weakness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
palpitations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
paresthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EP NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Isoflavone NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
menopausal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
equol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (184069)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
mammary NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18409186)

The NN O O
interobserver NN O O
variability NN O O
of NN O O
digital NN O I-INT
rectal NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
to NN O O
what NN O O
extent NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
suspicious NN O O
digital NN O I-INT
rectal NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
findings NN O O
vary NN O O
between NN O O
examiners NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
what NN O I-PAR
extent NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
percentage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
suspicious NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
varies NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
examiners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
screening NN O O
round NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
Screening NN O O
for NN O O
PC NN O O
( NN O O
ERSPC NN O O
) NN O O
Rotterdam NN O O
, NN O O
7,280 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
PSA-determination NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
DRE NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
whom NN O I-INT
2,102 NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4.0 NN O I-PAR
ng/ml NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
suspicious NN O I-PAR
DRE NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
TRUS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Descriptive NN O I-OUT
statistics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DRE-outcome NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
PSA-range NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O O
variability NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
examiners NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correct NN O O
properly NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
suspicious NN O I-OUT
DRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSA-level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
indication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TRUS-outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
explanatory NN O O
variables NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
2,102 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
biopsied NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
443 NN O I-PAR
PCs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPV NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
suspicious NN O I-OUT
DRE NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
between NN O O
examiners NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
PC NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suspicious NN O I-PAR
DRE NN O I-PAR
varied NN O O
from NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
examiners NN O O
considered NN O O
DRE NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
abnormal NN O O
than NN O O
others NN O O
( NN O O
ORs NN O O
3.48 NN O O
, NN O O
2.80 NN O O
, NN O O
2.47 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
examiners NN O O
the NN O O
odds NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
PC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
suspicious NN O I-OUT
DRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ORs NN O O
2.21-5.96 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
increased NN O O
chance NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
PC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
observer-dependent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Three NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
examiners NN O O
considered NN O O
DRE NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
suspicious NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
equal NN O O
circumstances NN O O
a NN O O
suspicious NN O O
DRE NN O I-OUT
executed NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
examiner NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
chance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
PC NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18415946)

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
administer NN O I-OUT
three NN O O
different NN O O
fluke NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
worm NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
to NN O O
commercial NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
housing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Larger NN O O
livestock NN O O
units NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
farm NN O O
labor NN O O
force NN O O
, NN O O
animal NN O O
welfare NN O O
concerns NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
more NN O O
selective NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
have NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
animal NN O O
handling NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
management NN O O
, NN O O
convenience NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
in NN O O
administering NN O O
veterinary NN O O
therapeutics NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compare NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treat NN O I-OUT
commercial NN O I-OUT
beef NN O I-OUT
cattle NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-INT
fluke NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
worm NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
profiles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Young NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
270 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
batches NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
clorsulon NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ivermectin NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
closantel NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
levamisole NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
triclabendazole NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
drench NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
administer NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
clorsulon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
five NN O O
cattle NN O O
was NN O O
31 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
100 NN O O
seconds NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
closantel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two NN O O
injections NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
126 NN O O
seconds NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
levamisole NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
triclabendazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
quantitative NN O O
data NN O O
can NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
better NN O O
planning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
selection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
parasiticide NN O O
treatment NN O O
approaches NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
farm NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18417969)

Testing NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
cancer NN O O
genetics NN O O
registry NN O O
recruitment NN O O
methods NN O O
with NN O O
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
registries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
increase NN O O
accrual NN O O
among NN O O
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Genetics NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
national NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
genetics NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Drawing NN O O
from NN O O
South NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
registries NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
444 NN O I-PAR
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
direct-mailed NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
X1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
X1 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
culturally NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
X2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
X2 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
interpersonal NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
X3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
surveyed NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O O
materials NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
phone NN O O
contact NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
refusal NN O O
survey NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
declined NN O O
to NN O O
join NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
154 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
joined NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Genetics NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
X3 NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
yielded NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
greatest NN O I-OUT
accrual NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
X1 NN O O
( NN O O
30.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
X2 NN O O
( NN O O
29.9 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

Tailored NN O O
materials NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
regarded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
participating NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Interpersonal NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
can NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
cost-efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
labor-intensive NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
registry NN O O
accrual NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18420953)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
vasospasm NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Fisher NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Cerebral NN O O
vasospasm NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ruptured NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
Transluminal NN O I-INT
Balloon NN O I-INT
Angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pTBA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
subsequently NN O O
designed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Fisher NN O I-PAR
Grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
underwent NN O O
pTBA NN O I-INT
within NN O O
96 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O I-OUT
dichotomized NN O I-OUT
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DIND NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Transcranial NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TCD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
vasospasm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DIND NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pTBA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
DIND NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
pTBA NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Good NN O O
grade NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
respectively NN O O
9.5 NN O O
and NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.73 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
procedure-related NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
perforation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
While NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
GOS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
is NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
vasospasm NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pTBA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
angioplasty NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
pTBA NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
poor NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Fisher NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18429536)

Evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
facilitate NN O I-INT
female NN O I-INT
urethral NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Urethral NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
skilled NN O O
procedure NN O O
that NN O O
nurses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
perform NN O O
routinely NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
opening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
female NN O O
urethra NN O O
is NN O O
located NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
vulvar NN O O
vestibule NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O O
catheters NN O O
into NN O O
females NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
greater NN O O
technical NN O O
challenge NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O

Researchers NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
device NN O O
might NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inserting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
attempt NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Comments NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
nurses NN O O
also NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18431444)

A NN O O
simplified NN O O
4-site NN O O
economical NN O O
intradermal NN O O
post-exposure NN O O
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
economical NN O O
rabies NN O I-PAR
post-exposure NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PEP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

Implementation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
currently NN O O
approved NN O O
economical NN O O
intradermal NN O O
( NN O O
ID NN O O
) NN O O
vaccine NN O O
regimens NN O O
is NN O O
restricted NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
confusion NN O O
over NN O O
different NN O O
vaccines NN O O
, NN O O
regimens NN O O
and NN O O
dosages NN O O
, NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
confidence NN O O
in NN O O
intradermal NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
regulations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O O
4-site NN O O
economical NN O O
PEP NN O O
regimen NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-four NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
received NN O O
purified NN O I-INT
vero NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
rabies NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
PEP NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
currently NN O O
accepted NN O O
2-site NN O O
ID NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
8-site NN O O
regimen NN O O
using NN O O
0.05 NN O O
ml NN O O
per NN O O
ID NN O O
site NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
4-site NN O O
ID NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
ID NN O O
sites NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
0.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
ampoule NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
; NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
0.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
ID NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
sites NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
site NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
5-dose NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
ID NN O O
regimens NN O O
required NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Neutralising NN O O
antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
five NN O O
times NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
229 NN O O
people NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
complete NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
All NN O O
ID NN O O
regimens NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
regimen NN O O
gave NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
fluorescent NN O O
focus NN O O
inhibition NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
sera NN O O
had NN O O
unexpectedly NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescent NN O O
antibody NN O O
virus NN O O
neutralisation NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
4-site NN O O
PEP NN O O
regimen NN O O
proved NN O O
as NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
current NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
requiring NN O O
fewer NN O O
clinic NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
practicable NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
wider NN O O
margin NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
inexperienced NN O O
hands NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
2-site NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
convenient NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
8-site NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
economically NN O O
with NN O O
vaccines NN O O
formulated NN O O
in NN O O
1.0 NN O O
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
ampoules NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
4-site NN O O
regimen NN O O
now NN O O
meets NN O O
all NN O O
requirements NN O O
of NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PEP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
introduced NN O O
without NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Controlled-Trials.com NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
30087513 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18448859)

Omega-3/omega-6 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
for NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
omega NN O I-INT
3/6 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O O
eye NN O O
q NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
3-month NN O O
, NN O O
omega NN O I-INT
3/6 NN O I-INT
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
one-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
omega NN O I-INT
3/6 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Investigator-rated NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale-IV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
majority NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
omega NN O O
3/6 NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
responded NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
drop NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
near-normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
showed NN O O
such NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Responders NN O I-PAR
tended NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-OUT
inattentive NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
inattention NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
omega NN O I-INT
3/6 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
responded NN O O
with NN O O
meaningful NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18449445)

Immunoenhanced NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
in NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Significant NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
exists NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Malnutrition NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
defects NN O O
in NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
impair NN O O
the NN O O
host NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
malignancy NN O O
. NN O O

Malnutrition NN O O
and NN O O
immunosupression NN O O
make NN O O
patients NN O O
highly NN O O
susceptible NN O O
to NN O O
postoperative NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Compare NN O O
two NN O O
immunoenhanced NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutritions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
arginine-enhanced NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
polymeric NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
RNA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
isonitrogenous NN O O
way NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enteral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
14,5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
19,8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8,5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Fistula NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O O
diet NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
intergroup NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
TNFalpha NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
fourteenth NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Immunoenhanced NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
the NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
of NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
fistula NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
technical NN O O
problems NN O O
and NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
played NN O O
an NN O O
equally NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
immunonutrition NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
parameter NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
overestimated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18453793)

Predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
measure NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
psychometric NN O O
properties NN O O
and NN O O
tests NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
self-reported NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
measure NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
various NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
determinants NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
complexity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1367 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
52.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
76.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
graduated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
married NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
54.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
$ NN O I-PAR
5,000 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
8-item NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
scale NN O O
was NN O O
reliable NN O O
( NN O O
alpha=.83 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
cutpoint NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measure NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O O
was NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
measure NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reliable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
concurrent NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
in NN O O
primarily NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
might NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
other NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18462303)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
Compeed NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
sore NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
to NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
herpes NN O I-PAR
simplex NN O I-PAR
labialis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Hydrocolloid NN O O
technology NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
dermal NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
thin NN O I-INT
hydrocolloid NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
Compeed NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
sore NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
multiple NN O O
wound-healing NN O O
benefits NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
herpes NN O I-PAR
simplex NN O I-PAR
labialis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HSL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
outbreak NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
CSP NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
international NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
assessor-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
728 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
HSL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
351 NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
an NN O O
HSL NN O O
outbreak NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
CSP NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
179 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
172 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
healed NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SGAT NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
0-10 NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
excellent NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Multiple NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
clinician-assessed NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subject NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
noticeability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
embarrassment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
CSP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acyclovir NN O I-INT
were NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
SGAT NN O O
= NN O O
7.89 NN O O
and NN O O
8.00 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
7.57 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
CSP NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.03 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
acyclovir NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
CSP NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
hydrocolloid NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
an NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
topical NN O O
antivirals NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
HSL NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
wound NN O O
while NN O O
affording NN O O
additional NN O O
immediate NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O O
protection NN O O
, NN O O
discretion NN O O
and NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
embarrassment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18467912)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
esomeprazole-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori-related NN O O
gastric NN O O
ulcer NN O O
( NN O O
GU NN O O
) NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
401 NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
GUs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
bid NN O O
and NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
bid NN O O
( NN O O
EAC NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
EAC NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
E20 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
bid NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
antimicrobials NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
E20 NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
E20 NN O O
bid NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unhealed NN O I-PAR
GUs NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
E20 NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Healed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
, NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
E20 NN O O
bid NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
( NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
EAC NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
alone NN O O
remained NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GUs NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
[ NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
EAC NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0005 NN O O
for NN O O
combined NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
alone NN O O
[ NN O O
E20 NN O O
bid NN O O
and NN O O
E20 NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Esomeprazole-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GU NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Esomeprazole NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18470779)

Science NN O O
to NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
underserved NN O O
communities NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
school NN O I-INT
mental NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
programming NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
comprised NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
several NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
evidence-based NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EBTs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
disruptive NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
problems NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
to NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
underserved NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Appalachian NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
kindergarten NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
6th NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
implementation NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
via NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hyperactivity/impulsivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
aggressive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
delinquent NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
EBTs NN O I-INT
can NN O O
retain NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
transported NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18485420)

Atypical NN O O
recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
medial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
fMRI NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
an NN O O
uneven NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
executive NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
authors NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
deficits NN O O
on NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
rostral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
spared NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
even NN O O
superior NN O O
, NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ-matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
two NN O I-INT
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
undergoing NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fMRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Behaviourally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
classical NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
( NN O O
random NN O O
response NN O O
generation NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
BOLD NN O I-OUT
signal NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cerebellum NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
( NN O O
selection NN O O
between NN O O
stimulus-oriented NN O O
and NN O O
stimulus-independent NN O O
thought NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
exhibited NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
signal-change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
medial NN O I-OUT
rostral NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
especially NN O I-OUT
Brodmann NN O I-OUT
Area NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus-oriented NN O O
versus NN O O
stimulus-independent NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
classical NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
provided NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
organisation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
medial NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
underline NN O O
the NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
executive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
task-specific NN O O
functional NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18486741)

Active NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
mesothelioma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MS01 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Malignant NN O O
pleural NN O O
mesothelioma NN O O
is NN O O
almost NN O O
always NN O O
fatal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
active NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
ASC NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
consensus NN O O
exists NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
ASC NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
409 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
mesothelioma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ASC NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
include NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
analgesic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bronchodilators NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
palliative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
n=136 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ASC NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MVP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
n=137 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ASC NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
n=136 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
by NN O O
minimisation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
stratification NN O O
for NN O O
WHO NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
histology NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
randomisation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
thereafter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Because NN O O
of NN O O
slow NN O O
accrual NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ASC NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN54469112 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
393 NN O O
( NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ASC NN O O
132 NN O O
[ NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
MVP NN O O
132 NN O O
[ NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
129 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
ASC NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
noted NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
non-significant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
0.89 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.72-1.10 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASC NN O O
alone NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
8.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ASC NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.80 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.63-1.02 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
9.5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ASC NN O O
plus NN O O
MVP NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.99 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.78-1.27 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
no NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
predefined NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dyspnoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
assessments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
ASC NN O O
offers NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
merits NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18488812)

Comparative NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
delayed-released NN O O
tablet NN O O
formulations NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
delayed-released NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
DR NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reference NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CAS NN O O
102625-70-7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
sexes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
two-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
washout NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
coupled NN O O
to NN O O
tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
( NN O O
LC-MS-MS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
ion NN O O
electrospray NN O O
ionization NN O O
using NN O O
multiple NN O O
reactions NN O O
monitoring NN O O
( NN O O
MRM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
plasma NN O O
concentration NN O O
vs. NN O O
time NN O O
curves NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
last NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
limit NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quantification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
for NN O O
plasma NN O O
pantoprazole NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
test/reference NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
: NN O O
104.6540 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
90.8616 NN O O
% NN O O
-120.5401 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
99.9708 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
90.9987 NN O O
% NN O O
-109.8275 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
95.6634 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
85.2675 NN O O
% NN O O
-107.3267 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
89.3500 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
83.6630 NN O O
% NN O O
-95.4237 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
last NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Since NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
interval NN O O
proposed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
FDA NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
DR NN O O
tablet NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
was NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
DR NN O O
tablet NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18492829)

Gene NN O O
expression NN O O
is NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
piglet NN O I-PAR
small NN O O
intestine NN O O
by NN O O
weaning NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dietary NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
intestinal NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
atrophy NN O O
in NN O O
weanling NN O O
piglets NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanism NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
largely NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
weaning NN O O
or NN O O
glutamine NN O O
may NN O O
modulate NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
genes NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
crucial NN O O
for NN O O
intestinal NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Expt NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
obtained NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
intestine NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
28-d-old NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
weaned NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
suckling NN O I-PAR
piglets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Expt NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
, NN O O
piglets NN O O
were NN O O
weaned NN O O
at NN O O
21 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
had NN O O
free NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
L-glutamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
wt NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
wt NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isonitrogenous NN O I-INT
L-alanine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
d NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
collected NN O O
small NN O O
intestine NN O O
for NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
morphological NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
microarray NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Operon NN O O
Porcine NN O O
Genome NN O O
Oligo NN O O
set NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
weaning NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
52-346 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
35-77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
macronutrient NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dietary NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
120-124 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidants NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
reducing NN O O
( NN O O
34-75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
promote NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Functionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
oxidative-defense NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
glutathione NN O O
concentration NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
prevented NN O O
jejunal NN O I-OUT
atrophy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
promoted NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
intestine NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
weaned NN O O
piglets NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
reveal NN O O
coordinate NN O O
alterations NN O O
of NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
weaning NN O O
and NN O O
aid NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
molecular NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
glutamine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
nutrition NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
mammals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18501909)

Penetration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
uterine NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
penetrates NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
accumulates NN O O
at NN O O
levels NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
eradicate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
causing NN O O
pelvic NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PID NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
uterine NN O O
tissue NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
, NN O O
400-mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
sampling NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
sampling NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moxifloxacin NN O I-OUT
accumulated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highest NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

Tissue NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
between NN O O
1.7 NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Moxifloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
known NN O O
minimum NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
concentration NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
moxifloxacin NN O O
achieved NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
eradicate NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
bacterial NN O O
pathogens NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
PID NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18512510)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
tooth NN O O
region NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
to NN O O
dentin NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
etch-and-rinse NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two- NN O O
and NN O O
three-step NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
self-etching NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
to NN O O
coronal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
canal NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
canals NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
canines NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instrumented NN O O
and NN O O
prepared NN O O
with NN O O
burs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
posts NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
luting NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
duplicated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dual NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Duo-link NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inside NN O I-INT
Aestheti NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
# NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
molds NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
formed NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
employed NN O O
: NN O O
All-Bond NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
post NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rcp NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Duo-link NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
One-Step NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
rcp NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Dl NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Tyrian/One-Step NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
rcp NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Dl NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Afterwards NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
transverse NN O O
sections NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
cut NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
mm NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
CEJ NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
mm NN O O
short NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
apex NN O O
, NN O O
comprising NN O O
coronal NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
dentin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sections NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
push-out NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
testing NN O O
machine NN O O
EMIC NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mm/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
analyzed NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
two-way NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Tukey NN O I-OUT
's 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
The NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adhesives NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
regions NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
means NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
adhesives NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
region NN O O
( NN O O
Tukey NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
TE3 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
: NN O O
5.22 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.70 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
TE2 NN O O
( NN O O
2.60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.74 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
SE NN O O
( NN O O
1.68 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Under NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
bonding NN O O
to NN O O
dentin NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
three-step NN O O
etch-and-rinse NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
coronal NN O O
region NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
etch-and-rinse NN O O
three-step NN O O
adhesive NN O O
system NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
teeth NN O O
needing NN O O
adhesive NN O O
endodontic NN O O
restorations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18522171)

[ NN O I-INT
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
gliomas NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
malignantly-converted NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
gliomas NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
teniposide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cytostatics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
tolerable NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18523583)

Heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
DREW NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Decreased NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
( NN O O
HRV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
HRV NN O O
than NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
additionally NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
related NN O O
behaviors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
physical NN O O
inactivity NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
. NN O O

Though NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
HRV NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
dose NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
HRV NN O O
in NN O O
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
6-months NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
examined NN O O
supine NN O I-PAR
resting NN O I-PAR
HRV NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
373 NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45-75 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
6-months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
administered NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
at NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
150 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NIH NN O O
Consensus NN O O
Development NN O O
Panel NN O O
's NN O O
recommended NN O O
minimal NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
corresponded NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
KKW NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
HRV NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
hormone NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O O
use NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
observe NN O O
that NN O O
Caucasian NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
medications NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
6-months NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
dependent NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
parasympathetically NN O O
derived NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
exercise NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
, NN O O
antidepressants NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
rMSSD NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
parasympathetic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
rMSSD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
23.19+/-1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
4-KKW NN O O
( NN O O
25.98+/-0.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
8-KKW NN O O
( NN O O
27.66+/-1.0 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
12-KKW NN O O
( NN O O
27.40+/-0.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
Moderate NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
HRV NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
4-KKW NN O O
is NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
HRV NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
12-KKW NN O O
conferred NN O O
no NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
than NN O O
8-KKW NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
NCT NN O O
00011193 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18535816)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
VLDL1- NN O O
, NN O O
VLDL2- NN O O
, NN O O
IDL- NN O O
and NN O O
LDL-ApoB NN O O
kinetics NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS NN O O
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
decrease NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
usually NN O O
have NN O O
increased NN O O
triacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
triacylglycerol-rich NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
6-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
glucose-lowering NN O I-PAR
agents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
kinetic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
apolipoprotein NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
ApoB NN O O
) NN O O
-containing NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
with NN O O
[ NN O O
13C NN O O
] NN O O
leucine 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
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
central NN O O
randomisation NN O O
centre NN O O
used NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
tables NN O O
to NN O O
allocate NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
, NN O O
caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
ApoB NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
ApoB NN O I-OUT
pool NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerol-rich NN O I-OUT
VLDL NN O I-OUT
particles NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VLDL1 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
VLDL NN O I-OUT
particles NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VLDL2 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IDL NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LDL NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
catabolic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VLDL1-ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.24 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.34 NN O O
pool/day NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.049 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
VLDL2-ApoB NN O O
( NN O O
8.72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.37 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.36 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.64 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IDL-ApoB NN O O
( NN O O
7.06 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.68 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.51 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LDL-ApoB NN O O
( NN O O
1.02 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.27 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VLDL2- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IDL- NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LDL- NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
reduce NN O O
VLDL1-ApoB NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
19.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION NN O O
In NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
induces NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
LDL-ApoB NN O I-OUT
catabolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
has NN O O
favourable NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
catabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerol-rich NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
catabolism NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VLDL1-ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
VLDL2-ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IDL-ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
VLDL1-ApoB NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
triacylglycerol-rich NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1853794)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
conventional-dose NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
bacteriuria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bacteriuria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-catheterized NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
7-10 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
conventional-dose NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
single-dose NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
conventional-dose NN O O
treatments NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
place NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
selected NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacteriuria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
larger NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18540211)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Syphacia NN O I-PAR
muris NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
naturally NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-PAR
muris NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourty-eight NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-PAR
muris-positive NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
six NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Selamectin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
topically NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
spot NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
base NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neck NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rats NN O O
of NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
necropsied NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
24th NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O O
selamectin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
40.7-63.3 NN O O
% NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
eliminating NN O I-OUT
S. NN O I-OUT
muris NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rats NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
S. NN O O
muris NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
adult NN O O
worm NN O O
counts NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
35.14-58.88 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
48.39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18541792)

Multiple NN O I-OUT
sclerosis NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
optic NN O I-PAR
neuritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
final NN O O
optic NN O O
neuritis NN O O
treatment NN O O
trial NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
sclerosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
optic NN O I-PAR
neuritis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Optic NN O I-INT
Neuritis NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Neurologic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ophthalmologic NN O I-PAR
examinations NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
optic NN O I-PAR
neuritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
15 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
optic NN O I-OUT
neuritis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
-56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
strongly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
lesions NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
non-contrast-enhanced NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
MRI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
lesions NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
brain NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
MS NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
baseline NN O O
lesions NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
substantial NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
lesions NN O O
on NN O O
MRI NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
substantially NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
male NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
optic NN O O
disc NN O O
swelling NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
certain NN O O
atypical NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
optic NN O O
neuritis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
MRI NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
optic NN O O
neuritis NN O O
attack NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
15-year NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
MRI-detected NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
male NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
optic NN O O
disc NN O O
swelling NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
atypical NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
optic NN O O
neuritis NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
when NN O O
considering NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
MS NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
acute NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
optic NN O O
neuritis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18547294)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Laryngoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
provoke NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
repolarisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
female 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
receive NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg.kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Correction NN O O
of NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
Bazett NN O O
's NN O O
formula NN O O
( NN O O
QTcb NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Fridericia NN O O
's NN O O
correction NN O O
( NN O O
QTcf NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Framingham NN O O
formula NN O O
( NN O O
QTcF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Transmural NN O I-OUT
dispersion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repolarisation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TDR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
as NN O O
Tpeak-Tend NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QTc NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
QTcb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QTcf NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QTcF NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
control NN O O
measurements NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
comparative NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
group 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
TDR NN O I-OUT
either NN O O
between NN O O
or NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Lidocaine NN O I-INT
diminishes NN O O
prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
QTc NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intubation NN O O
on NN O O
TDR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18555063)

Anxiety NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
later NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
this NN O O
literature NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
in NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
evaluating NN O O
AS NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-INT
psychopathology NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
established NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
including NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
affect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
report NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
AS NN O O
was NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
later NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
controlling NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
potential NN O I-INT
confounding NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
AS NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
incremental NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
affectivity NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
provide NN O O
novel NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
unique NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
AS NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18556619)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
sexually NN O I-OUT
transmitted NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
enhanced NN O I-INT
patient-based NN O I-INT
partner NN O I-INT
notification NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
approaches NN O O
targeting NN O O
improved NN O O
sexually NN O O
transmitted NN O O
infection NN O O
( NN O O
STI NN O O
) NN O O
sexual NN O O
partner NN O O
notification NN O O
through NN O O
patient NN O O
referral NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Neisseria NN O I-PAR
gonorrhoeae NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Chlamydia NN O I-PAR
trachomatis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
STI NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
standard-of-care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
counseled NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diagnosis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
interview NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
checked NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
gonorrhea NN O O
or NN O O
chlamydial NN O O
infection NN O O
via NN O O
nucleic NN O O
acid NN O O
amplification NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
urine NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Program NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
sexual NN O O
partner NN O O
notification NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
intervention NN O O
; NN O O
adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
AOR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.8 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.02 NN O O
, NN O O
3.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
no NN O O
unprotected NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
intercourse NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
intervention NN O O
; NN O O
AOR NN O O
= NN O O
1.5 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
2.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Gonorrhea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chlamydial NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
AOR NN O O
= NN O O
2.2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
greatest NN O O
benefits NN O O
seen NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
gender NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
patient-based NN O O
sexual NN O O
partner NN O O
notification NN O O
program NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
reduce NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
STIs NN O O
among NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O O
for NN O O
care NN O O
at NN O O
STI NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18556898)

A NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sensory NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Trakya NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Training NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Mentally NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Physically NN O I-PAR
Handicapped NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Turkey NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
comprising NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
initially NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
checklist NN O O
, NN O O
Sensory NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Form NN O O
for NN O O
Children NN O O
with NN O O
Autism NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, 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
participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
again NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
checklist NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
positively NN O O
affected NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18561117)

Onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ciclesonide NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily 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

Ciclesonide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
intranasal NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ciclesonide NN O I-OUT
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
502 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
trigger NN O O
immunologic NN O I-OUT
priming NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
priming NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3,500 NN O I-INT
grains/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+/-500 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ragweed NN O I-INT
pollen NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
environmental NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
priming NN O O
session NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
patient-assessed NN O O
instantaneous NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rhinorrhea NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
during NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
priming NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ciclesonide NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
251 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
251 NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
intranasally NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
taken NN O O
place NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ciclesonide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
particular NN O O
hourly NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
provided NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
hourly NN O O
assessment NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ciclesonide NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
ciclesonide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
through NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
hour NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18566204)

Best NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
critical NN O O
care NN O O
medicine NN O O
. NN O O

Steroids NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
post-extubation NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18566882)

LEGO NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
LEGO NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Language NN O I-INT
Programme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SULP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
6-11 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
olds NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
on NN O O
CA NN O O
, NN O O
IQ NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
before NN O O
being NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
LEGO NN O I-INT
or NN O O
SULP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O O
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O I-PAR
h/week NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
no-intervention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
LEGO NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
autism-specific NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Gilliam NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LEGO NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
SULP NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
SULP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
LEGO NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
improve NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
no-intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
socialisation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18572078)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
laquinimod NN O I-INT
on NN O O
MRI-monitored NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
phase NN O O
IIb NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
24-week NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
laquinimod NN O I-INT
given NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
daily NN O O
0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
laquinimod NN O I-INT
on NN O O
MRI-monitored NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
36-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
phase NN O O
IIb NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
done NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
relapses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
gadolinium NN O I-OUT
enhancing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GdE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
MRI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
720 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
306 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=102 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
laquinimod NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
n=98 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
n=106 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Brain NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
done NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
-4 NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
monthly NN O O
from NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
36 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GdE NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
32 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
principal NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
cohort 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
NCT00349193 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
laquinimod NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
40.4 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GdE NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
scan NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
four NN O O
scans NN O O
( NN O O
simple NN O O
means NN O O
4.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
9.2 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
2.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.3 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.0048 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.5 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.6740 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
laquinimod NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
transient NN O O
and NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
Budd-Chiari NN O I-OUT
syndrome-ie NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
thrombotic NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
outflow NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver-occurred NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
underlying NN O O
hypercoagulability NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
laquinimod NN O O
. NN O O

Anticoagulant NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
normal NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
decompensation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
laquinimod NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
MRI-measured NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1857525)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
third-party NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
transfusion NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
humoral NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Antigen NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
undoubtedly NN O O
prolongs NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
man NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
routine NN O O
pre-transplantation NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
transfusions NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
recently NN O O
become NN O O
controversial NN O O
, NN O O
principally NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transfusion-induced NN O O
sensitisation NN O O
on NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
planned NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
third-party NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
transfusions NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-idiotypic NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
BT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Anti-HLA NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 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

Anti-idiotypic NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detectable NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
cyclosporin NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
an NN O O
anti-HLA NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
promote NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
anti-idiotypic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18582177)

Cognitive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
processes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
5-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
disturbance NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
3.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
unable NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
perform NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
tasks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Dependent NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hand-eye NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spatial NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
8-week NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
disturbance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
risperidone NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
cancellation NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
detections NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
word NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
on NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
without NN O O
correction NN O O
for NN O O
multiplicity NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Equivocal NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
spatial NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Purdue NN O I-OUT
Pegboard NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hand-eye NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
task NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
Analog NN O I-OUT
Classroom NN O I-OUT
Task NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
math NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
given NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18588611)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
labor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
labor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
nulliparas NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
39-41 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Bishop NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=5 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
= NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
= NN O O
75 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
slowly NN O O
injected NN O O
intravenously NN O O
then NN O O
the NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
obtaining NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
interval NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
phase NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
beginning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
necessary NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Propranolol NN O I-INT
may NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
necessary NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18590393)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
skull NN O O
block NN O O
on NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
moyamoya NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECT NN O O
Stable NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
, NN O O
normocapnia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adequate NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
important NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
neurological NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
encephaloduroarteriomyosynangiosis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EDAMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
operations NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moyamoya NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
preoperative NN O O
skull NN O O
block NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
fluctuations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypo- NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hyperventilation NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
emergence NN O O
delirium NN O O
or NN O O
oversedation NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
adequate NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
reducing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
3-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
EDAMS NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
moyamoya NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
preoperative NN O O
NB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
5-8 NN O O
ml NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
mixed NN O O
with NN O O
20-40 NN O O
mg NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
the NN O O
supraorbital NN O O
, NN O O
supratrochlear NN O O
, NN O O
auriculotemporal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
auricular NN O O
nerves NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
NB NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
NB NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
concentration 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

For NN O O
delirious NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
4.9 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
NB NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NB-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
postanesthesia NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reversible NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
was NN O O
3.2 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
NB NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
skull NN O O
block NN O O
during NN O O
EDAMS NN O O
surgery NN O O
provided NN O O
easy NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calm NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18592368)

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
employing NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
subject NN O O
comparison NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
toys NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
standardized NN O O
tools NN O O
and NN O O
DVD NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
sessions NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
behavioral NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
improvisational NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
facilitating NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
than NN O O
play NN O O
. NN O O

Session NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lengthier NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
turn-taking NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
than NN O O
play NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18602522)

Cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
variables NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPX NN O I-INT
) 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
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EFs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
characterized NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
CPX NN O I-INT
testing NN O O
could NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
EFs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
diastolic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
EFs NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=50 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CPX NN O I-INT
responses NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
185 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
62.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
67.4 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
9.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
echocardiography NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
CPX NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CPX NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
slope NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ventilation/carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE/VCO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
personnel NN O O
. NN O O

Echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
the NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
E/A NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cavity NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
tended NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
0.08 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
0.006 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
indexes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
blockers NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
E/A NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
vs NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
filling NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
26.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.7 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
vs NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
15.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
vs NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VE/VCO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
abnormal NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
34.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.3 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
vs NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CPX NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diastolic NN O O
HF NN O O
and NN O O
systolic NN O O
HF NN O O
is NN O O
markedly NN O O
abnormal NN O O
and NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
marked NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LV NN O O
EF NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1860302)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
orally NN O O
and NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
triazolam NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
orally NN O O
and NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
triazolam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
four-way NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatments NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
one NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
0.25-mg NN O I-INT
triazolam NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
one NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
0.25-mg NN O I-INT
triazolam NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
0.25-mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
triazolam NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
0.25-mg NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
triazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ranitidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
150-mg NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
hydrochloride NN O O
salt NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
triazolam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
triazolam NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
triazolam NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
modified NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
disposition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intravenously NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
triazolam NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
triazolam NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ranitidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
triazolam NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
terminal NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
constant NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
triazolam NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ranitidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
availability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
triazolam NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
its NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18606053)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
ear NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
externa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
polymyxin NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
7500 NN O I-INT
IU/neomycin NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
3500 NN O I-INT
IU/dexamethasone NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN+Dx NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
otic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
polymyxin NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
7500 NN O I-INT
IU/neomycin NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
3500 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN-Dx NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
externa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AOE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Active NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ear NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
throat NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ENT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
specialist NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
planned NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
adaptation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
338 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-76 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
externa NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
PN+Dx NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PN-Dx NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subscores NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Visit NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
Visit NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
Visit NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
swelling NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Visit NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
Visit NN O O
2 NN O O
with NN O O
PN+Dx NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PN+Dx NN O O
as NN O O
'very NN O O
good NN O O
' NN O O
or NN O O
'good NN O O
' NN O O
at NN O O
Visit NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Visit NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
Visit NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PN+Dx NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
moderately NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
seven NN O O
points NN O O
at NN O O
Visit NN O O
1 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
in NN O O
patients NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
current NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
otitis NN O O
externa NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
PN+Dx NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
polymyxin NN O I-INT
B/neomycin NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
swelling NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AOE NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
especially NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
moderately NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
otitis NN O O
externa NN O O
and NN O O
cases NN O O
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18618513)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O O
aid NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
considering NN O I-PAR
genetic NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hereditary NN O I-PAR
nonpolyposis NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
hereditary NN O O
nonpolyposis NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
HNPCC NN O O
) NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
can NN O O
find NN O O
the NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
decision-making NN O O
process NN O O
complicated NN O O
and NN O O
challenging NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
tailored NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
aid NN O I-OUT
designed NN O O
specifically NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
individuals NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
informed NN O O
decisions NN O O
regarding NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
HNPCC NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
153 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
end NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
genetic NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
consultation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
109 NN O O
( NN O O
71.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
consultation NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
95 NN O O
( NN O O
62.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
aid NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
postdecisional NN O O
regret NN O O
or NN O O
actual NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
decision NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
decisional NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ie NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uncertainty NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
8.97 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
made NN O O
an NN O O
informed NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
concerning NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
4.37 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.037 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
men NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
6.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
individuals NN O O
considering NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
HNPCC NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
uncertainty NN O O
and NN O O
assist NN O O
individuals NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
an NN O O
informed NN O O
choice NN O O
regarding NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
HNPCC NN O O
after NN O O
genetic NN O O
counseling NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1862788)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
12-week NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amantadine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatments NN O O
to NN O O
counseling NN O O
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
III-R NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fixed NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
amantadine-placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
differ NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
histories NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
psychopathology NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
psychometric NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sociodemographics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
dramatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
consequent NN O O
to NN O O
treatment 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
more NN O O
dropouts NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
taking NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
toxicology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
longer NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
cocaine NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
desipramine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
subsample NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
subjects NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
subtherapeutic NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18632218)

Which NN O O
socio-demographic NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
participation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
world NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
project NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
socio-demographic NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
proved NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
inspection NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
socio-demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
versus NN O O
non-participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Compliance NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
referral NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
socio-demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
screen-positives NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
96,517 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
87,655 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
8688 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
invitation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-screened NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
screened NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
OR=4.51 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
4.28-4.75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lived NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
housing NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.35 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.25-1.41 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
television/radio NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.50 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.43-1.58 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
tobacco NN O O
and NN O O
alcohol NN O O
users NN O O
( NN O O
OR=2.75 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
2.57-2.95 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Being NN O O
65 NN O O
and NN O O
older NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
chances NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=0.39 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.37-0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
living NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
high-size NN O I-OUT
households NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=0.73 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.68-0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-three NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
5143 NN O I-PAR
screen-positives NN O I-PAR
complied NN O O
with NN O O
referral NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
44 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
advanced NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
comply NN O O
with NN O O
referral NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O O
living NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
housing NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
comply NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
referral NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.65-0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
adequate NN O O
coverage NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
population-based NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
underscores NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
patient-provider NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
in NN O O
assuring NN O O
high NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
referral NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18633049)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
on NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Premedication NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sedatives NN O I-INT
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
invasive NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
researchers NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
acupressure NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
acupressure NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
could NN O O
alleviate NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
point NN O O
on NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
using NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and 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 I-OUT
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
starting NN O O
the NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O I-INT
record NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
27-gauge NN O O
needle NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
forearm NN O O
. NN O O

Thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
another NN O O
needle NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
forearm NN O O
during NN O O
acupressure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
VRS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
VRS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
frequency/high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
responding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
needle NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
acupressure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
1 NN O O
point NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
frequency/high NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
responding NN O O
to NN O O
needle NN O O
insertion NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
implies NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18635304)

Placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
safety NN O O
with NN O O
12-months NN O O
continuous NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
equally NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Strips NN O O
were NN O O
worn NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
oral NN O O
status NN O O
interviews NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
examinations NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 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
of NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Tooth NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
irritation NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
tooth NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
23.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
reported NN O O
oral NN O O
irritation NN O O
was NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
13.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
observed NN O O
oral NN O O
irritation NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
subjects NN O O
discontinued NN O O
product NN O O
use NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
( NN O O
tooth NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18665413)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Intake NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O O
and NN O O
long-chain NN O O
n-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
of NN O O
wide NN O O
interest NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
risk NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lean NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
white NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
betablockers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
meals/week NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
meals/week NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
lean NN O I-INT
meat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
+/-SD NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
reported NN O O
fish NN O O
meals NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
was NN O O
4.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
4.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fatty NN O O
fish NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. 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
levels NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lean NN O O
fish NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
: NN O O
3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
differed NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
A-1 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Coagulation NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxy NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
Holter NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
lean NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
at NN O O
least NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
CHD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18666040)

[ NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bulimia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
symptoms NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
case NN O O
reports NN O O
mention NN O O
that NN O O
Spironolactone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
mineral NN O I-INT
corticoid NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aldosterone NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
binging NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bulimia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
decided NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
by NN O O
using 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 I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
study NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bulimia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Spironolactone NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
target NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
binges NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
bulimia NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Eating NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
binges NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bulimia NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
somewhat NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
Spironolactone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
evaluations NN O O
, NN O O
executed NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Symptom-Check-List NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCL-90R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
scales NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
EDI-2 NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Spironolactone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Spironolactone NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
bulimia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18672629)

Less NN O O
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
using NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
plus NN O O
neostigmine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Compare NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
0.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
non-depolarizing NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxant NN O O
reversal NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
balanced NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
After NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
0.9 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
atropine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
1.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
atropine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, 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
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
0.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
neostigmine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
reversal NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
non-depolarizing NN O O
muscle NN O O
relaxant NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
whom NN O O
any NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
harmful NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18676757)

Combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ALVAC-CEA/B7.1 NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
vaccines NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
on NN O O
vaccine-induced NN O O
antitumor NN O O
immunity NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
on NN O O
ALVAC-CEA/B7.1-induced NN O O
T-cell NN O O
immunity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
given NN O O
ALVAC-CEA/B7.1 NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ALVAC NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
booster NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ALVAC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ALVAC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Humoral NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O O
ELISA NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
carcinoembryonic NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
CEA NN O O
) NN O O
-specific NN O O
T-cell NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O I-INT
enzyme-linked NN O I-INT
immunospot NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
ALVAC NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ALVAC NN O I-INT
with NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
ALVAC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
largely NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
40.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
objective NN O O
clinical NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
ALVAC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
anti-CEA NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Increases NN O O
in NN O O
CEA-specific NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
ALVAC-CEA/B7.1 NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Systemic NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
generation NN O O
of NN O O
CEA-specific NN O I-OUT
T-cell NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18679829)

Genetic NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
BRCA1 NN O O
: NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
knowledge NN O O
provision NN O O
on NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
testing NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
test NN O O
uptake NN O O
; NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
NICE NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Interest NN O O
in NN O O
searching NN O O
for NN O O
mutations NN O O
in NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
and NN O O
BRCA2 NN O O
is NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

Knowledge NN O O
regarding NN O O
these NN O O
genes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
advantages NN O O
and NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
increasing NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
alters NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
260 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
; NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Royal NN O I-PAR
Marsden NN O I-PAR
NHS NN O I-PAR
Foundation NN O I-PAR
Trust NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cancer NN O O
genetics NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
assessing NN O O
interest NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BRCA1 NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
knowledge NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
genetics NN O O
and NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

Actual NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
BRCA1 NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
six NN O O
year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty NN O O
nine NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
were NN O O
interested NN O O
in NN O O
BRCA1 NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Provision NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
information NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
NICE NN O O
guidelines NN O O
regarding NN O O
eligibility NN O O
for NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
and NN O O
BRCA2 NN O O
testing NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
families NN O O
of NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
mutation NN O O
> NN O O
or=20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
six NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
randomisation NN O O
, NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
actually NN O O
undertaken NN O O
on NN O O
12 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
would NN O O
now NN O O
be NN O O
eligible NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
NICE NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
strong NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
BRCA1 NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
considerable NN O O
ignorance NN O O
of NN O O
factors NN O O
affecting NN O O
the NN O O
inheritance NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
education NN O O
neither NN O O
reduced NN O O
nor NN O O
increased NN O O
interest NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
undergo NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
NICE NN O O
guidelines NN O O
successfully NN O O
triage NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
managed NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O O
genetics NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18681363)

[ NN O I-OUT
Intra-uterine NN O I-OUT
insemination NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
hyperstimulation NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
expectant NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
couples NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-PAR
subfertility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Intrauterine NN O I-OUT
insemination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IUI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
hyperstimulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
COH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
couples NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-OUT
subfertility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
only NN O O
be NN O O
applied NN O O
when NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
realistic NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
chance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
carries NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
IUI NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
COH NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
expectant NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
couples NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-OUT
subfertility NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
ongoing NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Multicentre NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
253 NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unexplained NN O I-OUT
subfertility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
probability NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
ongoing NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IUI NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
COH NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
or NN O O
expectant NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
ongoing NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
principle NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O O
Standard NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN72675518 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
253 NN O O
couples NN O O
included NN O O
, NN O O
127 NN O O
couples NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
IUI NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
COH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
126 NN O O
to NN O O
expectant NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
conceived NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
29 NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
were NN O O
ongoing NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
expectant NN O O
management NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
conceived NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
34 NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
were NN O O
ongoing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
: NN O O
0.85 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.63-1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
expectant NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
group NN O O
one NN O O
twin NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
one NN O O
woman NN O O
conceived NN O O
twins NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
triplet NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
substantial NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
IUI NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
COH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
couples NN O O
with NN O O
unexplained NN O I-OUT
subfertility NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O O
prognosis NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

Expectant NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
therefore NN O O
appears NN O O
justified NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
couples NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18701020)

Beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Diason NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
313.8 NN O I-INT
kJ/100 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enteral NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sole NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
day-7 NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
75 NN O O
g NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
OGTT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
test NN O O
meal NN O O
( NN O O
1673.6 NN O O
kJ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0.5 NN O O
hour 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
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose 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
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0.5 NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
OGTT NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
test NN O O
meal 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
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
compare NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
g NN O O
OGTT NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
formulas NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
summary NN O O
the NN O O
diabetes NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
monounsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
multi NN O O
fiber NN O O
proportion NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
top NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
directly NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
disease NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
should NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
option NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperglycemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nutritional NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18702687)

Long NN O I-INT
pediatric NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
intermediate NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
adult NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Controversy NN O O
exists NN O O
on NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
and NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
colonoscopes NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O I-INT
pediatric NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
adult NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regards NN O O
to NN O O
completion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cecal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Whether NN O O
either NN O O
scope NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
any NN O O
subgroups NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
check-up NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Buddhist NN O I-PAR
Dalin NN O I-PAR
Tzu NN O I-PAR
Chi NN O I-PAR
General NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
endoscopist NN O O
performed NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
colonoscopic NN O I-INT
examinations NN O I-INT
under NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

Consecutive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
intermediate NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
adult NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CF-240I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
long NN O I-INT
pediatric NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCF-240L NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
cecum NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
918 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Incomplete NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CF-240I NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCF-240L NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
cecal NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.00 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.66 NN O O
min 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
CF-240I NN O I-INT
and NN O O
PCF NN O I-INT
240L NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cecal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
96.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
98.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
71.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
73.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cecal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CF-240I NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.18 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.30 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
by NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
showed NN O O
comparable NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cecal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CF-240I NN O O
group NN O O
when NN O O
only NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
4.78 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.57 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.93 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
those NN O O
younger NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
5.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.90 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.68 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cecal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
examined NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intermediate NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
adult NN O I-INT
colonoscope NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
younger NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18704672)

Social NN O O
stories NN O O
: NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
game NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children 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
using NN O O
a NN O O
pretest NN O O
posttest NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increasing NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
literature NN O O
has NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
social NN O O
stories NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
appropriate NN O O
social NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
formats NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O I-INT
story NN O I-INT
targeting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
pretest NN O O
posttest NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
children 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
ages NN O I-PAR
7-14 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
directive NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
story NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
and NN O O
directive NN O O
story NN O O
formats NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
eliciting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
generalizing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maintaining NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
targeted NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
prior NN O O
game NN O O
play NN O O
experience NN O O
and NN O O
Verbal NN O I-OUT
Comprehension NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
WISC-IV NN O I-OUT
intelligence NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
borderline NN O O
range NN O O
or NN O O
above NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18711222)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-INT
kidney NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
propensity-matched NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Chronic NN O I-INT
kidney NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CKD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
7788 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Digitalis NN O I-PAR
Investigation NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3527 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-PAR
filtration NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GFR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
ml/min/1.73 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Propensity NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
CKD NN O I-INT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multivariable NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
and NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
match NN O O
2399 NN O O
pairs NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CKD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Matched NN O I-INT
Cox NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
CKD NN O I-INT
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All-cause NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1636 NN O O
( NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
4233/10,000 NN O O
person-years NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1587 NN O O
( NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
3733/10,000 NN O O
person-years NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
CKD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
matched NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
CKD NN O O
, NN O O
1.18 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
1.08-1.29 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Matched NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
1.17 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.06-1.28 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.28 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.13-1.45 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
GFR NN O O
> NN O O
or=60 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
BSA NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
45-59 NN O O
and NN O O
< NN O O
45 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
BSA NN O O
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
1.04 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.94-1.16 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.422 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.58 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.34-1.87 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
45-59 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
45 NN O I-OUT
ml/min/1.73 NN O I-OUT
m NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
BSA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
1.03 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.90-1.18 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.651 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.70 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.40-2.07 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Matched NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
1.24 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.09-1.40 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
1.42 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.16-1.72 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
CKD NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
increased NN O O
progressively NN O O
with NN O O
worsening NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18714238)

Concurrent NN O O
training NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
athletes NN O O
' NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiorespiratory NN O I-PAR
measures NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiorespiratory NN O I-PAR
adaptations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
college NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Separate NN O O
experiments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
19.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
both NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
serial NN O I-INT
CE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
integrated NN O I-INT
CE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
matched NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
physical NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
vigorous NN O O
3-day NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
CE NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
of NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
men NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
women NN O O
) NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
CE NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocols NN O O
were NN O O
equilibrated NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
mode NN O O
, NN O O
intensity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
volume NN O O
, NN O O
differing NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
and NN O O
sequence NN O O
of NN O O
exercises NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
serial NN O O
CE NN O O
discernibly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
adaptation NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
-5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
HR/aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
intensity NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
integrated NN O O
CE NN O O
discernibly NN O O
reduced NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-10.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
men NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
comparisons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
serial NN O O
CE NN O O
discernibly NN O O
reduced 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
BP NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
-8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-14.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
estimated NN O O
[ NN O O
latin NN O O
capital NN O O
V NN O O
with NN O O
dot NN O O
above NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
o2max NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
( NN O O
0.10 NN O O
> NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
toward NN O O
reduced NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Integrated NN O I-INT
CE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O O
discernibly NN O O
reduced NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-13.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-12.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
estimated NN O O
[ NN O O
latin NN O O
capital NN O O
V NN O O
with NN O O
dot NN O O
above NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
o2max NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
reduced NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Integrated NN O I-INT
CE NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
discernibly NN O O
larger NN O O
gains NN O O
than NN O O
serial NN O O
CE NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
training NN O O
adaptations NN O O
. NN O O

Effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
large NN O O
( NN O O
60.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
discernible NN O O
differences NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O O
adaptations NN O O
in NN O O
athletes NN O O
, NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
endurance NN O O
training NN O O
are NN O O
compatible NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
exercise NN O O
timing NN O O
and NN O O
sequence NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
training NN O O
adaptations NN O O
, NN O O
complimenting NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
similar NN O O
conclusions NN O O
for NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18716736)

Behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
retardation NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O I-INT
Psychological NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
tap NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
U NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Down NN O O
syndrome NN O O
children NN O O
without NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorder NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
socialization NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
Down NN O O
syndrome NN O O
with NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorder NN O O
. NN O O

Down NN O O
syndrome NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorder NN O O
displayed NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
restricted NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorder NN O O
manifests NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
distinct NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
phenomenon NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Down NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
professionals NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
which NN O O
will NN O O
entitle NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
specialized NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
educational NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18717174)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
polysiloxane NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
liners NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
one-year NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
denture NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
liners NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
edentulous NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
hard NN O I-PAR
denture NN O I-PAR
bases NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
denture-supporting NN O I-PAR
tissues NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
accepted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
Molloplast NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
Reline NN O I-INT
Soft NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Silagum NN O I-INT
Comfort NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Mollosil NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
relines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Performance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
materials NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
nine NN O O
criteria NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
: NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
detail NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
odor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resilience NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hygiene NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
four-point NN O O
categorized NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
1=poor NN O O
, NN O O
2=fair NN O O
, NN O O
3=good NN O O
, NN O O
4=excellent NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Unscheduled NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
percentage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Main NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
dropouts NN O O
and NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
were NN O O
fractured NN O I-OUT
dentures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
excellent NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
detail NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fungal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
observed NN O O
problem NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
reason NN O O
of NN O O
failure NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
soft NN O O
liners NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
impaired NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
cases NN O O
showing NN O O
extensive NN O O
fungal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
performance NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
necessitate NN O O
remaking NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dentures NN O O
. NN O O

Mollosil NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
performance NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
Molloplast NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
materials NN O O
had NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
performance NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
fungal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18717189)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
when NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
room NN O O
temperature NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
ocular NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
stored NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Latanoprost NN O I-INT
0.005 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Xalatan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
enrolled NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
stored NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
or NN O O
that NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
The NN O O
eye NN O O
drop NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
eye NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
left NN O O
eye NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
without NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Slit-lamp NN O I-INT
biomicroscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
circadian NN O I-INT
intra NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
curve NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
Day NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
pm NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
changing NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
or NN O O
vice NN O O
versa NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
application NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
eye NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Eyes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
, NN O O
stored NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
achieved NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
IOPs NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
untreated NN O O
eyes NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
at NN O O
21 NN O O
hours NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
We NN O O
subtracted NN O O
the NN O O
IOP NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
receiving NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
IOP NN O O
of NN O O
untreated NN O O
eyes NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
( NN O O
delta NN O O
IOP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
IOPs NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
stored NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
subject NN O I-OUT
developed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bottle NN O I-OUT
remains NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
stored NN O O
under NN O O
cold NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18761646)

Short-term NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
markedly NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Although NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MET NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitizer NN O O
currently NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
obesity NN O O
besides NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
comprehensively NN O O
examined NN O O
its NN O O
metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
( NN O O
NGT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
therefore NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
4-month NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
40.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.7 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
insulin-resistant NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
homeostasis NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
7.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whole NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WBISI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.7 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
15.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.3 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
MET NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
MET NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

MET NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
the NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

Postintervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MET NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBISI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with 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
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
lost NN O O
with NN O O
adjustments NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
exercise NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
MET NN O O
and NN O O
worsened NN O O
in NN O O
placebo 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
Short-term NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
MET NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NGT NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
BMI NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
MET NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
the NN O O
cardio-metabolic NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18779477)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O I-PAR
uveitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
fluocinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
three-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.59-mg NN O O
and NN O O
2.1-mg NN O O
fluocinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FA NN O O
) NN O O
intravitreous NN O O
implants NN O O
in NN O O
noninfectious NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
uveitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
3-year NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
historically NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
0.59-mg NN O I-INT
FA NN O I-INT
intravitreous NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2.1-mg NN O I-PAR
FA NN O I-PAR
intravitreous NN O I-PAR
implant NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Uveitis NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
implanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
from NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
preimplantation NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
1- NN O O
, NN O O
2- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3-year NN O O
postimplantation NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
0.59-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2.1-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
implanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
than NN O O
nonimplanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
had NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Implanted NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
nonimplanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
implanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
nonimplanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cataracts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
extracted NN O O
in NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
phakic NN O O
implanted NN O O
eyes NN O O
vs NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
phakic NN O O
nonimplanted NN O O
eyes 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
The NN O O
FA NN O O
implant NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
uveitis NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stabilized NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
noninfectious NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
uveitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Most NN O O
subjects NN O O
required NN O O
cataract NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
proportion NN O O
required NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure-lowering NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
APPLICATION NN O O
TO NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
PRACTICE NN O O
The NN O O
FA NN O O
implant NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
prolonged NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
noninfectious NN O O
posterior NN O O
uveitis NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00407082 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18781287)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
topical NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O O
solution NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
posterior NN O I-PAR
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
with NN O O
potent NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
treat NN O O
blepharitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eyelid NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
eyelid NN O I-PAR
flora NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
etiologic NN O I-PAR
determinant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
topical NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O O
solution NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
AzaSite NN O O
; NN O O
Inspire NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
, NN O O
Inc NN O O
, NN O O
NC NN O O
, NN O O
USA NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
warm NN O O
compresses NN O O
( NN O O
azithromycin NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
warm NN O O
compresses NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
compress NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
posterior NN O O
blepharitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
compresses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
compresses NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
compresses NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
eye NN O O
for NN O O
5-10 NN O O
minutes 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

Each NN O O
eye NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
azithromycin NN O O
solution NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
drop NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
initiation NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
: NN O O
eyelid NN O I-OUT
debris NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eyelid NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eyelid NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
meibomian NN O I-OUT
gland NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
plugging NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MG NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
MG NN O I-OUT
plugging NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MG NN O I-OUT
secretions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eyelid NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
compress NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
MG NN O I-OUT
plugging NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
completely NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
MG NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
returned NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
compress NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
azithromycin NN O O
group NN O O
rated NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
excellent NN O O
or NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

Visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biomicroscopic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Azithromycin NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O O
solution NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
warm NN O O
compresses NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
warm NN O O
compresses NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
blepharitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1878735)

Human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
transplantation NN O O
for NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
: NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
macrophage NN O I-INT
colony NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GM NN O I-INT
CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
allogeneic NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-INT
sibling NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GM NN O I-INT
CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.90 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.46 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/l NN O O
) NN O O
. 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 I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GM-CSF 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
between NN O O
days NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
after NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
GM NN O I-INT
CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
leukaemic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18791939)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
measured NN O O
by NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
and NN O O
PFA-100 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
generally NN O O
accepted NN O O
definitions NN O O
for NN O O
low-response NN O O
( NN O O
frequently NN O O
called NN O O
resistance NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
platelet NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Low-response NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
drug NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Platelet NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
light NN O O
transmission NN O O
aggregometry NN O O
( NN O O
LTA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Platelet NN O O
Function NN O O
Analyzer NN O O
100 NN O O
( NN O O
PFA-100 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lower NN O O
limits NN O O
for NN O O
LTA NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
ADP NN O O
as NN O O
agonists NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
the NN O O
LTA NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
stable NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Clopidogrel NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
best NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
ADP NN O O
induced NN O O
aggregation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
individuals NN O O
exhibited NN O O
low-response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
clopidogrel NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
18 NN O O
volunteers NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
aggregation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
for NN O O
collagen-epinephrine NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
PFA-100 NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
166 NN O O
s NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
varied NN O O
considerably NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
overlap NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
ranges NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
aspirin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clopidogrel NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
aggregometry NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
reference NN O O
ranges NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PFA-100 NN O O
results NN O O
varied NN O O
greatly NN O O
and NN O O
low-response NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
precisely NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18794865)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O O
and NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
for NN O O
PBSC NN O O
mobilization NN O O
in NN O O
B-cell NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Some NN O O
reports NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
rituximab NN O O
administration NN O O
before NN O O
PBSC NN O O
mobilization NN O O
may NN O O
adversely NN O O
affect NN O O
PBSC NN O O
yield NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
PBSC NN O O
mobilization NN O O
using NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
rituximab NN O I-INT
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
its NN O O
addition NN O O
would NN O O
adversely NN O O
affect NN O O
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
mobilized NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
with NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rituximab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O O
on NN O O
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hematopoietic NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
immunoglobulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18795522)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
occlusal NN O O
access NN O O
on NN O O
demineralized NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
atraumatic NN O I-INT
restorative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
cavity NN O O
access NN O O
diameter NN O O
on NN O O
demineralized NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ART NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
non-carious NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
premolars 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

The NN O O
occlusal NN O O
surface NN O O
was NN O O
ground NN O O
flat NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
sectioned NN O O
mesio-distally NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hemi-sections NN O O
were NN O O
reassembled NN O O
and NN O O
occlusal NN O O
access NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
using NN O O
ball-shaped NN O O
diamonds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
resulting NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
occlusal NN O O
opening NN O O
was NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
1.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
1.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
Groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O O
artificial NN O O
carious NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
created NN O O
and NN O O
demineralized NN O O
dentin NN O O
was NN O O
excavated NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
excavation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cavities NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
tactile NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
caries-detection NN O I-OUT
dye NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
demineralized NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
proposed NN O O
by NN O O
Smales NN O O
& NN O O
Fang NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
Demineralized NN O I-OUT
Tissue NN O I-OUT
Removal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
proposed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
Fisher NN O O
, NN O O
Spearman NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
, NN O O
kappa NN O O
, NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
and NN O O
Miller NN O O
tests NN O O
( 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
The NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
evaluation 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
A NN O O
vs. NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
vs. NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
Groups NN O O
A NN O O
vs. NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
A NN O O
vs. NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
vs. NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
vs. NN O O
D. NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
occlusal NN O O
access NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
demineralized NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18802150)

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EICESS-92 NN O O
Study NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
Ewing NN O O
's NN O O
sarcoma NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
European NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Ewing NN O O
's NN O O
Sarcoma NN O O
Study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
SR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mL 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
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dactinomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VAIA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
VAIA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dactinomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VACA NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
replacing NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

HR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=100 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastases 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
14 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
VAIA NN O I-INT
or NN O O
VAIA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EVAIA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
malignancy NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
) NN O O
and 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
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
647 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
SR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VAIA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
SR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VACA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
HR NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VAIA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
252 NN O I-PAR
HR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
EVAIA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
8.5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
SR NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VACA NN O O
v NN O O
VAIA NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
EFS NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O O
were NN O O
0.91 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.55 NN O O
to NN O O
1.53 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.08 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.58 NN O O
to NN O O
2.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
VACA NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
HR NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EVAIA NN O O
v NN O O
VAIA NN O O
) NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
event NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-35 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
dying NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-34 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
seemed NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
metastases NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
metastases NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cyclophosphamide NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
EFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
ifosfamide NN O O
in NN O O
SR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
HR NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18802980)

CASTLE NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
show NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1880321)

Methotrexate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
steroid NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MTX NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
corticosteroid-requiring NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
began NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
steroid NN O O
taper NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
a NN O O
week NN O O
or NN O O
identical NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
1-month NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spirometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
beta-agonist NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
closely NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
average NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
prednisone NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treatment NN O I-INT
period NN O O
was NN O O
11.97 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
8.37 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
while NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
taking NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spirometry NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
crossover NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
MTX NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
anorexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
with NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
or NN O O
when NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
was NN O O
stopped 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

No NN O O
subjects NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Low-dose NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
without NN O O
altering NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18806616)

Monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
cardiac NN O O
overload NN O O
during NN O O
antiadrenergic NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
Morning NN O I-PAR
Surge NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Lowering NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
damage NN O O
beyond NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
PP NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
PP NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
useful NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
PP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
434 NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
135 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doxazosin NN O I-INT
1-4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
needed NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
( NN O O
carotid NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
B-type NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
successfully NN O O
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
parameters NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
B-type NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PP NN O I-OUT
amplification NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.22 NN O O
) NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
PP NN O O
was NN O O
stronger NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
essentially NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
cardiac NN O O
load NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
PP NN O O
during NN O O
antiadrenergic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (18812446)

Endobronchial NN O O
ultrasonography-guided NN O O
transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
peripheral NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
endobronchial NN O I-INT
ultrasonography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EBUS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-guided NN O I-INT
transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TBNA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
peripheral NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
PPLs NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
TBNA NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
probe NN O O
is NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
lesions NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN 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

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PPLs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
EBUS NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
classified 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
EBUS NN O O
conventional NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
CDPs NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
103 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
transbronchial NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TBB NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bronchial NN O O
washing NN O O
( NN O O
BW NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
plus NN O O
CDPs NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
99 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TBNA NN O O
, NN O O
TBB NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BW NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
compared 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
182 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
EBUS NN O I-PAR
CDPs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
EBUS-TBNA NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
CDPs NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
yield NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EBUS-TBNA NN O I-OUT
plus NN O O
CDPs NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
78.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
CDPs NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
60.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cases NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
probe NN O O
was NN O O
located NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
probe NN O O
was NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
them NN O O
( NN O O
47.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
TBNA NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
TBB NN O O
( NN O O
48.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
BW NN O O
( NN O O
19.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TBNA NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
probe NN O O
was NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
additional NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
plus NN O O
CDPs NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Applying NN O O
TBNA NN O O
to NN O O
EBUS-guided NN O O
CDPs NN O O
further NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PPLs NN O O
without NN O O
additional NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TBNA NN O O
became NN O O
more NN O O
obvious NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS NN O O
probe NN O O
was NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00626587 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18818024)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
phase-related NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
premenstrual NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
ad NN O I-OUT
libitum NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Emerging NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
women NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
difficult NN O O
time NN O O
quitting NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
men-possibly NN O O
due NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
characterized NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
premenstrual NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follicular NN O O
and NN O O
luteal NN O O
phases NN O O
during NN O O
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
intending NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
quit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
also NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
phase-related NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
on NN O O
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
premenstrual NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
some NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
luteal NN O O
phase NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follicular NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Cigarettes/day NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
by NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Phase-related NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
premenstrual NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
[ NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
=2.82 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.0650 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
urge NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
smoke NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
=4.85 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.0186 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
inference NN O O
that NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
influence NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
knowledge NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
rational NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18824288)

Safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Iron NN O O
deficiency NN O O
anemia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
complication NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Currently NN O O
available NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
have NN O O
either NN O O
inconvenient NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
or NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
profiles NN O O
that NN O O
limit NN O O
their NN O O
utility NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
semisynthetic NN O O
, NN O O
carbohydrate-coated NN O O
, NN O O
superparamagnetic NN O O
iron NN O O
oxide NN O O
nanoparticle NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
administered NN O O
IV NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5D NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
510-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
750 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5D NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
An NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
either NN O O
17 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
over NN O O
17 NN O O
seconds NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
agent NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Descriptive NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
750 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
713 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
711 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
420 NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
242 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ferumoxytol NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
178 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
included NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
injection/infusion NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serious NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
meaningful NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LIMITATIONS NN O O
Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ferumoxytol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5D NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18837418)

The NN O O
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transbronchial NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
jumbo NN O O
forceps NN O O
via NN O O
rigid NN O O
bronchoscope NN O O
in NN O O
diffuse NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Transbronchial NN O O
lung NN O O
biopsy NN O O
( NN O O
TBLB NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
procedure NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
a NN O O
parenchymal NN O I-OUT
specimen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
diffuse NN O O
lung NN O O
infiltrates NN O O
. NN O O

Large NN O O
forceps NN O O
are NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
specimens NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
of NN O O
TBLB NN O O
using NN O O
large NN O O
modified NN O O
flexible NN O O
gastroenterological NN O O
forceps NN O O
( NN O O
Jumbo NN O O
forceps NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
'normal NN O O
' NN O O
flexible NN O O
forceps NN O O
via NN O O
rigid NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diffuse NN O I-PAR
parenchymal NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DPLD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
fluoroscopy NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
TBLB NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
year NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
solitary NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
nodule NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
TBLB NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
larger NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
small NN O I-INT
forceps NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
sequence NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
possible NN O O
bleeding NN O O
by NN O O
first NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
minimize NN O O
the NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
haemorrhage NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
every NN O O
rigid NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non NN O I-INT
inflated NN O I-INT
Fogarty NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
rigid NN O I-INT
aspirator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
diameter NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lobar NN O I-INT
bronchus NN O I-INT
near NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
Fogarty NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
has NN O I-INT
been NN O I-INT
inflated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bleeding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
we NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
operate NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O O
segment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
TBLB NN O O
using NN O O
Jumbo NN O O
forceps NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
using NN O O
normal NN O O
flexible NN O O
forceps NN O O
via NN O O
rigid NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DPLD NN O I-PAR
( 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
74 NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
with NN O O
Jumbo NN O I-PAR
forcep NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
smaller NN O I-PAR
forcep NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Large NN O O
forceps NN O O
obtained NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
forceps NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O O
specimen NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
forcep NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
1.4 NN O O
x NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
larger NN O O
biopsy NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
jumbo NN O O
forcep NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
2.5 NN O O
x NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
biopsy NN O O
forceps NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
TBLB NN O O
via NN O O
rigid NN O O
bronchoscope NN O O
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
yield NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathological NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
diffuse NN O I-PAR
infiltrative NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18843564)

Physical NN O O
health NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
health NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Their NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Somatic NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
aimed NN O O
specifically NN O O
at NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
issues NN O O
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
trial NN O O
includes NN O O
clients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
housing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM- NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
V NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
housing NN O I-PAR
facilities NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
2005-2006 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
supported NN O O
housing NN O O
facilities NN O O
with NN O O
residents NN O O
and NN O O
staff NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
programme NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
aesthetic NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
Hba1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P-glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P-insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
investigated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
expressed NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
health NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
issues NN O O
when NN O O
involving NN O O
carers NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
appreciated NN O O
, NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
some NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18845704)

Medium NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
diet NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
metabolic NN O O
profile NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Medium NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O O
management NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
studies NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
MCT NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MCT NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
profile NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
olive NN O O
oil NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
19-50 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
27-33 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 O
completed NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
16-week NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Oils NN O O
were NN O O
consumed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
prescribed NN O O
energy NN O O
intakes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
muffins NN O O
and NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0177 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0386 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0413 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
occurring NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
time-by-diet NN O O
interaction NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MCT NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
at NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
endpoint NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
person NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
MCT NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
incorporated NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
program NN O O
without NN O O
fear NN O O
of NN O O
adversely NN O O
affecting NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Distinction NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
regarding NN O O
chain NN O O
length NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
comes NN O O
to NN O O
discussing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
saturated NN O O
fats NN O O
on NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18845806)

Allopurinol NN O I-INT
use NN O O
yields NN O O
potentially NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
indices NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Elevated NN O O
serum NN O O
uric NN O O
acid NN O O
level NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
events NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
xanthine NN O O
oxidase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
lowers NN O O
uric NN O O
acid NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
attenuates NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecules NN O O
in NN O O
murine NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
reduces NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vasculature NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improves NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
alters NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
ischemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed 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
trial NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
tolerability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
allopurinol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
uric NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
circulating NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
after NN O O
ischemic NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+/-SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+/-13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Groups NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
characteristics NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
0.14 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intercellular NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule-1 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
) NN O O
rose NN O O
by NN O O
51.2 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
rose NN O O
slightly NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
10.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
fell NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
2.6 NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
P=0.012 NN O O
, NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Allopurinol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
intercellular NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecule-1 NN O O
levels NN O O
seen NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

Uric NN O O
acid NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
lowered NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O O
measure NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18849616)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mite NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Cluster NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
modern NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
allergen NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
allowing NN O O
safe NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
allergen NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
classic NN O O
SIT NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
current 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
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunological NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cluster NN O O
SIT NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
house NN O I-PAR
dust NN O I-PAR
mite NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
cluster NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
classic NN O I-PAR
SIT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
allergen NN O O
extract NN O O
, NN O O
cluster NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
14 NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
house NN O I-INT
dust NN O I-INT
mite NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
classic NN O I-INT
SIT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
within NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
recording NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
specific NN O O
IgG NN O O
( NN O O
Mite NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IgG4 NN O O
( NN O O
Mite NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
antibody-blocking NN O O
properties NN O O
on NN O O
basophil NN O O
activation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
cell NN O O
subset NN O O
transcription NN O O
factors NN O O
Foxp3 NN O O
, NN O O
T-bet NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GATA-3 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
cluster NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Mite NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
IgG4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Mite NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
took NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
classic NN O O
SIT NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
blocking NN O O
CD63 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
cysteinyl NN O O
leukotrienes NN O O
after NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
basophil NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
transcription NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cluster NN O O
SIT NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cluster NN O O
SIT NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
up-dosing NN O O
schedules NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
consultations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18852963)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
maternal NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
language NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
speech-language NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
context NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
of NN O O
mothers NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
sample NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IVtr NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
APA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
seen NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Investigation NN O I-PAR
Laboratory NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Global NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Federal NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
S?o NN O I-PAR
Paulo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
children 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
Six NN O O
were NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
five NN O O
were NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
exclusively NN O I-INT
( NN O O
OG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Krug NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
Portuguese NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
Marteleto NN O O
( NN O O
2003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
behavior NN O O
checklist NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
items NN O O
) NN O O
allows NN O O
the NN O O
detailed NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
non-adaptable NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
areas NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Psycho-social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Relational NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
filled NN O O
in NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
interview NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
: NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
after NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psycho-social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relational NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
development NN O O
pattern NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
better NN O O
scores NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
is NN O O
probably NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
OG NN O I-INT
in NN O O
recognizing NN O O
behavioral NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18855271)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
trandolapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
circulating NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecules NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
Endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
type-2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
soluble NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecules NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
macroangiopathy NN O O
and NN O O
microangiopathy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
trandolapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FDTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
SAM NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
type-2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
type-2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
never-treated NN O I-PAR
hypertension 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

One NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
FDTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O O
2/180 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
T NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

VCAM-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ICAM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA 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
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
monthly NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O O
serum NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
therapeutics NN O O
regimens NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O I-OUT
tested NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
ICAM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
VCAM-1 NN O I-OUT
presented NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trandolapril-verapamil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
suffered NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
FDTV NN O O
produces NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
VCAM-1 NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
than NN O O
trandolapril NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
fixed NN O O
dosed NN O O
combination NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
non-related NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18946011)

Direct NN O O
and NN O O
indirect NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
interdental NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCTs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O O
research NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
or NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
multiple NN O O
outcomes NN O O
simultaneously 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
use NN O O
structural NN O I-INT
equation NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
re-analyze NN O O
a NN O O
RCT NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pre-curved NN O I-INT
interdental NN O I-INT
brushes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
flossing NN O I-INT
on NN O O
probing NN O O
pocket NN O O
depth NN O O
( NN O O
PPD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plaque NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
on NN O O
probing NN O O
( NN O O
BOP NN O O
) NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
final NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
SEM NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BOP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
interdental NN O I-PAR
brushing NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
flossing NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
due NN O O
mainly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
interdental NN O O
brushes NN O O
( NN O O
indirect NN O O
effect NN O O
) NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
compression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interdental NN O O
papillae NN O O
( NN O O
direct NN O O
effect NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
less NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
less NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
BOP NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
direct NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1894676)

Need NN O O
the NN O O
thumb NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
immobilised NN O I-INT
in NN O O
scaphoid NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Immobilisation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
thumb NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
fractures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
carpal NN O I-PAR
scaphoid NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
392 NN O I-PAR
fresh NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
forearm NN O I-INT
gauntlet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Colles NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cast NN O I-INT
, NN O O
leaving NN O O
the NN O O
thumb NN O O
free NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
'scaphoid NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
plaster NN O I-INT
incorporating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
thumb NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
far NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
interphalangeal NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
292 NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nonunion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
cast NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18948032)

Two NN O O
large NN O O
preoperative NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
( NN O O
CPB NN O O
) NN O O
induce NN O O
an NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
reaction NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
tissue NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
independent NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
erythropoietic NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
clinically NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
. 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
2 NN O O
large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
shortly NN O O
before NN O O
CPB NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
CPB NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING 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 I-INT
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
500 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
administered NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
hours NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
CPB NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
greatly NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, 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-1beta NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
antagonist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-terminal NN O I-OUT
probrain NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NT-proBNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPO NN O I-INT
at NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
after NN O O
CPB NN O O
augmented NN O O
the NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
CPB NN O O
increased NN O O
NT-proBNP 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

Also NN O O
, NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
CPB-induced NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
antagonist NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.057 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Otherwise NN O O
, NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
pro- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antiinflammatory NN O I-OUT
mediators NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Two NN O O
large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
given NN O O
shortly NN O O
before NN O O
CPB NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
may NN O O
augment NN O O
the NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
and NN O O
NT-proBNP NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
clinical NN O O
impact NN O O
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EPO NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18957157)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mucociliary NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
various NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
pathologies NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O O
irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mucociliary NN O O
clearance NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Mucociliary NN O O
clearance NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
saccharine NN O O
clearance NN O O
test NN O O
on NN O O
132 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
' NN O O
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intranasal NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient NN O I-PAR
numbers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
sinusitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
irrigation NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
t-test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mucociliary NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
patient NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
delayed NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
restored NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
mucociliary NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
sinusitis NN O I-OUT
patients 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
while NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
improved NN O I-OUT
mucociliary NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
sinusitis NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Nasal NN O O
irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
mucociliary NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
various NN O O
nasal NN O O
pathologies NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
solutions NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
selectively NN O O
prescribed NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
used NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
anecdotal NN O O
evidence NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
standardised NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
various NN O O
nasal NN O O
pathologies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18957505)

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dipeptidyl NN O I-INT
peptidase-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
vildagliptin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
fasting NN O O
islet-cell NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Dipeptidyl NN O I-INT
peptidase NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DPP-4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
are NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose 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
( NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
prolonging NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
incretins NN O O
, NN O O
glucose-dependent NN O O
insulinotropic NN O O
polypeptide NN O O
( NN O O
GIP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
glucagon-like NN O O
peptide NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
GLP-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
DPP-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
after NN O O
meals NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
insulin NN O O
and NN O O
reducing NN O O
glucagon NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
DPP-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
also NN O O
reduce NN O O
fasting NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
unexpected NN O O
effect NN O O
because NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
GIP NN O O
and NN O O
GLP-1 NN O O
are NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postabsorptive NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DPP-4 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
islet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
General NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Centers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
having NN O O
good NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
with NN O O
glycosylated NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
6.2-7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
vildagliptin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-wk NN O O
washout NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O O
Outcome NN O O
Measure NN O O
: NN O O
We NN O O
measured NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
iv NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arginine NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
washout NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
comparable NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Vildagliptin NN O O
increased NN O O
fasting NN O O
GLP-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
taking NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
those NN O O
managed NN O O
with NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
raised NN O O
active NN O O
GIP NN O O
levels NN O O
slightly NN O O
. NN O O

DPP-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
glucose NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
slope NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
glucose NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Vildagliptin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
islet NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
T2DM NN O O
under NN O O
fasting NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
has NN O O
metabolic NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
enhancing NN O O
meal-induced NN O O
GLP-1 NN O O
and NN O O
GIP NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18957616)

Hyperinsulinemia NN O O
fails NN O O
to NN O O
augment NN O O
ET-1 NN O O
action NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
vascular NN O O
bed NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Endogenous NN O O
endothelin NN O O
action NN O O
is NN O O
augmented NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
obesity NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
impairs NN O O
insulin-mediated NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance-associated NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
could NN O O
preferentially NN O O
drive NN O O
endothelin-mediated NN O I-OUT
vasoconstriction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
applied NN O O
hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic NN O I-INT
clamps NN O I-INT
with NN O O
higher NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mU.m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
.min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
matching NN O O
insulin NN O O
's NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
-mediated NN O O
vascular NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
predicted NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
these NN O O
circumstances NN O O
, NN O O
insulin-stimulated NN O O
endothelin-1 NN O O
( NN O O
ET-1 NN O O
) NN O O
action NN O O
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
A NN O O
endothelin NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
BQ-123 NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
augmented NN O O
in NN O O
proportion NN O O
to NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
. NN O O

NO NN O I-OUT
bioactivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
N NN O O
( NN O O
G NN O O
) NN O O
-monomethyl-l-arginine NN O O
. NN O O

Insulin-mediated NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin-stimulated NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
well NN O O
matched NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
steady-state NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
approximately NN O O
threefold NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O O
than NN O O
lean NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
109.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.2 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
vs. NN O O
518.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
84.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
insulin-mediated NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
BQ-123 NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

ET-1 NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
the NN O O
leg NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
augmented NN O O
by NN O O
insulin NN O O
alone NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
BQ-123 NN O O
to NN O O
insulin NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
BQ-123 NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
comparing NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Endothelin NN O O
antagonism NN O O
augmented NN O O
insulin-stimulated NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
differently NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance-associated NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
preferentially NN O O
drives NN O O
endothelin-mediated NN O I-OUT
vasoconstriction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (18971406)

Consumer-directed NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
lessons NN O O
from NN O O
New NN O O
Jersey NN O O
's NN O O
Cash NN O O
and NN O O
Counseling NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Cash NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Counseling NN O I-PAR
Demonstration NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CCDE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Jersey NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Arkansas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
consumers NN O O
' NN O O
control NN O O
over NN O O
personal NN O O
care NN O O
greatly NN O O
improves NN O O
their NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
care NN O I-OUT
arrangements NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
outlook NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Still NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
argue NN O O
that NN O O
consumer-directed NN O O
care NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
consumers NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CCDE NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
nonelderly NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Jersey NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
contrasted NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
experiences NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
New NN O I-INT
Jersey NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
CCDE NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N=109 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
agency NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N=119 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Logistic NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nine-month NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
examining NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
-- NN O O
including NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
arrangements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consumers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paid NN O I-OUT
caregivers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unmet NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
offers NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
perspective NN O O
of NN O O
consumers NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CCDE NN O O
program NN O O
is NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O O
illness NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
most NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
the NN O O
CCDE NN O O
program NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
yield NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
CCDE NN O O
care NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O O
as NN O O
agency-directed NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Considering NN O O
the NN O O
growing NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
care NN O O
services NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
resources NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
consumer-directed NN O O
option NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (18972730)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O I-INT
needle-knife NN O I-INT
comprehensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O O
flexion NN O O
range NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O I-INT
needle-knife NN O I-INT
comprehensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
needle-knife NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O O
153 NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O O
152 NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
needle-knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
small NN O I-INT
needle-knife NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ultra-short NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
modulated NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved 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
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
( NN O O
1.60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.38 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
65.76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.11 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle-knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4.59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.09 NN O O
) NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
53.74 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.13 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
needle-knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
survey NN O O
of NN O O
6-36 NN O O
months NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
needle-knife NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Small NN O I-INT
needle-knife NN O I-INT
comprehensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1897766)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
20 NN O O
milliliters NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
with NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
after NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
injected NN O O
for NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
injected NN O I-INT
intrapleurally NN O I-INT
postoperatively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
nearly NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
25 NN O O
min NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
nearly NN O O
pain NN O O
free NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
with NN O O
epinephrine NN O O
elicits NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
only NN O O
minor NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
mL NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
20-40 NN O O
mL NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
adult NN O O
has NN O O
little NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
or NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18983318)

Two-year NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
immediate NN O I-INT
restoration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
tooth NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esthetic NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
esthetic NN O O
zones NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
implants NN O O
placed NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
tooth NN O O
extraction NN O O
or NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
immediate NN O O
replacement NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
immediate NN O O
restoration NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
single-tooth NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
arch NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
restored NN O I-INT
( NN O O
non-occlusal NN O O
loading NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
tooth NN O O
extraction NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O I-INT
tooth NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
restored NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
tapered NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Straumann NN O I-PAR
Dental NN O I-PAR
Implant NN O I-PAR
System NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
provisional NN O O
restoration NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
: NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
papilla NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
margin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
definitive NN O O
restoration NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
parameters NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
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
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
loading NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
definitive NN O O
restoration 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
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
immediate NN O O
replacement NN O O
without NN O O
functional NN O O
loading NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
selected NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
single-tooth NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
esthetic NN O O
area NN O O
when NN O O
TE NN O O
implants NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Implant NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O O
placement NN O O
is NN O O
slightly NN O O
inferior NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
replacement NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (18991158)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pathological NN O I-PAR
gamblers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
pathological NN O I-PAR
gamblers NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
increased NN O O
recently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pathological NN O I-PAR
gamblers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pathological NN O I-PAR
gambling NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
accordance NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
post-treatment/post-waiting NN O O
list NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
Criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Pathological NN O I-OUT
Gambling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Money NN O I-OUT
Spent NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Gambling NN O I-OUT
During NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Last NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Gamblers NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Consequences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Group NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
Criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Pathological NN O I-OUT
Gambling NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
Money NN O I-OUT
Spent NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Gambling NN O I-OUT
During NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Last NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Combining NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
3-months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
variables NN O O
from NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pathological NN O I-PAR
gamblers NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19001103)

Evaluating NN O O
online NN O I-INT
continuing NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
seminars NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
evidence NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
improving NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
online NN O I-INT
continuing NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CME NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
seminars NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
online NN O I-PAR
CME NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Physicians NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
view NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
seminar NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
seminar NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
systolic NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
the NN O O
seminar NN O I-INT
, NN O O
physicians NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
clinical NN O O
vignettes NN O O
and NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
what NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
counseling NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
referrals NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
recommend NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
who NN O O
viewed NN O O
the NN O O
seminars NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
recommend NN O I-OUT
guideline-consistent NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vignettes NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
who NN O O
viewed NN O O
the NN O O
diabetes NN O O
seminar NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
order NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
exam NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
physicians NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
some NN O O
guidelines NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
early NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
online NN O I-INT
CME NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19002124)

Combined NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
mononuclear NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
and NN O O
late NN O O
after NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
MYSTAR NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Combined NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
and NN O O
intramyocardial NN O O
administration NN O O
might NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
bone-marrow-derived NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
AMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
intramyocardial NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intracoronary NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
3-6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3-4 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
AMI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
-3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
-3.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.3-5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.7-6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
9-12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
AMI NN O O
, NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
200.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
68.7 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
194.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
60.4 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
stem NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
myocardium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.68 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.29 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.41 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
high NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Combined NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
induces NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19017582)

Comparing NN O O
two NN O O
web-based NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
programs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

Innovative NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
Internet NN O O
have NN O O
begun NN O O
to NN O O
emerge NN O O
that NN O O
offer NN O O
great NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
reaching NN O O
large NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
encouraging NN O O
widespread NN O O
behavior NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
few NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
Web-based NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
programs NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
short NN O O
follow-up NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up 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
in NN O O
which NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
online NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Quit NN O I-INT
Smoking NN O I-INT
Network NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
QSN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
enhancement NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Active NN O I-INT
Lives NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
adapted NN O I-INT
somewhat NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
encourage NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
two-arm NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
programs NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
QSN NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Active NN O I-INT
Lives NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
developing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
assist NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
quitting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
QSN NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Active NN O I-INT
Lives NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
goal NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
QSN NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
engaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
eg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
multimedia NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
present NN O I-INT
much NN O I-INT
greater NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
typically NN O I-INT
found NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
between-condition NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QSN NN O O
intervention NN O O
condition NN O O
spent NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
visiting NN O O
the NN O O
online NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
visit NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
substantial NN O O
attrition NN O O
( NN O O
60.8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
as NN O O
engaged NN O O
as NN O O
we NN O O
had NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
Web-based NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
attention NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
differences NN O O
at NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explored NN O O
possible NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
limited NN O O
engagement NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
simplifying NN O O
program NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
architecture NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
research NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
participant NN O O
engagement NN O O
in NN O O
online NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
approaches NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
regard NN O O
can NN O O
include NN O O
new NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
procedures NN O O
that NN O O
better NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
roles NN O O
and NN O O
responsibilities NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
participant NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
program NN O O
designs NN O O
that NN O O
add NN O O
more NN O O
vitality NN O O
( NN O O
changing NN O O
content NN O O
from NN O O
visit NN O O
to NN O O
visit NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
new NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
reminders NN O O
pushed NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
return NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Simplifying NN O O
program NN O O
content NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
enhanced NN O O
tailoring NN O O
and NN O O
information NN O O
architecture NN O O
also NN O O
merits NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19019444)

Visual NN O O
field NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Collaborative NN O I-PAR
Initial NN O I-PAR
Glaucoma NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
all NN O O
available NN O O
follow-up NN O O
through NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
initiation NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Initial NN O O
Glaucoma NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
CIGTS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Longitudinal NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
607 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
initially NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
trabeculectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
initiation NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
clinically NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CIGTS NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
aggressively NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
effort NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
below NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
predetermined NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
eye-specific NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O I-INT
field NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
analyzed NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Humphrey NN O I-OUT
24-2 NN O I-OUT
full-threshold NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
indicator NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
substantial NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VF NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
MD NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=3 NN O O
dB NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Follow-up NN O O
indicated NN O O
minimal NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
average NN O O
MD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
8-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
substantial NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
=3 NN O I-OUT
dB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MD NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
21.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
25.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
initial NN O O
medicine NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
subsequent NN O O
VF NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
MD 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
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
VF NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
VF NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
more NN O O
VF NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
if NN O O
treated NN O O
initially NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
CIGTS NN O O
intervention NN O O
protocol NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
persisted NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Progression NN O O
in NN O O
VF NN O O
loss NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
regarding NN O O
initial NN O O
surgery NN O O
being NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
VF NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
presentation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
detrimental NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
are NN O O
noteworthy NN O O
and NN O O
warrant NN O O
independent NN O O
confirmation NN O O
. NN O O

FINANCIAL NN O O
DISCLOSURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
author NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
proprietary NN O O
or NN O O
commercial NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
materials NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19023654)

Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parenting NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whilst NN O O
the NN O O
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
Positive NN O I-INT
Parenting NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
( NN O O
Sanders NN O O
, NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Child NN O O
and NN O O
Family NN O O
Psychology NN O O
Review NN O O
2:71-90 NN O O
, NN O O
1999 NN O O
; NN O O
Sanders NN O O
, NN O O
Journal NN O O
of NN O O
Consulting NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Psychology NN O O
68:624-640 NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
is NN O O
also NN O O
efficacious NN O O
( NN O O
Roberts NN O O
, NN O O
Journal NN O O
of NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Child NN O O
and NN O O
Adolescent NN O O
Psychology NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
:180-193 NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
styles NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
verbosity NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
sleeper NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
Stepping NN O I-INT
Stones NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
intervention 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
. NN O I-PAR
Limitations NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
addressed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19035420)

Efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
wrist NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
wrist NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
after NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
splinting NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wrist NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
splinting NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
splinting NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
prefabricated NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
instructed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
splint NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
much NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
wrist NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
latter NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Disabilities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Arm NN O O
, NN O O
Shoulder NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Hand NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Sequential NN O O
Occupational NN O O
Dexterity NN O O
Assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
without NN O O
splint NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
splinting NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
indicate NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
large NN O O
and NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
wrist NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

VAS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
splinting NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
17 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

Small NN O O
and NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
nonsplinted NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Prefabricated NN O O
wrist NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
are NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
wrist NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
splint NN O O
wearing NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
wrist NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19040172)

Impacts NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
disease NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
dually NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
LifeMasters NN O I-INT
Supported NN O I-INT
SelfCare NN O I-INT
demonstration NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
disease NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Florida NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
population-based NN O O
program NN O O
provides NN O O
primarily NN O I-INT
telephonic NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
design NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
operations NN O O
show NN O O
virtually NN O O
no NN O O
overall NN O O
impacts NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Medicare NN O I-OUT
expenditures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
33,000 NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
resided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-cost NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
counties NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
reduced NN O O
Medicare NN O I-OUT
expenditures NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
9.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19051459)

Pre-operative NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
whether NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
had NN O O
any NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
carcinomatosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
carcinomatosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
POST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
radiochemotherapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
other NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
immediately NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
4 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
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
between NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
51 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
56 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
1st NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
, NN O O
3rd NN O O
and NN O O
4th NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
POST NN O O
group NN O O
those NN O O
percentages NN O O
were NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
, NN O O
3rd NN O O
and NN O O
4th NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.707 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One-year NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
POST NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.520 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
either NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
or NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
POST NN O I-INT
group NN O O
's NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19054570)

Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
following NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
mixed NN O O
index NN O O
episodes NN O O
with NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
bipolar NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
manic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
true NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
index NN O O
episode NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Post-hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
larger NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
olanzapine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
mood NN O O
episode NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
depressive NN O O
, NN O O
manic NN O O
, NN O O
hypo-manic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mixed NN O O
mood NN O O
episodes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
304 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
39.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
met NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=76 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n=45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
59.2 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
91.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
versus NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
any NN O O
kind NN O O
. NN O O

Olanzapine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
also NN O O
experienced NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
85 NN O O
versus NN O O
22 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
manic NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
too NN O O
few NN O O
relapses NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
versus NN O O
42 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19054718)

Timing NN O O
for NN O O
delivering NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Artery NN O I-PAR
Bypass NN O I-PAR
Graft NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
1-2 NN O O
days NN O O
pre-discharge NN O O
versus NN O O
1-2 NN O O
days NN O O
post-discharge NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
CABG NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
self-care NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
self-care NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
convenience NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
education NN O I-INT
pre-discharge NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
post-discharge NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
well NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-discharge NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
post-discharge NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
individualized NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
non-significant NN O O
findings NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

PRACTICE NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Nurses NN O O
may NN O O
consider NN O O
assessing NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
implement NN O O
interventions NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
reducing NN O O
anxiety NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
individualized NN O O
teaching NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1905592)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
on NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Silent NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
are NN O O
sparse NN O O
and NN O O
contradictory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relations NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
drug NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
are NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
treadmill NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
electrocardiographic NN O I-PAR
recording NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
cross-over NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treadmill NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
72-hour NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
2-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
sustained-release NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

or NN O O
equivalent NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-19 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-13 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
their NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
78.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-60 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
24.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-411 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

No NN O O
circadian NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
modulated NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
rather NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
absolute NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Diltiazem NN O I-INT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
341 NN O O
+/- NN O O
148 NN O O
from NN O O
296 NN O O
+/- NN O O
154 NN O O
seconds NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
with NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
versus NN O O
54 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19062727)

[ NN O O
Safety NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
dose-dense NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
dose-dense NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
January NN O O
2004 NN O O
to NN O O
December NN O O
2006 NN O O
, NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into 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
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
and NN O O
regular NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
175 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Dl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
D2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose-dense NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
repeated NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
D5-D9 NN O I-INT
during NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
only NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
condition NN O O
that NN O O
grade NN O O
II NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Major NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
II-IV NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
III-IV NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
54.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
postponing NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
planed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
89.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
87.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
93.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
high-risk NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-dense NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
86.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
survival NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
90.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Adjuvant NN O I-INT
dose-dense NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
tolerable NN O O
and NN O O
promising NN O O
for NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19073386)

Moist NN O I-INT
Exposed NN O I-INT
Burn NN O I-INT
Ointment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
partial NN O I-PAR
thickness NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
open NN O O
mono-center NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
dermaheal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ointment NN O O
on NN O O
thermal NN O I-PAR
2nd NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Wound NN O O
healing NN O O
in NN O O
burn NN O O
wounds NN O O
presents NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
healthcare NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
alternatives NN O O
in NN O O
topical NN O O
burn NN O O
wound NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

- NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
ointment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
MEBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O I-PAR
thickness NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
topical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Moist NN O I-INT
Exposed NN O I-INT
Burn NN O I-INT
Ointment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
Flammazine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
partial-thickness NN O I-PAR
burn NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Wounds NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
days NN O O
regarding NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
alleviation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
transepidermal NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
2.3 NN O O
gr/m2/h NN O O
between NN O O
MEBO NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Flammazine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
favoring NN O O
MEBO NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, 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
p=0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
parameter NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

- NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
MEBO NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
burn NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
presents NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
thickness NN O I-PAR
thermal NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19080323)

Changes NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
circulating NN O O
endothelial NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
survivin NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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
after NN O I-PAR
antiangiogenesis NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
antiangiogenesis NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
anti-neoplastic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
its NN O O
recognized NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
slight NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
ideal NN O O
markers NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
circulating NN O O
endothelial NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
aCECs NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
survivin NN O O
after NN O O
anti-angiogenesis NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
significance NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
Endostar NN O I-INT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
CECs NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
survivin NN O O
mRNA NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
real-time NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
( NN O O
PCR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O I-OUT
CECs NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
Endostar NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.293 NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Endotatar NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

After NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survivin NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
cases 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
increased NN O O
in NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
activated NN O I-OUT
CECs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survivin NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
0.021 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Endostar NN O I-INT
group NN O O
pre-therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
) NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
decreased NN O O
activated NN O I-OUT
CECs NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.322 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survivin NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
post-therapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.291 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Activated NN O O
CECs NN O O
and NN O O
survivin NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
ideal NN O O
markers NN O O
forecasting NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
former NN O O
can NN O O
reflect NN O O
more NN O O
sensitively NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
shrinkage NN O O
or NN O O
swelling NN O O
of NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
combination NN O O
can NN O O
evaluate NN O O
more NN O O
accurately NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
antiangiogenic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1908493)

Altered NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
renal NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
received NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
GHRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
microgram/kg NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microgram NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
undergoing NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
. NN O O

GHRH-induced NN O I-INT
GH NN O O
peak NN O O
in NN O O
uremics NN O O
( NN O O
22.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.2 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
16.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.3 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
habitual NN O O
post-peak NN O O
fall NN O O
, NN O O
remaining NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
till NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
. 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
significant 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

Uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
PRL NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
their NN O O
TRH-induced NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.6 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
26.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Again NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
PRL NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
abnormally NN O O
elevated NN O O
till NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
. 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
significant 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

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
sustained NN O O
secretion NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
uremia NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
kidney NN O O
clearance NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
individually NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
GHRH- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TRH-induced NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Unlike NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
uremic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
GHRH-stimulated NN O I-INT
GH NN O O
and NN O O
TRH-stimulated NN O I-INT
PRL/GH NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
dispersed NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
controls NN O O
GH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O O
clustered NN O O
around NN O O
15-30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peak NN O O
dispersion NN O O
created NN O O
a NN O O
false NN O O
impression NN O O
of NN O O
flattened NN O O
curves NN O O
or NN O O
sustained NN O O
hypersecretion NN O O
in NN O O
uremia 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- (1908729)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhGM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
infection-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
T-cell NN O I-PAR
depleted NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19092729)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib/valdecoxib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
after NN O O
scleral NN O I-PAR
buckling NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
valdecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
scleral NN O O
buckling NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
masked NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
scleral NN O I-PAR
buckle NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
valdecoxib NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pro-drug NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
valdecoxib NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
6 NN O O
hourly NN O O
day NN O O
one NN O O
postoperative NN O O
or NN O O
identical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
retinal NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
and NN O O
retinal NN O O
thickness NN O O
analyzer NN O O
scan NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
macula NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
subretinal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
116 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
visit NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
incidence NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
incidence NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
calculation NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
study NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
apparent NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
achievable NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
terminated NN O O
early NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
COX NN O O
2 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
subretinal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
macula NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
COX NN O O
2 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
after NN O O
scleral NN O O
buckling NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
valdecoxib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
subretinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
COX NN O O
2 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Enhanced NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
scleral NN O O
buckling NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19102810)

Validation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
FFQ NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
validate NN O O
an NN O O
FFQ NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Cross-sectional NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Intakes NN O O
of NN O O
marine NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
and NN O O
EPA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
FFQ NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
marine NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
RBC NN O O
membranes NN O O
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
GC NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Saint-Fran?ois NN O I-PAR
d'Assise NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Qu?bec NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
sixty-five NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Spearman NN O O
's NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.46 NN O O
, NN O O
0.40 NN O O
and NN O O
0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
EPA+DHA NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O I-OUT
positive NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
for NN O O
oily NN O O
fish NN O O
( NN O O
beta NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
0.72 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
fish NN O O
( NN O O
beta NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
0.64 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
marine NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
beta NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.20 NN O O
, NN O O
0.64 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
marine NN O O
food NN O O
products NN O O
significantly NN O O
predicted NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
validation NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
consumption NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
marine NN O I-PAR
food NN O I-PAR
products NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
servings/week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
our NN O O
FFQ NN O O
provided NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
fairly NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
different NN O O
marine NN O O
species NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19106322)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
child NN O O
obesity NN O O
in NN O O
Belarus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
protects NN O O
against NN O O
obesity NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
observational NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
confounding NN O O
and NN O O
selection NN O O
bias NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
summarizes NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
exclusive NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
affects NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
adiposity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
6.5 NN O O
y NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
Promotion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Breastfeeding NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PROBIT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cluster-randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
WHO/UNICEF NN O O
Baby-Friendly NN O O
Hospital NN O O
Initiative NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
17,046 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
breast-fed NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
Belarussian NN O I-PAR
maternity NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
affiliated NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
13,889 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
81.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6.5 NN O I-INT
y NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
duplicate NN O I-INT
measurements NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
height NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
waist NN O I-INT
circumference NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
triceps NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
subscapular NN O I-INT
skinfold NN O I-INT
thicknesses NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
systolic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diastolic NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
statistical NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
clustering NN O O
within NN O O
hospitals/clinics NN O O
to NN O O
permit NN O O
inferences NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
intervention NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
exclusive NN O I-OUT
breast-feeding NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
mo NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
throughout NN O O
infancy NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
substantial NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exclusivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast-feeding NN O I-OUT
yet NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
age NN O O
6.5 NN O O
y NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
protective NN O O
effects NN O O
against NN O O
obesity NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
bias NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
confounding NN O O
and NN O O
selection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19109835)

Two NN O O
different NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
donor NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
transection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cavitron NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
aspirator NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
cautery NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
cavitron NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
aspirator NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
coagulator-A NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
Cavitron NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
aspirator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CUSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
cautery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
CUSA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
coagulator NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
TissueLink NN O O
( NN O O
TL NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
for NN O O
hepatic NN O O
transection NN O O
in NN O O
living NN O O
donor NN O O
liver NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
hepatic NN O O
transection NN O O
using NN O O
CUSA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
CUSA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
parenchymal NN O I-OUT
transection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transection NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
transection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TL NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
195.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
84.5 NN O O
versus NN O O
343.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
198.4 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
transection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TL NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/minute NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
ties NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
required NN O O
during NN O O
liver NN O O
transection NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TL NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
15.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.8 NN O O
versus NN O O
22.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.9 NN O O
ties NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
CUSA NN O O
with NN O O
TL NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
CUSA NN O O
with NN O O
BP NN O O
for NN O O
donor NN O O
hepatectomy NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transection NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1911013)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
craniotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMRO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Kety-Schmidt NN O O
technique NN O O
using NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

xenon-133 NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
supratentorial NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pancuronium NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lungs NN O O
were NN O O
ventilated NN O O
to NN O O
normocapnia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
flow NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
0.01 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
later NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
flow NN O O
measurement NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
flow NN O O
measurement NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
flumazenil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
CBF NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CMRO2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Flumazenil NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
CMRO2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19111789)

Financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
burden NN O I-INT
of NN O O
dysfunctional NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
agreeing NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obtain NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
describe NN O O
elements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
burden NN O I-INT
of NN O O
dysfunctional NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DUB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
perspective NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obtain NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
) NN O O
explore NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
DUB NN O O
symptom NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
burden NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O O
dollar NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
financial NN O O
burden NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
spent NN O O
on NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
eliminate NN O O
DUB NN O O
symptoms NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
$ NN O O
50,000/quality-adjusted NN O O
life-year NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
DUB NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aspects NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
burden NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
237 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
agreeing NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
DUB NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measures NN O O
included NN O O
out-of-pocket NN O I-OUT
pharmaceutical NN O I-OUT
expenditures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
expenditures NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pads NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tampons NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
missed NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
paid NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
used NN O O
chi2 NN O O
and NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
DUB NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
burden NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
annual NN O O
financial NN O O
burden NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pelvic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cramps NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tiredness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Excess NN O I-OUT
pharmaceutical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pad NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tampon NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
$ NN O O
333 NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
per NN O O
year 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
263- NN O O
$ NN O O
403 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Excess NN O O
paid NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
$ NN O O
2,291 NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
1847- NN O O
$ NN O O
2752 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effective NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
costing NN O O
$ NN O O
40,000 NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
financial NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quality-of-life NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
of NN O O
DUB NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
burden NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19122080)

Detection NN O O
of NN O O
traumatic NN O O
arthrotomy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
helps NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
wound NN O O
extends NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
injected NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
that NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
rule NN O O
in NN O O
or NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
traumatic NN O O
arthrotomy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
. 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
determine NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
needle NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
traumatic NN O O
knee NN O O
arthrotomy NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
associated NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroscopy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
inferolateral NN O I-INT
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
stab NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
number-11 NN O I-INT
blade NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Injection NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
superomedial NN O O
or NN O O
inferomedial NN O O
location NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mL/sec NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
18-gauge NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
was NN O O
continued NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
was NN O O
moved NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
motion NN O O
until NN O O
fluid NN O O
extravasated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
iatrogenic NN O O
laceration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
injected NN O O
fluid NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
included NN O O
thirty-one NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-five NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
30.9 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
diagnose NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
arthrotomies NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
75 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
injected NN O O
fluid NN O O
was NN O O
needed NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
volumes NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
order NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
diagnose NN O I-OUT
75 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
arthrotomies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
110 NN O O
, NN O O
145 NN O O
, NN O O
155 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
175 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injected NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inferomedial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
superomedial NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
locations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
64.0 NN O O
and NN O O
95.2 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
necessary NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
1-cm NN O O
inferolateral NN O O
arthrotomies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O O
load NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
155 NN O O
mL NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
injected NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
inferomedial NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
requires NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
a NN O O
superomedial NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
inferolateral NN O O
arthrotomies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19127003)

Measuring NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
implications NN O O
for NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
returning NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
everyday NN O O
adolescent NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
empathise NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mental NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
others NN O I-INT
, NN O O
recognise NN O O
or NN O O
infer NN O I-INT
intentions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
make NN O I-INT
judgements NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
emotional NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
non-conscious NN O O
but NN O O
vital NN O O
prerequisite NN O O
of NN O O
relating NN O O
. NN O O

Execution NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
interactions NN O O
supports NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
exchange NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
personal NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
illustrate NN O O
that NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
impairments NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
processes NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
attribution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
might NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
on NN O O
standardised NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
perspective NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
school NN O O
contexts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19127179)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
on NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
field-based NN O O
team NN O O
sports NN O O
on NN O O
subsequent NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RSA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CODS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
On NN O O
four NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
team-sport NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
warm-up NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
RSA NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
CODS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
tests NN O O
involved NN O O
three NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
sprint NN O I-INT
repetitions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4-min NN O I-INT
recovery NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
sets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
break NN O O
between NN O O
sets NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
rested NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
static NN O I-INT
stretch NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
SS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
RSA NN O I-INT
test NN O O
involved NN O O
straight-line NN O I-INT
sprints NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
CODS NN O I-INT
test NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
degrees NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
sprints NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
best NN O I-OUT
sprint NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
set NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
RSA NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
slower NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
performance NN O O
variables NN O O
( NN O O
MST NN O O
0-5 NN O O
m NN O O
set NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
MST NN O O
0-20 NN O O
m NN O O
set NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TST NN O O
set NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
tendency NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
moderate NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
indications NN O O
of NN O O
likely NN O O
harmful NN O O
or NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effects NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
RSA-SS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O O
, NN O O
sprint NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
again NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
slower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CODS-SS NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CODS-CON NN O I-INT
across NN O O
all NN O O
sprint NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
slower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
BST NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
set NN O O
3 NN O O
after NN O O
static NN O O
stretching 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
an NN O O
acute NN O O
bout NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
limbs NN O O
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
periods NN O O
between NN O O
efforts NN O O
may NN O O
compromise NN O O
RSA NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
has NN O O
less NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
CODS NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19135077)

Face NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
reveal NN O O
abnormal NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
process NN O O
faces NN O O
less NN O O
holistically NN O O
than NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
direct NN O O
investigations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
question NN O O
was NN O O
addressed NN O O
before NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
paradigm NN O O
( NN O O
Teunisse NN O O
, NN O O
J. NN O O
P. NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
de NN O O
Gelder NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
2003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Face NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
inversion NN O O
and NN O O
composite NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Brain NN O O
Cognition NN O O
, NN O O
52 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
285-294. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
had NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
less NN O O
sensitive NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
misalignment NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O O
parts NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
their NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
holistic NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
shortcomings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
whether NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
processed NN O O
both NN O O
aligned NN O O
and NN O O
misaligned NN O O
composites NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
part-based NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
holistic NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
adolescents NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ASDs NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
paradigm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
indicate NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ASDs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
like NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
told NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ignore NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
released NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
if NN O I-OUT
parts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
composites NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
misaligned NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ASDs NN O I-OUT
show NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
irrelevant NN O I-OUT
parts NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alignment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
interpretations NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
discussed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
compatible NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
idea NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
attentional NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ASDs NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
expertise NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19138400)

Recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
implementing NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
peripheral NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IA NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Quality NN O O
Assurance NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
ROSEL NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
ROSEL NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
initiated NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IA NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Due NN O O
to NN O O
rapid NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
technology NN O O
and NN O O
evolving NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
image-guided NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
guidelines NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
uniformity NN O O
in NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
Quality NN O O
Assurance NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
was NN O O
formed NN O O
by NN O O
radiation NN O O
oncologists NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
physicists NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
academic NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
non-academic NN O O
hospitals NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
already NN O O
implemented NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
literature NN O I-INT
survey NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
and NN O O
consensus NN O O
meetings NN O O
were NN O O
held NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
knowledge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
planning NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1A NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
planning NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

Plans NN O O
were NN O O
optimised NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
parameters NN O O
adopted NN O O
from NN O O
RTOG NN O O
trials NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
an NN O O
algorithm NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
homogeneity NN O O
correction NN O O
( NN O O
Type NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
advanced NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Type NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
conformity NN O O
requirements NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
formulated NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
current NN O O
literature NN O O
and NN O O
expert NN O O
experience NN O O
, NN O O
guidelines NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
formulated NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotactic NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
guidelines NN O O
can NN O O
serve NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
stereotactic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
other NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
aid NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
uniform NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
technique NN O O
outside NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19139601)

Principal NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
optimal NN O O
systolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
JATOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
a NN O O
systolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
below NN O O
140 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
remain NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
blinded NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
endpoints NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
strict NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
maintain NN O I-INT
systolic NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
below NN O O
140 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
maintain NN O I-INT
systolic NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
below NN O O
160 NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
above NN O O
140 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
65-85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
mmHg 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
strict NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=2,212 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mild NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=2,206 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
efonidipine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
final NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
strict-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mild-treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
135.9/74.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
145.6/78.1 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
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
strict-treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mild-treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p=0.22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
36 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 I-PAR
p=0.99 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

Complex NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
aging NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
obscured NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
effect NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19143691)

Ondansetron NN O I-INT
has NN O O
similar NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
both NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ondansetron NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
postoperative NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O I-PAR
analysed NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
5161 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
stratified NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
outcomes NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
. NN O O

Nausea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
969/2585 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
715/2576 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
0.74 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
441/2585 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
293/2576 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
0.67 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
0.67 NN O O
and NN O O
0.74 NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
thus NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
equally NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19144729)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
undernourished NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
undernutrition NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
people NN O O
often NN O O
reflects NN O O
a NN O O
disproportionate NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
, NN O O
anabolic NN O O
treatments NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
have NN O O
additive NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
undecanoate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
( NN O O
475 NN O O
kcal/d NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
y NN O O
to NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
Mini NN O I-PAR
Nutritional NN O I-PAR
Assessment NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight 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
in NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
7.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
9 NN O O
admissions NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
elective NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
testosterone-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplement-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
with NN O O
no-treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
no-treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combined-treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
subjects NN O I-OUT
admitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
days NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
74 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
undernourished NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
people NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
admissions NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
endpoints NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Larger NN O O
, NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
now NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
before NN O O
commencement NN O O
at NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
NCT00117000 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19153828)

Adjuvant NN O O
goserelin NN O O
and NN O O
ovarian NN O O
preservation NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
treated 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 I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
if NN O O
goserelin NN O O
concomitant NN O O
to NN O O
CMF-chemotherapy NN O O
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
protects NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ovaries NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
premature NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
285 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
Zoladex NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ZIPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
ovarian NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Node NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CMF- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
goserelin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
goserelin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
menses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
affected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
CMF- NN O O
and NN O O
endocrine NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
goserelin NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
menses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
goserelin NN O O
plus NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
women NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
goserelin 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
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
menstruating NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
treatment NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
amenorrheic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
goserelin NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CMF NN O O
treated NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
goserelin NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19154562)

Randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-OUT
documentation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
providers NN O I-INT
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
documentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
physical NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
statewide NN O O
group-randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Participating NN O O
EDs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
full NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
abstracted NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
periods NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
documentation NN O O
elements NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
documentation NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Generalized NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
( NN O O
GEEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect 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
1,575 NN O I-PAR
charts NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
EDs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
abstracted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O O
and NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
922 NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
injury NN O O
visits NN O O
and NN O O
653 NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
noninjury NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
each NN O O
specific NN O O
documentation NN O O
element NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
GEE NN O O
model NN O O
gave NN O O
p-values NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
in NN O O
independent NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
documentation NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
charts NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
abuse NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
documentation NN O O
remained NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
studied NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
ED NN O I-OUT
documentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
physical NN O O
child NN O O
abuse NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
improved NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
provider NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O O
abuse NN O O
identification NN O O
and NN O O
documentation NN O O
remains NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
innovative NN O O
educational NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abuse NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19155155)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
for NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
lecture-based NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Although NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
which NN O O
didactic NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patient-oriented NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lecture-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
information-only NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lectures NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
disease-related NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
stay NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interactive NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lecture NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
6- NN O O
and NN O O
12-months NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
interactive NN O O
group NN O O
proved NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lecture NN O O
group NN O O
regarding NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
structured NN O O
, NN O O
interactive NN O O
patient NN O O
education NN O O
program NN O O
proved NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
lecture-based NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
regards NN O O
to NN O O
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
knowledge NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
short-term NN O O
coping NN O O
and NN O O
QoL NN O O
. NN O O

PRACTICE NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
In NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
preferable NN O O
over NN O O
lectures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19159477)

An NN O O
emergency NN O O
clinical NN O O
pathway NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
isrctn41456865 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Emergency NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-INT
Pathways NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stroke NN O O
have NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCTs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
ECP NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Latium NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
cluster-RCT NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
referrals NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Emergency NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Service NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
Emergency NN O I-PAR
Room NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ECP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-trained NN O I-PAR
EMS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eligible NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aged NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
/= NN O I-OUT
80 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
/= NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
referred NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treat NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ITT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
per-protocol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
and NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
2656 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2239 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
required NN O O
assistance NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
and NN O O
80.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
were NN O O
admitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hospitals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
respectively NN O O
74.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O I-OUT
strokes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
eligible NN O O
confirmed NN O I-OUT
strokes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
106/434 NN O O
( NN O O
24.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
43/328 NN O O
( NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
referred NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SU NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
2.01 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.79-4.00 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
respectively NN O O
105/243 NN O O
( NN O O
43.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
43/311 NN O O
( NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
3.21 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.62-4.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
patients NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

thrombolysis NN O O
, NN O O
15/175 NN O O
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
2/115 NN O O
( NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
received NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
respectively NN O O
15/99 NN O O
( NN O O
15.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2/107 NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
potenti NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
ECP NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
integration NN O O
of NN O O
EMS NN O O
and NN O O
ERs NN O O
with NN O O
SU NN O O
networks NN O O
for NN O O
organised NN O O
acute NN O O
stroke NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
( NN O O
ISRCTN41456865 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19169102)

Elastic NN O I-INT
stable NN O I-INT
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
nonoperative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
displaced NN O I-PAR
midshaft NN O I-PAR
clavicular NN O I-PAR
fractures-a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
elastic NN O I-INT
stable NN O I-INT
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESIN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
nonoperative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
fully NN O I-PAR
displaced NN O I-PAR
midshaft NN O I-PAR
clavicular NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Level NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
operative NN O O
or NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Thirty NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O I-INT
sling NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ESIN NN O I-INT
within NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
trauma NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASUREMENT NN O O
Complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
operative NN O O
and NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
Disabilities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Arm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hand NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DASH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Constant NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
clavicular NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fracture NN O I-OUT
union NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
nonunion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
malunions NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
corrective NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Medial NN O I-OUT
nail NN O I-OUT
protrusion NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Implant NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
revision NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
adequate NN O O
trauma NN O O
. NN O O

DASH NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
trauma NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Constant NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
intramedullary NN O O
stabilization NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
posttraumatic NN O I-OUT
clavicular NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
ESIN NN O O
of NN O O
displaced NN O O
midshaft NN O O
clavicular NN O O
fractures NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
nonunion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
union NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clavicular NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19169289)

Pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
for NN O O
peripheral NN O O
CD34+ NN O O
mobilization NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-OUT
tumours NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pegfilgrastim+/-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mobilizing NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-OUT
tumours NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cycle NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
14-day NN O O
prechemotherapy NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=61 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
to NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
or NN O O
18 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
daily NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
only NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
18 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
10.17 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.96 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
/ml NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
3-7 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
mg NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8.18 NN O O
and NN O O
9.96 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.51 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
/ml NN O O
for NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
P=0.034 NN O O
and NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cycle NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
carboplatin/paclitaxel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
by NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
6-18 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
daily NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
microg/kg/day NN O O
for NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=14 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
per NN O O
randomization NN O O
in NN O O
cycle NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
and NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
18 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
7-12 NN O O
( NN O O
3.14 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.19 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
/ml NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
pegfilgrastim NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=6 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
substituted NN O O
for NN O O
daily NN O O
filgrastim NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cytokine-only NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19169898)

Netilmicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
neonate NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pharmacokinetic NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
on NN O O
netilmicin NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
26.4-41 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
netilmicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4-5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
postnatal NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
fluid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Netilmicin NN O O
peak NN O O
and NN O O
trough NN O O
serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
and NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
netilmicin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
fluid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
comparison NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
feasible NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
were NN O O
parenterally NN O O
fed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Provision NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O O
versus NN O O
fluid NN O O
therapy NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
netilmicin NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
recommended NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19171500)

A NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
restless NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
polysomnographic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
periodic NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
disturbance NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
polysomnographically NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
subjective NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O O
of NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
restless NN O I-PAR
legs NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RLS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
via NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
periodic NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PLM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
polysomnography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
self-assessed NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
overall NN O I-INT
RLS NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
international NN O I-INT
RLS NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
rating NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IRLS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Four NN O I-INT
pramipexole NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.50 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.75mg/d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
from NN O O
107 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
PLM NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bed NN O I-OUT
asleep NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
awake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
PLM NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
PLMI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
-26.55 NN O O
to NN O O
-52.70 NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
dosage NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
-3.00 NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
or NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PLM NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
asleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
awake NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
pramipexole NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PLM NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
asleep NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
levels NN O O
considered NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
5PLM/h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
delta-sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
awakenings/arousals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
parameters NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
or NN O O
favored NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Median NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
-5.00 NN O O
to NN O O
-11.75min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pramipexole NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
-2.00 NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
0.25mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
25.75-66.75min NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
25.50 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
0.50mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
stages NN O O
2-4/rapid NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
REM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
37.00-68.00min NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
26.75 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
0.50mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
subjective NN O O
IRLS NN O O
ratings NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
pramipexole NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Safety NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pramipexole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
RLS NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
notably NN O O
among NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
PLM NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
other NN O O
sleep NN O O
parameters NN O O
showed NN O O
lesser NN O O
, NN O O
usually NN O O
insignificant NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
subjective NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
RLS NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
p0.0023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19174717)

Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
macular NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
grid NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cystoid NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
branch NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
macular NN O I-INT
grid NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GLP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
perfused NN O I-PAR
branch NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystoid NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
nonischemic NN O I-PAR
branch NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
GLP NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
ophthalmologic NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
GLP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
logarithm NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
logMAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
shown NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
optical NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
tomography-3 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
logMAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CMT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
0.89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
and NN O O
650 NN O O
+/- NN O O
140 NN O O
microm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
GLP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
and NN O O
690 NN O O
+/- NN O O
120 NN O O
microm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GLP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
BCVA NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
0.21 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.20 NN O O
logMAR NN O O
, NN O O
CMT NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
41.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
40.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
IB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
BCVA NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
0.31 NN O O
, NN O O
0.32 NN O O
, NN O O
0.30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.31 NN O O
logMAR NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
CMT NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
59.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
had NN O O
better NN O O
BCVA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lower NN O O
CMT NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points 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
Intravitreal NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
improves NN O O
BCVA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
CMT NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
GLP NN O O
. NN O O

Intravitreal NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
perfused NN O O
branch NN O O
retinal NN O O
vein NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19182698)

MF101 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
beta NN O O
modulator NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
menopausal NN O O
hot NN O O
flushes NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
menopausal NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
101 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MF101 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
hot NN O O
flushes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
217 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hot NN O I-PAR
flushes NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
g/day NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
MF101 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
g/day NN O O
of NN O O
MF101 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
g/day NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that 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
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
11.7 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hot NN O I-OUT
flushes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16.2 NN O O
% NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
g/day NN O O
of NN O O
MF101 NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O O
flushes NN O O
. NN O O

Trials NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
are NN O O
planned NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19188136)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
dose NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
carboplatin/paclitaxel/cetuximab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB/IV NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
schedules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
paclitaxel/carboplatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB/IV NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB/IV NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
weekly NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Taxol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
225 NN O O
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AUC6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
day NN O O
1 NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
same NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AUC6 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
four-cycle NN O O
maximum NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
stable NN O O
disease NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
could NN O O
receive NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
/week NN O O
until NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unacceptable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.7 NN O O
and NN O O
4.3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
arms NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
6-month NN O O
PFS NN O O
, NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
30.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
9.8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
arms NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
estimated NN O O
1-year NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
47.7 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
39.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
29.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
rash NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
benchmark NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
6-month NN O O
PFS NN O O
rate NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
combination NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel/carboplatin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19193781)

Approval NN O O
summary NN O O
: NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
stromal NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
application NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
fulfill NN O O
a NN O O
postmarketing NN O O
commitment NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
mesylate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Gleevec NN O O
; NN O O
Novartis NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
, NN O O
East NN O O
Hanover NN O O
, NN O O
NJ NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CD117 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
stromal NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GISTs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
application NN O O
also NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
label NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
escalation NN O O
of NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
intergroup NN O O
, NN O O
international NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
-- NN O O
one NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
Organization NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
946 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Southwest NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-OUT
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
746 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
studies NN O O
compared NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
combined NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
studies NN O O
was NN O O
prospectively NN O O
defined NN O O
and NN O O
agreed NN O O
to NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
protocols NN O O
allowed NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
400-mg/day NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
to NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
imatinib NN O I-OUT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
49 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
347 NN O O
patients NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
time NN O O
after NN O O
crossover NN O O
was NN O O
14.3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
fluid NN O O
retention NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myalgia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
laboratory NN O O
abnormality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
often NN O O
the NN O O
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
of NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Fluid NN O O
retention NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
rash NN O O
were NN O O
numerically NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
800-mg/day NN O O
treatment NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1919850)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rat NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
has NN O O
many NN O O
physiologic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
beta NN O O
receptor NN O O
sites NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
osteoblasts NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
tested NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
could NN O O
alter NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhance NN O O
orthotopic NN O I-OUT
endochondral NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
nonsurgical NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
increased NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
torsional NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
rat NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
used NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
femora NN O O
were NN O O
fixed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
polyethylene NN O O
plate NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
defects NN O O
were NN O O
created NN O O
mid-diaphysis NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
filled NN O O
with NN O O
demineralized NN O O
bone NN O O
matrix NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
defect NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
carrier NN O O
for NN O O
19 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
defect NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
increased NN O O
trabecular NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
metaphyseal NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
apposition NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
propranolol-treated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Densitometry NN O O
and NN O O
roentgenographic NN O O
scoring NN O O
of NN O O
callus NN O O
formation NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
propranolol-treated NN O O
rats NN O O
revealed NN O O
increased NN O O
callus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
union NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19199847)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
telehealth NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
for NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
precipitates NN O O
a NN O O
myriad NN O O
of NN O O
distressing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
isolated NN O O
both NN O O
physically NN O O
and NN O O
socially NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
lack NN O O
the NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
problems NN O O
and NN O O
participate NN O O
as NN O O
partners NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
project NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
design NN O O
a NN O O
telehealth NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
address NN O O
such NN O O
isolation NN O O
, NN O O
develop NN O O
patient NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
symptom NN O O
management NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

Participatory NN O O
action NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
electronically NN O O
administered NN O O
symptom NN O O
management NN O O
algorithms NN O O
addressing NN O O
all NN O O
major NN O O
symptoms NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Daily NN O O
questions NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
messages NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
programmed NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
easy-to-use NN O O
telehealth NN O O
messaging NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Health NN O I-INT
Buddy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Clinician NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
technology NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
participatory NN O O
action NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
means NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
electronic NN O O
algorithms NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
clinicians NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
tele-messaging NN O O
device NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
symptom NN O O
management NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
affordable NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
telehealth NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19201326)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
light-cured NN O O
filled NN O O
sealant NN O O
on NN O O
shear NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
metal NN O O
and NN O O
ceramic NN O O
brackets NN O O
bonded NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
resin-modified NN O O
glass NN O O
ionomer NN O O
cement NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
filled NN O O
light-cured NN O I-INT
sealant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HFLCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
shear NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
bond NN O O
failure NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
metal NN O O
and NN O O
ceramic NN O O
brackets NN O O
bonded NN O O
with NN O O
resin-modified NN O O
glass NN O O
ionomer NN O O
cement NN O O
( NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
freshly NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
premolars NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
etched NN O O
with NN O O
37 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
phosphoric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
seconds NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RMGIC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fuji NN O I-INT
Ortho NN O I-INT
LC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
Europe NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Leuven NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Belgium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
bracket NN O O
bonding NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
brackets NN O O
were NN O O
bonded NN O O
directly NN O O
to NN O O
etched NN O O
enamel NN O O
surfaces NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
etched NN O O
enamel NN O O
was NN O O
covered NN O O
with NN O O
HFLCS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pro NN O I-INT
Seal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Reliance NN O I-INT
Orthodontic NN O I-INT
Products NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Itasca NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Ill NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
metal NN O I-INT
brackets NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
groups NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
had NN O O
ceramic NN O I-INT
brackets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
stored NN O O
in NN O O
distilled NN O O
water NN O O
at NN O O
room NN O O
temperature NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
shear NN O O
mode NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
testing NN O O
machine NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
debonding NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
brackets NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
stereomicroscope NN O O
( NN O O
model NN O O
SMZ-1B NN O O
, NN O O
Nikon NN O O
, NN O O
Osaka NN O O
, NN O O
Japan NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
20-times NN O O
magnification NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
adhesive NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Interaction NN O O
between NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
and NN O O
bracket NN O O
type NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
HFLCS NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
either NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ceramic NN O I-OUT
brackets NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ceramic NN O I-OUT
brackets NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metal NN O O
brackets NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
application 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
found NN O O
in NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
modes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
application NN O O
on NN O O
enamel NN O O
etched NN O O
with NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
phosphoric NN O O
acid NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
modes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metal NN O O
and NN O O
ceramic NN O O
brackets NN O O
bonded NN O O
with NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Interaction NN O O
between NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
and NN O O
bracket NN O O
type NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
either NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ceramic NN O I-OUT
brackets NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ceramic NN O I-OUT
brackets NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metal NN O O
brackets NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
application 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
found NN O O
in NN O O
bond NN O O
failure NN O O
modes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
HFLCS NN O O
application NN O O
on NN O O
enamel NN O O
etched NN O O
with NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
phosphoric NN O O
acid NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
bond NN O O
failure NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
metal NN O O
and NN O O
ceramic NN O O
brackets NN O O
bonded NN O O
with NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1920171)

Cardiac NN O O
failure NN O O
: NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
failure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
principle NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
fatigue NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
breathlessness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
limited NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
and NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
restricted NN O O
social NN O O
, NN O O
leisure NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
emotional NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Change NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
during NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
findings NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19207322)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
category NN O O
of NN O O
cohesive NN O I-PAR
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
filler NN O I-INT
with NN O O
preincorporated NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
filler NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
smooth NN O O
, NN O O
cohesive NN O O
, NN O O
24-mg/mL NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
uniform NN O O
consistency NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
flow NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
extended NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
injection NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
mid NN O O
to NN O O
deep NN O O
dermis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
injection NN O O
pain NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
preincorporated NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
non-lidocaine NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
& NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
injected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
products NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
nasolabial NN O I-PAR
fold NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
injecting NN O O
physician NN O O
assessed NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
analog NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0-10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Physician NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
none NN O O
or NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
HA NN O O
gel NN O O
injections NN O O
with NN O O
preincorporated NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
HA-alone NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
subjects NN O O
was NN O O
3.6 NN O O
for NN O O
HA+lidocaine NN O O
and NN O O
5.8 NN O O
for NN O O
HA NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-five NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
injections NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
easy NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
easy NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
HA+lidocaine NN O O
injections NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
very NN O O
easy NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
smooth NN O O
, NN O O
cohesive NN O O
HA NN O O
gel NN O O
with NN O O
preincorporated NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19207781)

Esophageal NN O O
damage NN O O
during NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
: NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
lesion NN O O
sets NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
esophageal NN O O
visualization NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Atrioesophageal NN O O
fistula NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
uncommon NN O O
but NN O O
often NN O O
lethal NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ablation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O I-OUT
ulcerations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ESUL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
lesion NN O O
sets NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
direct NN O O
visualization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
on NN O O
esophageal NN O O
wall NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
78.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
esophagoscopy NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
thereafter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
2:1:1-randomization NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
CONTROL NN O O
GROUP NN O O
Ablation NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
visualization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
esophagus NN O I-INT
using NN O O
25 NN O O
Watt NN O O
( NN O O
W NN O O
) NN O O
power NN O O
limit NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
wall NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
70 NN O O
. NN O O

Visualization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Ablation NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
visualization NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophageal NN O O
course NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
W NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
. NN O O

Visualization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
burns NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Ablation NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
visualization NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
burns NN O I-INT
( NN O O
max NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
sec NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
performed NN O O
under NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
nasogastric NN O O
tube NN O O
for NN O O
visualization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophagus NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5/175 NN O O
) NN O O
presenting NN O O
ESUL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parameters NN O O
discriminating NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
ESUL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
patient NN O O
were NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
nasogastric NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
lines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Visualization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
esophageal NN O O
course NN O O
by NN O O
barium NN O O
contrast NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
ESUL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
ESUL NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
rare NN O O
finding NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
energy NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
W NN O O
with NN O O
open-irrigated NN O O
tip NN O O
catheters NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
wall NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O O
energy NN O O
settings NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
safety NN O O
without NN O O
losing NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
linear NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
lesions NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
ESUL NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19217236)

Using NN O O
a NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
suction-device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTS-D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
rescuer NN O O
manikin NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
2005 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Resuscitation NN O O
Council NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
published NN O O
new NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
Advanced NN O O
Life NN O O
Support NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
points NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
compressions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
manikin NN O O
model NN O O
whether NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
single-use NN O I-INT
laryngeal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
option NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTS-D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
instead NN O I-INT
of NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bag-mask-valve NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
emergency NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
no-flow NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NFT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
NFT NN O O
is NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
when NN O O
no NN O O
chest NN O O
compressions NN O O
take NN O O
place NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
undertaken NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
simulated NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
manikin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Every NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
airway NN O O
management NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
LTS-D NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

ET NN O O
vs. NN O O
BMV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
LTS-D NN O I-INT
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
ET NN O O
tube NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
44 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
simulation NN O O
, NN O O
establishing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
performing NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
57 NN O O
s NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LTS-D NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
116 NN O O
s NN O O
with NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
and NN O O
111 NN O O
s NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
BMV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
the NN O O
LTS-D NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
NFT NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
BMV NN O I-INT
( NN O O
125 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
207 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
160 NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
manikin NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
NFT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
LTS-D NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
BMV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
manikin NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
personnel NN O O
not NN O O
experienced NN O O
in NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
LTS-D NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BMV NN O I-INT
to NN O O
manage NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O O
during NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
the NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ET NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
adequate NN O O
ventilation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
BMV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (1922235)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
with NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-OUT
gonorrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Gonorrhea NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
widespread NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
Neisseria NN O O
gonorrhoeae NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
penicillin NN O O
or NN O O
tetracycline NN O O
, NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gonorrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
requires NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Cefixime NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
orally NN O O
absorbed NN O O
cephalosporin NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
active NN O O
against NN O O
resistant NN O O
gonococci NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
activity NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
single-dose NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
209 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
gonorrhea NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
three NN O O
single-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cefixime NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
96 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
400-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
89 NN O O
of NN O O
93 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
93.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
to NN O O
97.8 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
98 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
800-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
86 NN O O
of NN O O
88 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
94.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
98 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
92 NN O O
of NN O O
94 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
94.9 NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharyngeal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
eradicated NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-nine NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
303 NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
gonococcal NN O O
isolates NN O O
had NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
resistance NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
regimens NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
resistance NN O O
pattern NN O O
. NN O O

Chlamydia NN O I-OUT
trachomatis NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
in NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
infected NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-OUT
gonorrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cefixime NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
or NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
currently NN O O
recommended NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1922868)

[ NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
immunomodulating NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
immunosuppression NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Immunodepression NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
condition NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
elective NN O O
operations NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
constitutes NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
infective NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
has NN O O
proved NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
precise NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
drug NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
clearly NN O O
codified NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
thymostimulin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
immunodepression NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
various NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
immunodepression NN O O
( NN O O
hypo-anergic NN O O
) NN O O
benefited NN O O
most NN O O
from NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
immunodepression NN O O
( NN O O
relatively NN O O
hypo-ergic NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
advantages NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
hypo-anergic NN O O
subjects NN O O
both NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
relatively NN O O
hypo-ergic NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
immunological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
our NN O O
opinion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
thymostimulin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
of NN O O
particular NN O O
use NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
marked NN O O
immunodepression NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19232615)

Intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
infection NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
NICU NN O O
, NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
during NN O O
staying NN O O
in NN O O
neurological NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
NICU NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NICU NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GCS NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
NICU NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=121 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
glucose NN O O
levels NN O O
between NN O O
4.4 NN O O
m NN O O
mol/l NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6.1 NN O O
m NN O O
mol/l NN O O
( NN O O
110 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=119 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
given NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
unless NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
11.1 NN O O
m NN O O
mol/l NN O O
( NN O O
200mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
normoglycemia NN O O
after NN O O
leaving NN O O
NICU NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
against NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
outcomes NN O O
including NN O O
ICU NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
gender NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46+/-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
45+/-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
APACHE NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
TISS-28 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Coma NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
GCS NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5.3 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
5.3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
of NN O O
117 NN O O
, NN O O
52.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
62 NN O O
of NN O O
116 NN O O
, NN O O
53.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
46.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
31.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
days NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NICU NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
4.2 NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.6 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
medians 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
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O O
34 NN O O
of NN O O
119 NN O O
, NN O O
28.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
35 NN O O
of NN O O
121 NN O O
, NN O O
28.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
neurologic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
GOS NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
of NN O O
117 NN O O
, NN O O
29.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
116 NN O O
, NN O O
22.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
intensive NN O O
glucose NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NICU NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19235039)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
broccoli NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
on NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cruciferous NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CVs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
studied NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
anticarcinogenic NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
broccoli NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
broccoli NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
g NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
maintained NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
periods NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin-like NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histone NN O I-OUT
deacetylase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ex NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
H NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
O NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endogenous NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comet NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Strand NN O I-OUT
breaks NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
broccoli NN O O
diet NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
( NN O O
-22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
oxidized NN O I-OUT
purines NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
-51.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Broccoli NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
HDAC NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
strengthen NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
consuming NN O O
CVs NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
broccoli NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
HDAC NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19242343)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
different NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
robust NN O O
reticulocytosis NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
elicited NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
28-day NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemoglobin NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or=12 NN O I-PAR
g/dL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
expected NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
One NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
40,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
, NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
15,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
40,000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
F NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
15,000 NN O O
IU NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
days NN O O
5-15 NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
reticulocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
60 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
53 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
Acute NN O O
Physiology NN O O
and NN O O
Chronic NN O O
Health NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
II NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
19.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
ten NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
IV NN O O
dosing NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
reticulocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
dosing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
response NN O O
149-169 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O O
dosing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
response NN O O
138-147 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
most NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
pyrexia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hypokalemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypophosphatemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
anemic NN O O
critically NN O O
ill NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
all NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
effect NN O O
reticulocytosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
anemic NN O O
critically NN O O
ill NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19243606)

Randomised NN O O
Phase NN O O
I/II NN O O
trial NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radiolabelled NN O I-INT
anti-carcinoembryonic NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
131 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
KAb201 NN O I-INT
antibodies NN O O
given NN O O
intra-arterially NN O O
or NN O O
intravenously NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Advanced NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
survival NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
the NN O O
drawback NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
accompanying NN O O
systemic NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
targeted NN O O
treatments NN O O
may NN O O
overcome NN O O
. 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
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
KAb201 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
anti-carcinoembryonic NN O O
antigen NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
labelled NN O O
with NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
131 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
16857581 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histological/cytological NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pancreas NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
KAb NN O I-INT
201 NN O I-INT
via NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
or NN O O
intravenous NN O O
delivery NN O O
route NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
until NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intra-arterial NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
limiting NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
2/6 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mCi NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
limiting NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
1/6 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mCi NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
at NN O O
75 NN O O
mCi NN O O
( NN O O
0/3 NN O O
) NN O O
.The NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1/18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
= NN O O
3.3 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
and NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
test NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
still NN O O
alive NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Dose NN O I-OUT
limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
KAb201 NN O I-INT
with NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
131 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
route NN O O
was NN O O
50 NN O O
mCi NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19247233)

Using NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
wound NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
products NN O O
for NN O O
superficial NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
establish NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
wound NN O O
model NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
induce NN O O
uniform NN O O
abrasions NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
products NN O O
commonly NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
intra-individual NN O O
comparison NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
standardised NN O O
, NN O O
superficial NN O O
abrasions NN O O
were NN O O
induced NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
forearms NN O O
by NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
scrubbing NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
surgical NN O O
brush NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
uniform NN O O
glistening NN O O
and NN O O
punctuate NN O O
bleeding NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
products NN O O
that NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
moist NN O O
wound NN O O
environment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
polyurethane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hydrocolloid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hydrogel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
plasters NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
days NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
best NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
polyurethane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydrocolloid NN O I-INT
plasters NN O O
. NN O O

Visible NN O I-OUT
re-epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
closed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Video NN O O
microscope NN O O
images NN O O
support NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
investigator NN O O
and NN O O
volunteers NN O O
assessed NN O O
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
31 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Best NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
polyurethane NN O O
and NN O O
hydrocolloid NN O O
products NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
had NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
close NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
. NN O O

Histological NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biopsies NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
abrasions NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
volunteers NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
dermis NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
making NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
highly NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
superficial NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Uniform NN O O
and NN O O
identical NN O O
standardised NN O O
wounds NN O O
created NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
abrasive NN O O
brush NN O O
technique NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
reliably NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasters NN O I-OUT
intended NN O O
for NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
products NN O O
that NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
moist NN O O
wound NN O O
environment NN O O
produced NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
wound NN O O
environment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
better NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Superficial NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
wounds NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
polyurethane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
hydrocolloid NN O I-INT
products NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
superior NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
re-epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DECLARATION NN O O
OF NN O O
INTEREST NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
funded NN O O
by NN O O
Beiersdorf NN O O
AG NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
author NN O O
has NN O O
any NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sponsor NN O O
's NN O O
commercial NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19264972)

Acute NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
secondhand NN O O
smoke NN O O
on NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cytokine NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RATIONALE NN O O
The NN O O
acute NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
secondhand NN O O
smoke NN O O
( NN O O
SHS NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
system NN O I-OUT
disruption NN O I-OUT
remain NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
SHS NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
experiment NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-hour NN O I-INT
SHS NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
set NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
bar/restaurant NN O I-INT
SHS NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
cotinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
IL-4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
0 NN O O
hours NN O O
most NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
indicative NN O O
: NN O O
FEV NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
L NN O O
; NN O O
FEV NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
/FVC NN O O
, NN O O
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
cotinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
serum NN O O
, NN O O
8.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
35.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.2 NN O O
ng NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-4 NN O O
( NN O O
41.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
44.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
pg NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-5 NN O O
( NN O O
36.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
60.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.0 NN O O
pg NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
pg NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
IU NN O O
x NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
were NN O O
higher 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IL-4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
sexes NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
inverse NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/FVC NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
IL-5 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
IL-5 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
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cotinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
SHS NN O O
exposure NN O O
at NN O O
bar/restaurant NN O O
levels NN O O
is NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
significant NN O O
decrements NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
marked NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
most NN O O
smoke-induced NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
recede NN O O
within NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
remain NN O O
elevated NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
SHS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19268506)

Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
estradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
trimegestone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dydrogesterone NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
estradiol/trimegestone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
estradiol/dydrogesterone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
184 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+trimegestone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T-group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+dydrogesterone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DYDR NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
post-treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
markedly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DYDR NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
T-group NN O O
. NN O O

Factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DYDR NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Factor NN O I-OUT
VIIa NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DYDR NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Plasminogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
T-group 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
in NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DYDR NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
negatively NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
T-group NN O O
. NN O O

Trigemestone NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Trimegestone NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
procoagulant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIa NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
VIIc NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
larger NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dydrogesterone NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
reflect NN O O
less NN O O
androgenic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
trimegestone NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Lp NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
dydrogesterone NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1927197)

Prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
brushings NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cytodiagnostic NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
brushings NN O I-INT
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
biopsy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
brushings NN O I-INT
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
biopsy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
biopsy NN O O
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
256 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
stratification NN O O
by NN O O
site NN O O
and NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
appearance NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
forceps NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brushing NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brushing NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
93.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
82.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
whether NN O O
the NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
brushed NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O O
( NN O O
92.7 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
93.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
superiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brushings NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
relate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
false-positive NN O I-OUT
cytologic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
all NN O O
256 NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
brushing NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
98.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
biopsy NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
93.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
cytology NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
87.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Apart NN O O
from NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
the NN O O
belief NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brushing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
mandatory NN O O
for NN O O
achieving NN O O
optimal NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
brushing NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19280799)

Neuromuscular NN O O
excitability NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vastus NN O O
medialis NN O O
following NN O O
anterior NN O I-INT
cruciate NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
reconstruction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
Quadriceps NN O O
weakness NN O O
following NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
reconstruction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACLR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
prevalent NN O O
despite NN O O
intensive NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

Diminished NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
excitability NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
potential NN O O
factor NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
limit NN O O
muscular NN O O
recovery NN O O
following NN O O
injury NN O O
or NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
alpha NN O O
motorneuron NN O O
( NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
) NN O O
excitability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensory-motor NN O O
pathway NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
muscle NN O O
and NN O O
nerve NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
the NN O O
vastus NN O O
medialis NN O O
( NN O O
VM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
( NN O O
SOL NN O O
) NN O O
H-reflexes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
examined NN O O
primarily NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
affect NN O O
of NN O O
ACLR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
utilizing NN O O
hamsting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bone-patellar NN O I-OUT
tendon-bone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BTB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
autograft NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
VM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOL NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
twenty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Preoperatively NN O O
bilateral NN O O
VM NN O O
and NN O O
SOL NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

VM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOL NN O I-OUT
H-reflexes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
subsequently NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
involved NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
post NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
each NN O O
test NN O O
session NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
girth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
VM NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HS NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
1-month NN O O
post NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mid-patella NN O I-OUT
girth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
increased NN O O
VM NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
HS NN O O
autograft NN O O
ACLR NN O I-INT
demonstrates NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
VM NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increased NN O O
VM NN O I-OUT
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
following NN O O
BTB NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HS NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
warrants NN O O
consideration NN O O
when NN O O
selecting NN O O
graft NN O O
type NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
quadriceps NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19282350)

FDA NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vectibix NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
September NN O O
27 NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
U.S. NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
granted NN O O
accelerated NN O O
approval NN O O
to NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vectibix NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Amgen NN O O
, NN O O
Inc. NN O O
, NN O O
Thousand NN O O
Oaks NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor-expressing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
fluoropyrimidine- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
irinotecan-containing NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Accelerated NN O O
approval NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
submission NN O O
summarizes NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
package NN O O
insert NN O O
in NN O O
June NN O O
2008 NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
panitumumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
closed NN O O
when NN O O
inferior NN O O
PFS NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
toxicity NN O O
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
planned NN O O
interim NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
panitumumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
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
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 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
were NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
in NN O O
panitumumab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
included NN O O
rash/acneiform NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dehydration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
primarily NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypokalemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stomatitis/mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
harmful NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
panitumumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19301086)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
COX-2 NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inguinal NN O I-PAR
herniorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
standard NN O O
opioid NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
constipation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
opioids NN O O
often NN O O
provide NN O O
insufficient NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-PAR
herniorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
selective NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-PAR
herniorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
rofecoxib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
incision NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Doses NN O O
were NN O O
re-administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
given NN O O
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1-10 NN O O
visual-analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocodone NN O O
bitartrate NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Statistics NN O O
are NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
rofecoxib NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improved NN O O
bowel NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
bowel NN O O
movements NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

COX-2-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
better NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
these NN O O
same NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
COX-2-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
difficulty NN O O
coughing NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
COX-2-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
very NN O O
satisfied NN O O
vs. NN O O
satisfied NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocodone NN O O
bitartrate NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
selective NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
outpatient NN O O
inguinal NN O O
herniorrhaphy NN O O
improves NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
multimodal NN O O
pain NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
COX-2 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19301089)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
cytokines NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
much NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
menopause NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risedronate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
cytokines NN O O
including NN O O
receptor NN O O
activator NN O O
of NN O O
nuclear NN O O
factor-kappaB NN O O
ligand NN O O
( NN O O
RANKL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
osteoprotegerin NN O O
among NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients 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
In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
41 NN O O
) NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
risedronate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
mg/week NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
) NN O O
. 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
of NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
L1-L4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
femur NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
dual NN O O
X-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Venous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
interleukin-1beta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
) 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 I-OUT
RANKL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osteoprotegerin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
before NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
risedronate NN O O
plus NN O O
calcium/vitamin NN O O
D-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RANKL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-1beta NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
osteoprotegerin NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
risedronate NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
osteoprotegerin NN O O
and NN O O
reducing NN O O
RANKL NN O O
and NN O O
IL-1beta NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19301691)

Ongoing NN O I-INT
Telmisartan NN O I-INT
Alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Combination NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Ramipril NN O I-INT
Global NN O I-INT
Endpoint NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ONTARGET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
implications NN O O
for NN O O
reduced NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
recently NN O O
published NN O O
Ongoing NN O I-INT
Telmisartan NN O I-INT
Alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Combination NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Ramipril NN O I-INT
Global NN O I-INT
Endpoint NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ONTARGET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
published NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agent NN O O
classes NN O O
, NN O O
provides NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARBs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACEIs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ARB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
ramipril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ACEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
ONTARGET NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
example NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-quality NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
agents NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
several NN O O
other NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
ACEI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
left NN O O
to NN O O
individual NN O O
physicians NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
ONTARGET NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
ACEI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19304046)

Mastication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
of NN O O
impacted NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
gross NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
denate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
missing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
mastication NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
late NN O O
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M3s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
gross NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
dentate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
missing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
gross NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
M3s NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
under NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
nonroutine NN O O
( NN O O
NR NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
routine NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
postoperative NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
NR NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
educated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
an NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
limiting NN O I-OUT
mastication NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
soft NN O O
diet NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
R NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
education NN O O
or NN O O
emphasis NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O I-OUT
concerning NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
date NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
R NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
normal NN O O
eating NN O O
habits NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
gender NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.735 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.552 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
class NN O O
horizontal NN O O
space NN O O
available NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.427 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
class NN O O
highest NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
M3 NN O O
crown NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.424 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
angulations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.925 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
impaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.445 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
dentate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
missing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
jawbone NN O I-PAR
atrophy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
impair NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mastication NN O O
seems NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgical NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
impacted NN O O
M3s NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
gross NN O O
pathology NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remote NN O O
possible NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
shown NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
patients NN O O
indicates NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
no NN O O
special NN O O
precautions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19309326)

Cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND 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
often NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
comorbid NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
a NN O O
modular NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
standard NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
program NN O O
was NN O O
augmented NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
treatment NN O O
components NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
accommodate NN O O
or NN O O
remediate NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
adaptive NN O O
skill NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
could NN O O
pose NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
16 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
completed NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
waitlist NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therapists NN O O
worked NN O O
with NN O O
individual NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
model NN O O
emphasized NN O O
behavioral NN O O
experimentation NN O O
, NN O O
parent-training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
consultation NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
evaluators NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
conducted NN O O
structured NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
interviews NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
completed NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
checklists NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment/postwaitlist NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
78.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
met NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CBT NN O I-INT
also NN O O
outperformed NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
on NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
self-reports NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
manual NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
adaptations NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Remission NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
achievable NN O O
goal NN O O
among NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19324944)

Acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
decaffeinated NN O I-INT
coffee NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
coffee NN O O
components NN O O
chlorogenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O O
and NN O O
trigonelline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Coffee NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
decaffeinated NN O I-INT
coffee NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
coffee NN O O
components NN O O
chlorogenic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
trigonelline NN O O
on NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
g NN O O
decaffeinated NN O I-INT
coffee NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
chlorogenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
trigonelline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
mannitol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glucose NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
concentrations NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
2-h NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
OGTT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Chlorogenic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
trigonelline NN O O
ingestion NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-73 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-117 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
OGTT NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
affected NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
OGTT NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Chlorogenic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
trigonelline NN O O
reduced NN O O
early NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
an NN O O
OGTT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19330493)

Fixed-dose NN O O
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
losartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
microalbuminuria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
complicated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
microalbuminuria NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
elevated NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
controlling NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
urgent NN O O
clinical NN O O
priority NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensives NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
85-105 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24-hour NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
microalbuminuria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
doubleblind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
fixed-dose NN O I-INT
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=54 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
losartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-22.2/-14.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
-19.5/-14.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
for 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
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
-3.9 NN O O
mg/mmol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-5.3 NN O O
, NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-2.7 NN O O
mg/mmol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-4.0 NN O O
, NN O O
-1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
losartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs. NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
P=0.199 NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Glycemia NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
largely NN O O
unaffected NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.064 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
losartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
manidipine/delapril NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
available NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
hypertension NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19330795)

The NN O O
SNRI NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
unawareness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
unawareness NN O O
of NN O O
emotions NN O O
or NN O O
alexithymia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Here NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serotoninergic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
noradrenergic NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SNRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SSRI NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
alexithymia NN O I-OUT
severity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive-like NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first-ever NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PSD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SNRI NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
SR NN O O
( NN O O
75-150 NN O O
mg/die NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SSRI NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20-40 NN O O
mg/die NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Mini-Mental NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Toronto NN O I-OUT
Alexithymia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TAS-20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
venlafaxine NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
venlafaxine NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
alexithymia NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O O
on NN O O
unawareness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
( NN O O
TAS-20 NN O O
> NN O O
or= NN O O
61 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
( NN O O
TAS-20 NN O O
< NN O O
61 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Antidepressants NN O O
acting NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
serotoninergic NN O O
and NN O O
noradrenergic NN O O
systems NN O O
might NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
resource NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
unawareness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19333040)

Diverting NN O I-OUT
stoma NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
low NN O O
anterior NN O O
resection NN O O
: NN O O
more NN O O
arguments NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O I-INT
stoma NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
mesorectal NN O I-PAR
excision NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
controversially NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
pilot-study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
diverting NN O I-OUT
ileostomy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
[ NN O O
NCT00457327 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
sphincter-saving NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
resection NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
priori NN O O
stopping NN O O
rules NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
July NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
and NN O O
March NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
2007 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stoma NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
nonstoma NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonstoma NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
37.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stoma NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
six NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonstoma NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
reoperations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
after NN O O
34 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
available NN O O
data NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
ostomy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
diverting NN O O
ileostomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19346279)

Pregabalin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
comparison NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Pregabalin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acts NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
presynaptic NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
excessive NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
excitatory NN O O
neurotransmitters NN O O
by NN O O
selectively NN O O
binding NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alpha NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-delta NN O O
subunit NN O O
of NN O O
voltage-gated NN O O
calcium NN O O
channels NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
PRE NN O O
on NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Craving NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
alcohol-dependent NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
detoxified NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NAL NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
150-450 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Craving NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
OCDS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CIWA-Ar NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCL-90-R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

Alcohol NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
NAL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hostility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychoticism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

PRE NN O O
also NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
reporting NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
globally NN O O
place NN O O
PRE NN O I-INT
within NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
NAL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mechanism NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
PRE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relapse NN O O
prevention NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
alcohol NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comorbid NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19353317)

Bridge NN O I-INT
plate NN O I-INT
osteosynthesis NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
dynamic NN O I-INT
condylar NN O I-INT
screw NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
retrograde NN O I-INT
intramedullary NN O I-INT
supracondylar NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIMSN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
surgical NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
rigid NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
femoral NN O O
fractures NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O O
grafting NN O O
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Biological NN O O
osteosynthesis NN O O
using NN O O
dynamic NN O O
condylar NN O O
screw NN O O
( NN O O
DCS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
retrograde NN O O
intramedullary NN O O
supracondylar NN O O
nail NN O O
( NN O O
RIMSN NN O O
) NN O O
preserve NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
supply NN O O
and NN O O
limit NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O O
grafting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
closed NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
bridge NN O I-INT
plate NN O I-INT
osteosynthesis NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
DCS NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
31 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RIMSN NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
randomly NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
24-36 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
: NN O O
30 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
operation NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DCS NN O O
group NN O O
presented NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
RIMSN NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DCS NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
union NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.855 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.727 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.925 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.927 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
implant NN O O
or NN O O
surgical NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
under NN O O
all NN O O
circumstances NN O O
for NN O O
distal NN O O
femoral NN O O
fracture NN O O
. NN O O

RIMSN NN O O
is NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O O
osteosynthesis NN O O
using NN O O
DCS NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19357315)

Feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
telephone-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
smokers NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Nonsmokers NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
supportive NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
tobacco NN O O
cessation NN O O
efforts NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
telephone-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
White NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
; NN O O
written NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
theory-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
29 NN O O
; NN O O
written NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
20- NN O O
to NN O O
30-min NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Both NN O O
support NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
assessments NN O O
separately NN O O
by NN O O
mail NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
thirds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
smokers NN O O
reported NN O O
low-moderate NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motivation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
contemplation NN O O
ladder NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
and NN O O
smokers NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
week NN O O
26 NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
completed NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
telephone NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
and NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
support NN O I-OUT
person NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
help NN O O
their NN O O
smoker NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
expectancies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.025 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
reaching NN O O
smokers NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
readiness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
both NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
and NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
support NN O O
persons NN O O
and NN O O
smokers NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
outreach NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
refinements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
approach NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19365397)

Deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
( NN O O
DVT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Physical NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
Rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SMS NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
College NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Jaipur NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
297 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
and 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

166 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
131 NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
DVT NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
insignificant 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DVT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
SCI NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19365716)

Social NN O I-INT
competence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
week NN O O
social NN O I-INT
competence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
7-11 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
measures NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Walker-McConnell NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MGH NN O I-OUT
YouthCare NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Competence NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Each NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
30-week NN O O
intervention NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
matched NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
non-ASD NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
each NN O O
ASD NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
WMS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility/transitions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
core NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19368912)

What NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
maximal NN O O
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
microdose NN O I-PAR
flare-up NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
responders NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
maximal NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
follicle NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
microdose NN O I-PAR
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRH-a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
flare NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
responders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Private NN O O
infertility NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
microdose NN O O
protocol NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
GnRH-agonist NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
GnRH-a NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
daily NN O O
fixed NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
450 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
600 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Peak NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
rFSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
rFSH NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
retrieved NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
M2 NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
retrieved NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
transferred NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Grade-1 NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
transferred NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancellation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
embryo NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
15.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
rFSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
M2 NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
retrieved NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
transferred NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancellation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
and NN O O
embryo NN O O
transfer NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
doses NN O O
above NN O O
300 NN O O
IU NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
microdose NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
IU NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
in NN O O
microdose NN O O
cycles NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
consumed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cycle NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
dosages NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
would NN O O
obviously NN O O
cost NN O O
less NN O O
money NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19368937)

[ NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
between NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
and NN O O
commercial NN O O
hypocaloric NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
arthropathy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
work NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
degenerative NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hypocaloric NN O O
diet NN O O
with NN O O
Optisource NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
nutritional NN O O
counseling NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
both NN O O
branches NN O O
: NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lunch NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dinner NN O I-INT
substituted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
Optisource NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1109,3 NN O O
kcal/day NN O O
, NN O O
166,4g NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
63g NN O O
of NN O O
proteins NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
21,3g NN O O
of NN O O
lipids NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diet NN O O
II NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
decrease NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
cal/day NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
previous NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nutritional NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nineteen NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

19 NN O O
patients NN O O
finished NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
than NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
7,7 NN O O
[ NN O O
4,7 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
3,92 NN O O
[ NN O O
3,32 NN O O
] NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
HOMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
I. NN O O
Decreases NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2,9 NN O O
[ NN O O
1,8 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
-1,4 NN O O
[ NN O O
0,9 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3,8 NN O O
[ NN O O
3,4 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
-2,3 NN O O
[ NN O O
1,7 NN O O
] NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P=.0,05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
HOMA NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2,0 NN O O
[ NN O O
2,2 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
-0,4 NN O O
[ NN O O
1,82 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
than NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
diet NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O I-INT
hypocaloric NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HOMA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
way NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1937073)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
electrofunctional NN O O
data NN O O
following NN O O
argon-laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
open-angle NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
establish NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
glaucomatous NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reversible NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
obtained NN O O
pattern-reversal NN O I-OUT
electroretinograms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PERGs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VEPs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
POAG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
argon-laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
laser NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
chosen NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fellow NN O O
eye NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
electrofunctional NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
distinct NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
, NN O O
consecutive NN O O
glaucomatous NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ganglion NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
reversible NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anatomical NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
irreversible NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
glaucomatous NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
irreversible NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
propose NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
alterations NN O O
differ NN O O
very NN O O
slightly NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
electrofunctional NN O O
techniques NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
sophisticated NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19396947)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
syndrome-X NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Free NN O O
radical-mediated NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etiopathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
disorders 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
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
syndrome-X NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
additionally NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nebivolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administrated NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
hour NN O O
fasting NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nitrite+nitrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
patient NN O O
presented NN O O
additional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
reactive NN O O
oxygen NN O O
species NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
sixteen NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CSX NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
MPO NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
; NN O O
SOD NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
but NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
with NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CSX NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
taken NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
have NN O O
lower NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
higher NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O O
stress NN O O
test NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
ameliorated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
taken NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nebivolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
CSX NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19397502)

Pulse NN O O
oximeter NN O O
perfusion NN O O
index NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
sympathectomy NN O O
after NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximeter NN O O
perfusion NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
PI NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
sympathectomy-induced NN O O
vasodilatation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximeter NN O O
PI NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
and NN O O
clearer NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
sympathectomy NN O O
following NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
than NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
lumbar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
over NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
defined NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
evident NN O I-OUT
sympathectomy NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
15 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
test NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
McNemar NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
photoplethysmography NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
met NN O O
a NN O O
priori NN O O
signal NN O O
quality NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
PI NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
326 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
PI NN O O
15/29 NN O O
, NN O O
26/29 NN O O
and NN O O
29/29 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
sympathectomy NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4/29 NN O O
, NN O O
6/29 NN O O
and NN O O
18/29 NN O O
for NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
and NN O O
3/29 NN O O
, NN O O
8/29 NN O O
and NN O O
14/29 NN O O
for NN O O
toe NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
PI NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
, NN O O
clearer NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
epidural-induced NN O O
sympathectomy NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19404150)

Perioperative NN O I-OUT
fever NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aneurysmal NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
fever NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
outcome NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Intraoperative NN O I-PAR
Hypothermia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Aneurysm NN O I-PAR
Surgery NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
thousand NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
World NN O I-PAR
Federation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Neurological NN O I-PAR
Surgeons NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
clipping NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
intraoperative NN O I-INT
normothermia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
C-37 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypothermia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
32.5 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
C-33.5 NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=38.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychologic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
dichotomized NN O I-OUT
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fever NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
fever NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
infections NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
World NN O O
Federation NN O O
of NN O O
Neurological NN O O
Surgeons NN O O
grade NN O O
I. NN O O
Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
preoperative NN O O
factors NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O O
neurological NN O O
status NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
most NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
alternative NN O O
stepwise NN O O
model NN O O
selection NN O O
process NN O O
including NN O O
all NN O O
fever-related NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
and NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
hydrocephalus NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
dichotomized NN O O
Glasgow NN O O
Outcome NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
several NN O O
other NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
remained NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adding NN O O
postoperative NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
worsened NN O O
National NN O I-OUT
Institutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Stroke NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Barthel NN O I-OUT
Activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Daily NN O I-OUT
Living NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
destination NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
home NN O O
versus NN O O
other NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fever NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
worsened NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
covariates NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
particularly NN O O
operative NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
neurological NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
a NN O O
formal NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
prevention NN O O
can NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19407805)

Ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O O
with NN O O
bedtime NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prehypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Aspirin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II-induced NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
release NN O O
from NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelium NN O O
. NN O O

Low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce 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
when NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
upon NN O O
awakening NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
times NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
prehypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
244 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prehypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
43.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
13.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
nonpharmacological NN O I-INT
hygienic-dietary NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
awakening NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
bedtime NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
nonpharmacological NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
awakening NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
( NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
6/3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
24-h NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
homogeneously NN O O
controlled NN O O
along NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
bedtime NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
6/4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
activity NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
SBP/DBP NN O O
; NN O O
6/3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sleep-time NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
documents NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
only NN O O
when NN O O
ingested NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
by NN O O
prehypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
timed NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
could NN O O
thus NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1941391)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tonsillitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharyngitis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19415341)

Pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
Panax NN O I-INT
quinquefolius NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
evaluation NN O O
: NN O O
NCCTG NN O O
trial NN O O
N03CA NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Panax NN O I-INT
quinquefolius NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
might NN O O
help NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eligible NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
in NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
750 NN O O
, NN O O
1,000 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
2,000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form-36 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Benefit NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
accrued NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nonsignificant NN O O
trends NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
1,000- NN O O
and NN O O
2,000-mg/day NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
460-467 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
480-551 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1,000- NN O O
and NN O O
2,000-mg/day NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitality NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
SF-36 NN O O
was NN O O
7.3-7.8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
750-mg/day NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
10.5-14.6 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1,000- NN O O
and NN O O
2,000-mg/day NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
ginseng NN O I-INT
perceived NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
over NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
measured NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
some NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
tolerable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
at NN O O
1,000-2,000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
American NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19415409)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gender NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Consumption NN O O
of NN O O
soluble NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
is NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hence NN O O
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
meals NN O O
enriched NN O O
with NN O O
soluble NN O O
dietary NN O O
fibres NN O O
from NN O O
oats NN O O
, NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
, NN O O
sugar NN O O
beet NN O O
fibre NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
fibres NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-28 NN O I-PAR
years 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

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
came NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
centre NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
overnight NN O O
fast NN O O
to NN O O
ingest NN O O
test NN O O
meals NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
meal NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
meals NN O O
contained NN O O
either NN O O
oat NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
2.7 NN O O
soluble NN O O
fibre NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
1.7 NN O O
g NN O O
soluble NN O O
fibre NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sugar NN O I-INT
beet NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
( NN O O
19 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
5 NN O O
g NN O O
soluble NN O O
fibre NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
fibres NN O I-INT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
1.7 NN O O
g NN O O
soluble NN O O
fibre NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
source NN O O
, NN O O
giving NN O O
5 NN O O
g NN O O
soluble NN O O
fibre NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
contain NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
available NN O O
carbohydrates NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
180 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
meals NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Meals NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rye NN O I-INT
bran NN O I-INT
gave NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
meal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

Oat NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
, NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
fibre NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
in NN O O
liquid NN O O
matrix NN O O
, NN O O
gave NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
rye NN O O
bran NN O O
and NN O O
sugar NN O O
beet NN O O
fibre NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oat NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
also NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mixed NN O O
meal NN O O
, NN O O
diminishing NN O O
the NN O O
glucose-lowering NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Postprandial NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
all NN O O
fibre-rich NN O O
meals NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
oat NN O O
powder NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mixed NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Postprandial NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
fibre-rich NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
fibre NN O O
source NN O O
, NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
soluble NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
fibre NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
gender NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19430389)

Topical NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
miosis NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
vitrectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
mydriasis NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
vitrectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
preoperative NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
cyclopentolate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
group NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Pupillary NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Inflammatory NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
using NN O O
slit-lamp NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pupil NN O I-OUT
size 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
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.112 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
two NN O O
stages NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
redness NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.609 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.123 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
felt NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Topical NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O I-OUT
mydriasis NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
slit-lamp NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19433686)

Adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
pegylated NN O O
interferon NN O O
alfa-2b NN O O
versus NN O O
observation NN O O
in NN O O
resected NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
melanoma NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Organisation NN O O
for NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Melanoma NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Interferon NN O O
( NN O O
IFN NN O O
) NN O O
-based NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
melanoma NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
necessitates NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
trial NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
pegylated NN O O
IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
( NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
observation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1,256 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
629 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
627 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
micrograms/kg/wk NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
DOSAGE NN O I-INT
ERROR NN O I-INT
CORRECTED NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
micrograms/kg/wk NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
DOSAGE NN O I-INT
ERROR NN O I-INT
CORRECTED NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intended NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
C30 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
3.8 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
risk NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
rate NN O O
= NN O O
0.82 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
differences NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
decreased NN O O
global NN O O
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
month NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
-11.6 NN O O
points NN O O
; NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-8.2 NN O O
to NN O O
-15.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
year NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
-10.5 NN O O
points NN O O
; NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-6.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-14.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
scales NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
scores NN O O
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
view NN O O
, NN O O
important NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
scales NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O O
functioning NN O O
scales NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
three NN O O
symptom NN O O
scales NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
arm NN O O
being NN O O
most NN O O
impaired NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
RFS NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
expected NN O O
negative NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
selected NN O O
symptoms NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
undergo NN O O
PEG-IFN-alpha-2b NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19437058)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
coconut NN O O
oil NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
coconut NN O O
oil NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
waist NN O I-PAR
circumferences NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Groups NN O O
received NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
comprising NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
soy NN O I-INT
bean NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
coconut NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
12-week NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
instructed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
balanced NN O I-INT
hypocaloric NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
walk NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
ingested NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
diminished NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibre NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
ingestion NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
T1 NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
at NN O O
T2 NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
HDL NN O O
( NN O O
48.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
45.00 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.6 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
a NN O O
lower NN O O
LDL NN O O
: NN O O
HDL NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
2.41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
T2 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
only NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
WC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
S NN O O
presented NN O O
an NN O O
increase 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
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
alterations NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C. NN O O
It NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
dietetic NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
coconut NN O O
oil NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
and NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19459553)

Local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest-donor NN O O
site NN O O
: NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O I-PAR
orthopaedic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
infiltration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest NN O O
bone NN O O
graft NN O O
harvest NN O O
site NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Then NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sheep NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest NN O O
infiltration NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-loaded NN O I-INT
microspheres NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest NN O O
was NN O O
worse NN O O
than NN O O
pain NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
iliac NN O I-OUT
crest NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
groups 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
PCA NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
plain NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
964 NN O O
( NN O O
282 NN O O
) NN O O
ng NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
638 NN O O
( NN O O
366 NN O O
) NN O O
ng NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
sheep NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
clearly NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
from NN O O
microspheres NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
used NN O O
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O O
infiltration NN O O
of NN O O
iliac NN O O
crest NN O O
harvest NN O O
site NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
easy NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
lasts NN O O
only NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
without NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
dangerous NN O O
if NN O O
another NN O O
infiltration NN O O
or NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

Experimentally NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic-loaded NN O I-INT
microspheres NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
interesting NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1945967)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
use NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
perirectal 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
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Complications NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
rectal NN O O
lesions NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
severe NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
septicemia NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
research NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
preventive NN O O
perirectal NN O O
skin NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
scarce NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
's NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
using NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
perirectal NN O O
skin-care NN O O
regimen NN O O
decreases NN O O
perirectal NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
produces NN O O
more NN O O
skin NN O O
irritation NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
nonmedicated NN O O
skin NN O O
cleanser NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
16 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
nonmedicated NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
cleanser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Chi-square NN O O
and NN O O
t-tests NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
breakdown NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rectal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
factors NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
fissures NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hemorrhoids NN O O
; NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
hemorrhoids NN O O
; NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
granulocytopenia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulocytopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
infections 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perirectal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
breakdown NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) 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
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
CHG NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
offer NN O O
increased NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
perirectal NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
intensive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
is NN O O
it NN O O
more NN O O
irritating NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
nonmedicated NN O O
skin NN O O
cleanser NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
hygienic NN O O
measures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
using NN O O
skin NN O O
disinfectants NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
immunocompromised NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19462303)

Gamma-hydroxybutyric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
clomethiazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Clomethiazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AWS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Gamma-Hydroxybutyric NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GHB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
ICU NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
AWS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
between NN O O
CLO NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GHB NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
ICU NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
AWS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-OUT
diseases NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
randomally NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLO NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
liquid NN O O
; NN O O
GHB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
initially NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
BW NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
BW NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
major NN O O
AWS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
restlessness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
scored NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
registered NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
GHB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
AWS NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
GHB NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
AWS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
from NN O O
6.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CLO NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
dropped NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
( NN O O
n. NN O O
s. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
=.021 NN O O
, NN O O
two-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
GHB NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
controls NN O I-OUT
AWS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
medical NN O O
ICU NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rapid NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
GHB NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
CLO NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19470793)

Noninvasive NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
candidate NN O O
molecular NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
developed NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
stool NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
contains NN O O
intact NN O O
sloughed NN O O
colon NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
colonic NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
gene NN O O
sets NN O O
( NN O O
combinations NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
phenotypes NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
legume-enriched NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
glycemic NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
fermentable NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
combinations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adenomatous NN O I-PAR
polyps NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
controlled NN O O
feeding NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5-12 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
consumed NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
cups NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cooked NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
beans NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
average NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
3-week NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
prior NN O O
biological NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
feature NN O O
selection NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
an NN O O
exhaustive NN O O
search NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
allowable NN O O
feature NN O O
( NN O O
gene NN O O
) NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
size NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
had NN O O
( NN O O
unbiased NN O O
) NN O O
error NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
0.15 NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
. NN O O

Linear NN O O
discriminant NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
successfully NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
two- NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
three-gene NN O I-OUT
combinations NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
distinguishing NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
polyps NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chemoprotective NN O I-PAR
legume-rich NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
our NN O O
premise NN O O
that NN O O
gene NN O O
products NN O O
( NN O O
RNA NN O O
) NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
stool NN O O
have NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19470936)

MDM2 NN O O
and NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
predict NN O O
for NN O O
distant NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O O
92-02 NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
MDM2 NN O O
regulates NN O O
p53 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
controls NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
arrest NN O O
and NN O O
apoptosis NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
proteins NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
strong NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
metastasis NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
STAD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
report NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
in NN O O
estimating NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
RTOG NN O O
92-02 NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Adequate NN O O
tissue NN O O
for NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
p53 NN O O
, NN O O
Ki-67 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
MDM2 NN O O
analyses NN O O
in NN O O
478 NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
nuclei NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PSP NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
manually NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
image NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
per-sample NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
image NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Fine NN O O
and NN O O
Gray NN O O
's NN O O
regressions NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
distant NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cause-specific NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
In NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
that NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
markers NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
covariates NN O O
, NN O O
MDM2 NN O I-OUT
overexpression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
DM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
OM NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Ki-67 NN O I-OUT
overexpression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
DM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CSM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
OM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

P53 NN O I-OUT
overexpression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
OM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overexpression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
Ki-67 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MDM2 NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
for NN O O
DM NN O O
, NN O O
CSM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
OM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Combined NN O O
MDM2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Ki-67 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
independently NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
distant NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
validated NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19480863)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
weight-bearing NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
nonweight-bearing NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
weight-bearing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
nonweight-bearing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NWB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Kinesiology NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=106 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
WB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
NWB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTION NN O O
WB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
NWB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
an NN O O
8-week NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
extension-flexion NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
reposition NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Equally NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
apparent NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
WB NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
NWB NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
reposition NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Simple NN O O
knee NN O O
flexion NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
exercises NN O O
( NN O I-INT
WB NN O I-INT
and NN O O
NWB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
strength 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

NWB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
WB NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
position NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
complex NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
walking NN O O
on NN O O
figure NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
route NN O O
and NN O O
spongy NN O O
surface NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19481433)

Clinical NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
leak NN O O
compensation NN O O
during NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
ventilation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
leak NN O O
compensation NN O O
capabilities NN O O
during NN O O
pressure- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
volume-limited NN O I-INT
non-invasive NN O I-INT
positive-pressure NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NPPV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
hypercapnic NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
NPPV NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
both NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
NPPV NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
artificial NN O I-INT
leak NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ventilatory NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
applied NN O O
during NN O O
daytime NN O O
NPPV NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
leakage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
leakage NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
inspiration NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
leakage NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
inspiration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
expiration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ventilation NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
pneumotachy-graphically NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
NPPV NN O O
was NN O O
feasible NN O O
with NN O O
negligible NN O O
leak NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
optimal NN O O
mask NN O O
fitting NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
daytime NN O O
( NN O O
setting NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
leakage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
settings NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
leak NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
evident NN O O
during NN O O
pressure-limited NN O O
NPPV NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ventilator NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
726+/-129 NN O O
( NN O O
setting NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1104+/-164 NN O O
( NN O O
setting NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
1257+/-166 NN O O
( NN O O
setting NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
ml NN O O
during NN O O
pressure-limited NN O O
NPPV NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
volume-limited NN O O
NPPV NN O O
. NN O O

Leak NN O O
compensation NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
leakage-induced NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
/87 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
setting NN O O
II/III NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
additionally-delivered NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
during NN O O
pressure-limited NN O O
NPPV NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
lost NN O O
via NN O O
leakage NN O O
. NN O O

Expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
setting NN O O
II NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
setting NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
expiratory NN O O
leakage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
attempt NN O O
at NN O O
leak NN O O
compensation NN O O
largely NN O O
feeds NN O O
the NN O O
leakage NN O O
itself NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
marginal NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
tidal NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
pressure-limited NN O O
-- NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
volume-limited NN O O
-- NN O O
NPPV NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinically-important NN O O
leak NN O O
compensation NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
www.uniklinik-freiburg.de/zks/live/uklregister/Oeffentlich.html NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
UKF001272 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19487623)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
citalopram 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
repetitive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
citalopram NN O I-INT
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Selective NN O I-INT
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
are NN O O
widely NN O O
prescribed 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
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
hydrobromide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
National NN O O
Institutes NN O O
of NN O O
Health-sponsored NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
Mount NN O I-PAR
Sinai NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Shore-Long NN O I-PAR
Island NN O I-PAR
Jewish NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
System NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Chapel NN O I-PAR
Hill NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Los NN O I-PAR
Angeles NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Yale NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Dartmouth NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-nine NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
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
9.4 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
3.1 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
73 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
76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
ratings NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Global NN O I-PAR
Impressions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Illness NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scored NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
compulsive NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Yale-Brown NN O I-PAR
Obsessive NN O I-PAR
Compulsive NN O I-PAR
Scales NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Twelve NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
hydrobromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
maximum NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
hydrobromide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
16.5 NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
) NN O O
mg/d NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Positive NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
important NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pervasive NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
systematically NN O O
elicited NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Safety NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
Uniform NN O O
Report NN O O
Form NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
citalopram-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
32.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
34.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.61-1.51 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.99 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
score NN O O
reduction NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
modified NN O O
for NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
3.4 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
citalopram-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
2.5 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
for 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
.81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Citalopram NN O I-INT
use NN O O
was NN O O
significantly 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
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
increased NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impulsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behavior 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
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
Registration NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00086645 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19491859)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
3.3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderately-active NN O I-PAR
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
balsalazide NN O I-INT
disodium NN O I-INT
1.1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
dosing NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O O
6.6 NN O O
g/day NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
tablets NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild-to-moderately-active NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
( NN O O
UC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
Modified NN O I-PAR
Mayo NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
Activity NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MMDAI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subscale NN O I-PAR
rating NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=2 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mucosal NN O I-PAR
appearance NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
3.3 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
balsalazide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=3 NN O O
point NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
MMDAI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=1 NN O O
point NN O O
improvement NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
through NN O O
2-weeks NN O O
post-treatment 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
249 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
balsalazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
MMDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
7.9 NN O O
; NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=8.0 NN O O
( NN O O
moderate NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
balsalazide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
vs. NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
reported NN O O
were NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
UC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Balsalazide NN O I-INT
disodium NN O I-INT
1.1 NN O O
g NN O O
tablets NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
3.3 NN O O
g NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mild-to-moderately-active NN O I-OUT
UC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
new NN O O
formulation NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
pill NN O O
and NN O O
dosing NN O O
burden NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
convenience NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19502023)

Transdermal NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
cosmetic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the 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-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Academic NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
126 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
plastic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PONV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
or NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
two NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
every NN O O
hour NN O O
until NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
thereafter NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
TDS NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Transdermal NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
benefits 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
PONV NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
plastic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19512937)

Loss NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
initiation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Decreased 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
has NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
initiating NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ART NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
contributions NN O O
of NN O O
ART NN O O
and NN O O
immunologic NN O O
and/or NN O O
virologic NN O O
factors NN O O
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
total NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
over NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
106 NN O I-PAR
ART-naive NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
efavirenz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
zidovudine/lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
32 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lopinavir/ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LPV/r NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
zidovudine/lamivudine NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
24-48 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
LPV/r NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
BMD NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
[ NN O O
soluble NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
receptors NN O O
( NN O O
sTNFR NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
LPV/r NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
EFV NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
within-group NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
for NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
alteration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
upon NN O O
simplification NN O O
to NN O O
LPV/r NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
soluble NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
receptor NN O O
II NN O O
concentrations NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
marginally NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
subsequent NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
associations NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
significant NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
CD4 NN O O
T NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
non-black NN O I-PAR
race NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Similar NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
ART-naive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
EFV-based NN O O
regimen NN O O
or NN O O
LPV/r-based NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
simplification NN O O
to NN O O
LPV/r NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19516150)

Aerobic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
adiposity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
and NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
both NN O O
adiposity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
16-wk NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
CAST NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
stronger NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
adiposity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
glucose/insulin NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N NN O O
+ NN O O
ST NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
16-wk NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAST NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
( NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
also NN O O
received NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAST NN O I-INT
received NN O O
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
one NN O O
repetition NN O O
maximum NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
7-d NN O I-OUT
accelerometry NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
3-d NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
3-d NN O I-OUT
records NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
dual-energy NN O O
x-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
( NN O O
DEXA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
glucose/insulin NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
modeling NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
using NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
with NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
overall NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
adiposity NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
z-scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DEXA NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAST NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ST NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or 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
also NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
group NN O O
increasing NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
N NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
CAST NN O I-INT
group NN O O
decreasing NN O O
by NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
CAST NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
multiple NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
Latina NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
investigating NN O O
and NN O O
identifying NN O O
intervention NN O O
approaches NN O O
that NN O O
improve NN O O
both NN O O
adiposity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19523608)

Randomized NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
volunteer NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
a NN O O
live NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cholera NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
VA1.3 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
live NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cholera NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-toxigenic NN O I-INT
Vibrio NN O I-INT
cholerae NN O I-INT
O1 NN O I-INT
El NN O I-INT
Tor NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
VA1.3 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
in NN O O
304 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Kolkata NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
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
n=186 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=116 NN O O
) NN O O
containing NN O O
the NN O O
diluent NN O O
buffer NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
elicit NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
vaccine NN O O
recipients NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
None NN O I-OUT
excreted NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
strain NN O O
. NN O O

Vibriocidal NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
105/186 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5/116 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
vaccine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
anti-CT NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=2-folds NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
23/30 NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6/19 NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
vaccine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
VA1.3 NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cholera NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19526613)

Leucocyte NN O O
depletion NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
transfusion NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Perioperative NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
transfusion NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Allogeneic NN O O
leucocytes NN O O
are NN O O
assumed NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
causal NN O O
role NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transfusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
leucocyte-depleted NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LD NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Transfusion NN O O
Associated NN O O
Complications NN O O
= NN O O
Transfusion NN O O
Induced NN O O
Complications NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
TACTIC NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
LD NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
non-LD NN O I-INT
RBC NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
5-year NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
cancer NN O O
recurrence NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
512 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
TACTIC NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Some NN O O
89.2 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
cent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
79.7 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
cent NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
intent NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
243 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
perioperative NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50.8 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
45.8 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-LD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.191 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
60.0 NN O O
and NN O O
56.6 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.482 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
32.9 NN O O
and NN O O
34.3 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.864 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Leucocyte NN O O
depletion NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19531038)

Quick NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
while NN O O
changing NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
inotropes NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Quick NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
pumping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
common NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
substituting NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
inotropes NN O O
given NN O O
through NN O O
intravenous NN O O
pump NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
respect NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
DP NN O I-INT
method NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Paediatric NN O I-PAR
Intensive NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Padua NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0-36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inotropic NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
research NN O O
obtained NN O O
the NN O O
approval NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Hospital NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Ethics NN O I-PAR
committee NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
signed NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
made NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
frequencies NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
significance NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
Excel NN O O
spreadsheet NN O O
and NN O O
analysed NN O O
with NN O O
SAS NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
infective NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
intubated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
artificial NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
infused NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dopamine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
from NN O O
starting NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
variation NN O O
of NN O O
MAP NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O O
-3.1 NN O O
, NN O O
+3.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
; NN O O
QC NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
quickest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19544653)

[ NN O O
Clinilal NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

22 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

20 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biochemistry NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
virology NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
complete NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
effective NN O O
were NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
ozone NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19545929)

Gemcitabine NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
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 I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
SICOG NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
two-stage NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
pemetrexed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Alimta NN O O
) NN O O
500 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O I-INT
GA NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
120 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1000 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O I-INT
PG NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
105 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GA NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
PG NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
accrual NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
first-stage NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
10-33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GA NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
20-46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PG NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
3.7-6.5 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GA NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
5.9-10.7 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PG NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.5 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7.1-13.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11.7-14.9 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
GA NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
hair NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O O
PG NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Other NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
GA NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
were NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
derangement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
GA NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
moderately NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
or NN O O
metastatic NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
yield NN O O
any NN O O
advantage NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PG NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
deserve NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19552744)

Pharmacokinetic- NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
genotypes NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
rabeprazole-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
against NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
rabeprazole-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
against NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
genotype NN O O
as NN O O
poor NN O O
metabolizers NN O O
( NN O O
PMs NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
extensive NN O O
metabolizers NN O O
( NN O O
EMs NN O O
, NN O O
homozygous NN O O
EM NN O O
or NN O O
heterozygous NN O O
EM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
given NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Antibiotics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
4-7 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
days NN O O
1-7 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
direct NN O O
link NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
compartment NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Rabeprazole NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
PMs NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
EMs NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
average NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
10.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
16.8 NN O O
l NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
PMs NN O O
and NN O O
EMs NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
k NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eo NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
k NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eo NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
PMs NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
EMs NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
0.012 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.017 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
) NN O O
l NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
EMs NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
0.804 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.169 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
) NN O O
l NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
rabeprazole NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predicted NN O I-OUT
gastrin-time NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
PMs NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
EMs NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
eradicated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
PMs NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
infected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
resistant NN O O
strain NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
EMs NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
58 NN O O
to NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
genotypes NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Rabeprazole-based NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
applicable NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
PMs NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19552904)

Short-term NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-PAR
citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-course NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hyperandrogenism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-resistant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CC-resistant NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
be NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
through NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Luteinizing NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follicle NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dehydroepiandrostendione NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DHEAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
1 NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHEAS NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
thicker NN O I-OUT
endometrium NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
short-course NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
hyperandrogenism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
sores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CC-resistant NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19563641)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
modalities NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
side-effects NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
including NN O O
reduced NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
fracture NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
lean NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
mood NN O O
disturbance NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
compromising NN O O
physical NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
independence NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
reversing NN O O
musculoskeletal-related NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
load NN O O
the NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
diabetes NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Multi-site NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
195 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
ADT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cities NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Perth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Brisbane NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
resistance/impact NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resistance/cardiovascular NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care/delayed NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
will NN O O
then NN O O
undergo NN O O
progressive NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
will NN O O
take NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
principal NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
project NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
determination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
established NN O I-OUT
musculoskeletal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
deprivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
this NN O O
project NN O O
is NN O O
much NN O O
longer NN O O
term NN O O
than NN O O
previous NN O O
investigations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
will NN O O
gain NN O O
knowledge NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
specifically NN O O
targeting NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
advancement NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
expect NN O O
dissemination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knowledge NN O O
gained NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
project NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ultimately NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRY NN O O
A NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
modalities NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
side-effects NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
receiving NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
; NN O O
ACTRN12609000200280 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19564877)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
diethylpropion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diethylpropion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
emphasis NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
safety NN O O
aspects NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Following NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
screening NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypocaloric NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
diethylpropion NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
BID NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=37 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
diethylpropion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
experienced NN O O
psychiatrists NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
diethylpropion NN O O
group NN O O
lost NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
s.d NN O O
. NN O O

6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
vs NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
diethylpropion NN O O
was NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
diethylpropion NN O I-INT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
lost NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Diethylpropion NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
diet NN O O
produced NN O O
sustained NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
aspects NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
well-selected NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19565731)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
granules NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
clinical NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
Granules NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
intelligence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Eighty-four NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
combined NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O O
medication NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O O
Baihui NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Sishencong NN O O
( NN O O
EX-HN NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Dazhui NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Guanyuan NN O O
( NN O O
CV NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
etc NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
Granules NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
Chinese NN O O
herb NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
Granules NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
with NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Aricept NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Mini-Mental NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMSE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Daily NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
MMSE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herb NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Chinese NN O O
herb NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
67.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
western NN O O
medicine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
Granules NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
Yizhi NN O I-INT
Jiannao NN O I-INT
Granules NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Aricept NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19570717)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
tonabersat NN O I-INT
on NN O O
migraine NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aura NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Migraine NN O O
with NN O O
aura NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
cortical NN O O
spreading NN O O
depression NN O O
( NN O O
CSD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tonabersat NN O I-INT
inhibits NN O O
CSD NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
therefore NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
tonabersat NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
migraine NN O O
with NN O O
aura NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
tonabersat NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
aura NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
list NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
kept NN O O
a NN O O
detailed NN O O
diary NN O O
to NN O O
enable NN O O
objective NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
attack NN O O
as NN O O
migraine NN O O
with NN O O
aura NN O O
, NN O O
migraine NN O O
without NN O O
aura NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
headache NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
aura NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
aura NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00332007 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
statistical NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IQR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aura NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
3.2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.0-5.0 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
( NN O O
0-3.0 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
tonabersat NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
aura NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tonabersat NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tonabersat NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
overall NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
side-effects NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Tonabersat NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
attacks NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
aura NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
non-aura NN O O
attacks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
keeping NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
known NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
CSD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
theory NN O O
that NN O O
auras NN O O
are NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
CSD NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
attacks NN O O
without NN O O
aura NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Minster NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
; NN O O
Lundbeck NN O O
Foundation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19574500)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
preinduced NN O I-PAR
quadriceps NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exercise NN O O
intolerance NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
central NN O O
( NN O O
ventilatory NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
( NN O O
limb NN O O
muscles NN O O
) NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
limitation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
muscle NN O O
fatigue NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
and NN O O
ventilatory NN O O
response NN O O
during NN O O
constant-workrate NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
apart NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
CWTs NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
exhaustion NN O O
at NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
predetermined NN O O
maximal NN O O
work NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
preinduced NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
fatigue NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
fresh NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Quadriceps NN O O
fatigue NN O O
was NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
electrostimulation-induced NN O O
contractions NN O O
and NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
contraction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
potentiated NN O I-OUT
twitch NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TwQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pot NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Endurance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
CWT NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
fatigued NN O O
and NN O O
fresh NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Endurance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fatigued NN O O
state NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
fresh NN O O
condition NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
( NN O O
356 NN O O
+/- NN O O
69 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
294 NN O O
+/- NN O O
45 NN O O
s 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
controls NN O O
( NN O O
450 NN O O
+/- NN O O
74 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
340 NN O O
+/- NN O O
45 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Controls NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end-exercise NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
fatigued NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
ventilation NN O O
or NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
expressed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Ve/maximum NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
fatigue NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O O
electrostimulation-induced NN O O
contractions NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
peripheral NN O I-PAR
muscle NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
besides NN O O
intense NN O O
dyspnea NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
limits NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19590075)

Preparation NN O O
and NN O O
immune NN O O
activity NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
H5N1 NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
avian NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
recombinant NN O I-PAR
protein-based NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Avian NN O O
influenza NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
severe NN O O
disease NN O O
among NN O O
farmed NN O I-PAR
poultry NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
free-living NN O I-PAR
birds NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
threat NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
commercial NN O I-PAR
chicken NN O I-PAR
industry NN O I-PAR
around NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

Hemagglutinin NN O O
( NN O O
HA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
immunogen NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
envelope NN O O
of NN O O
influenza NN O O
A NN O O
virus NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
predominant NN O O
inducer NN O O
of NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
antibody NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
obtain NN O O
the NN O O
bioactive NN O O
antigen NN O O
proteins NN O O
in NN O O
large NN O O
quantities NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
vector NN O O
pBCX NN O O
was NN O O
constructed NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pET32a NN O O
vector NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HA NN O O
gene NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
H5N1 NN O O
subtype NN O O
of NN O O
avian NN O O
influenza NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
AIV NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
inserted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
pBCX NN O I-PAR
vector NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
expressed NN O O
efficiently NN O O
in NN O O
Escherichia NN O O
coli NN O O
BL21 NN O O
( NN O O
DE3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fused NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exogenous NN O O
gene NN O O
and NN O O
msyB NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
97-kDa NN O O
msyB-HA NN O O
fusion NN O O
protein NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O I-INT
dodecyl NN O I-INT
sulfate-PAGE NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
msyB-HA NN O O
fusion NN O O
protein NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
29.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
bacterial NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
90.5 NN O O
% NN O O
being NN O O
soluble NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
msyB-HA NN O O
fusion NN O O
protein NN O O
was NN O O
purified NN O O
with NN O O
nondenaturing NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
Ni-NTA NN O O
column NN O O
chromatography NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
24 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
purified NN O O
msyB-HA NN O O
fusion NN O O
protein NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
L NN O O
of NN O O
induced NN O O
expression NN O O
bacterial NN O O
culture NN O O
medium NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
comparative NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
pBCX NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
pET32a NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
vector NN O O
. NN O O

Western NN O O
blotting NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
recombinant NN O O
msyB-HA NN O O
( NN O O
rHA NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
better NN O O
antigenic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
better NN O O
posttranslation NN O O
protein NN O O
modification NN O O
and NN O O
folding NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pBCX NN O O
expression NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
rHA NN O O
fusion NN O O
protein NN O O
as NN O O
antigen NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
successfully NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
screened NN O O
specific NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibodys NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
H5N1 NN O O
subtype NN O O
AIV NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rHA NN O O
had NN O O
antigen NN O O
epitopes NN O O
and NN O O
biofunctions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
immune NN O O
test NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rHA NN O O
protein NN O O
vaccine NN O O
could NN O O
also NN O O
induce NN O O
high NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
antibodies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
AIV NN O O
challenge NN O O
test NN O O
proved NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rHA NN O O
protein-based NN O O
vaccine NN O O
could NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
recombinant NN O O
HA NN O O
protein NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pBCX NN O O
expression NN O O
system NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O O
protein-based NN O O
vaccine NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
development NN O O
for NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19591981)

Polycystic NN O O
ovary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
drospirenone-ethinylestradiol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pill NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
drospirenone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
and NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
surrogate NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Bologna NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
drospirenone+ethinylestradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
; NN O O
n=19 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
; NN O O
n=18 NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Utero-ovarian NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stromal NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
vasodilatation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
for NN O O
testing NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
hormonal NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
nitrites/nitrates NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
improved NN O O
hirsutism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperandrogenemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
drospirenone+ethinylestradiol NN O O
or NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
vaginal NN O O
ring NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
diurnal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
both NN O O
therapies NN O O
worsened NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
pill NN O O
administration NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
6-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O O
ring NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
drospirenone+ethinylestradiol NN O O
pill NN O O
induced NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
insulinogenic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
homeostatic NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
estimate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Vaginal NN O O
hormonal NN O O
contraception NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
ethinylestradiol NN O O
+ NN O O
drospirenone NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
hyperinsulinemic NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
PCOS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19594501)

Verapamil NN O I-INT
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
mania NN O O
unresponsive NN O O
to NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
: NN O O
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
discussion NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O O
kinase NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
PKC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
mechanism NN O O
common NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
established NN O O
( NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
valproate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
some NN O I-INT
novel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
antimanic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Verapamil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
primarily NN O O
known NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
has NN O O
PKC NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Verapamil NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
antimanic NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adjunctive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
manic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lithium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Each NN O O
study NN O O
phase NN O O
lasted NN O O
three NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
openly NN O O
with NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
continued-lithium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
verapamil/lithium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Response NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
continued-lithium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
Phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Fisher NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Exact NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mania NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
during NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
3 NN O O
by NN O O
88.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
4.34 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
antimanic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
efficacious NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
thus NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
potential NN O O
utility NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
additive NN O O
actions NN O O
on NN O O
PKC NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
antimanic NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19595104)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transcatheter NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
chemoembolization NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transcatheter NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
chemoembolization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIFU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ablation NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
size NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
TNM NN O I-INT
stages NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
grade-matched NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
TACE NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
undergoing NN O I-INT
TACE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TACE+HIFU NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=38 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
undergoing NN O I-INT
2-3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
TACE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
88 NN O O
tumors NN O O
( NN O O
9.3+/-3.2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
5.0-14.5 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
tumor NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
observation NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
for NN O O
( NN O O
13+/-7 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
3-24 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
necrosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
90.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29/32 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TACE+HIFU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
70.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28/38 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TACE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minification NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TACE+HIFU NN O I-INT
and NN O O
TACE NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
73.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
68.4 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
TACE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
26.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TACE+HIFU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
21.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TACE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TACE+HIFU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TACE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
months 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
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
TACE NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prolongs NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19606510)

Seven-star NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Seven-star NN O I-INT
Needle NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autistic NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
30 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
waiting NN O O
list NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
regime NN O O
comprising NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Seven-star NN O I-INT
Needle NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
session NN O O
lasted NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
stimulated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
front NN O O
and NN O O
back NN O O
sides NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
body NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Seven-star NN O I-INT
Needles NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
report NN O O
and NN O O
neurophysiological NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
quantitative NN O O
EEG NN O O
( NN O O
qEEG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, 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

qEEG NN O I-OUT
spectral NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
Seven-star NN O I-INT
Needle NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19608530)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
HSV-1 NN O O
DNA NN O O
shedding NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
tears NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
saliva NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
shedding NN O O
of NN O O
HSV-1 NN O O
DNA NN O O
in NN O O
tears NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
saliva NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
without NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
race NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
350 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Ocular NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
swabs NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

DNA NN O O
was NN O O
extracted NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O O
swabs NN O O
and NN O O
HSV-1 NN O O
DNA NN O O
copy NN O O
numbers NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
DNA NN O O
copy NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HSV-1 NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
copy NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tears NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
copy NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SEM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HSV-1 NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
tears NN O O
were NN O O
340 NN O O
+/- NN O O
35 NN O O
, NN O O
1074 NN O O
+/- NN O O
320 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
630 NN O O
+/- NN O O
51 NN O O
for NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
saliva NN O O
were NN O O
238 NN O O
+/- NN O O
35 NN O O
, NN O O
963 NN O O
+/- NN O O
462 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
493 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
HSV-1 NN O I-OUT
shedding NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HSV-1 NN O O
DNA NN O O
copy NN O O
number NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
valacyclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
350 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19620953)

Enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
tDCS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
anodal NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
47.7 NN O I-PAR
yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
deficits NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-ever NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sham-controlled NN O I-INT
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
two NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
anodal NN O I-INT
dorsolateral NN O I-INT
prefrontal NN O I-INT
cortex NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hrs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
two-back NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transcranial NN O O
direct NN O O
current NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Accuracy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
rate-commission NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
transcranial NN O O
direct NN O O
current NN O O
stimulation NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
prestimulation NN O O
and NN O O
poststimulation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anodal NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
stimulation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
paired NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
anodal NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
without NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
effect NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
transcranial NN O O
direct NN O O
current NN O O
stimulation NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anodal NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O O
stimulation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
anodal NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
enhanced NN O O
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
indexed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O O
accuracy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19638081)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prepackaged NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
residual NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
4L NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clear NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
4L NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIMS NN O O
A NN O O
prepackaged NN O O
low NN O O
residue NN O O
one-day NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
breakfast NN O O
, NN O O
lunch NN O O
and NN O O
dinner NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
recently NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
preparation NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
colonoscopy 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
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
bowel NN O O
preparation NN O O
protocols NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-INT
residue NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4L NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
these NN O O
new NN O O
options NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
4L NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
214 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
54.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis 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
a NN O O
clear NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
4L NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-INT
residue NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
4L NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TM-PEG NN O I-INT
4L NN O O
, NN O O
108 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
colon NN O I-OUT
cleansing NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
preparations NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Ottawa NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
preparation NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Ottawa NN O I-OUT
cleansing NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
findings NN O O
( NN O O
PEG NN O O
4L NN O O
: NN O O
2.97 NN O O
vs NN O O
TM-PEG NN O O
4L NN O O
: NN O O
2.46 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.063 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TM-PEG NN O O
4L NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PEG NN O O
4L NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.599 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
prepackaged NN O O
low NN O O
residue NN O O
one-day NN O O
diet NN O O
provided NN O O
cleansing NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
liquid NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
offered NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
PEG NN O O
4L NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19641009)

Design NN O O
, NN O O
implementation NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
control NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Australian NN O O
government NN O O
's NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
From NN O O
2005 NN O O
to NN O O
2007 NN O O
the NN O O
Australian NN O O
Government NN O O
funded NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
clustered NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
, NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
, NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
PoCT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
( NN O O
GP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PoC NN O O
tests NN O O
measured NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
devices NN O O
used NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A1c NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DCA NN O I-OUT
2000 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cholestech NN O I-OUT
LDX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
international NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CoaguChek NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
internal NN O O
quality NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
QC NN O O
) NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
quality NN O O
management NN O O
framework NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PoCT NN O I-PAR
device NN O I-PAR
operators NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
provided NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
colour-coded NN O I-INT
QC NN O I-INT
Result NN O I-INT
Sheet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
QC NN O I-INT
Action NN O I-INT
Sheet NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
on-site NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interpreting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Within-practice NN O O
imprecision NN O O
for NN O O
QC NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
analytical NN O O
goals NN O O
for NN O O
imprecision NN O O
set NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O O
participation NN O O
rate NN O O
for NN O O
QC NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
within-practice NN O I-OUT
imprecision NN O I-OUT
met NN O O
the NN O O
analytical NN O O
goals NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
PoC NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
where NN O O
observed NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
outside NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
goal NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
lot NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
QC NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
practices NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O O
imprecision NN O I-OUT
goals NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
analytes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
principal NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
QC NN O O
testing NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
PoCT NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GP NN O O
trial NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
analytical NN O O
goals NN O O
set NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19644973)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
open NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
surgical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
open NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
mid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Some NN O I-PAR
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinomas NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
101 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
surgical NN O O
team NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50-54 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
beam NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Sphincter-preserving NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
78.6 NN O O
and NN O O
76.2 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
open NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.020 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
open NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
circumferential NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
isolated NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
13.63 NN O O
versus NN O O
11.57 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
complication NN O O
rate NN O O
to NN O O
open NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
rapid NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
compromise NN O O
of NN O O
oncological NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19646778)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cetuximab-associated NN O I-PAR
acnelike NN O I-PAR
eruption NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
addressing NN O O
the NN O O
acneiform NN O O
rash NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
cetuximab-related NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
rash NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cetuximab NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
rash NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
application NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
dermatologist NN O O
performed NN O O
facial NN O O
lesion NN O O
counts NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
perceived NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
rash-related NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
standardized NN O O
facial NN O O
photographs NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
blinded NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
global NN O O
rash NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
sides NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
observation NN O O
sides NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O O
photographs NN O O
for NN O O
rash NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
observation NN O O
sides NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
application NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
translate NN O O
into NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cetuximab-related NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
rash NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19657698)

Prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
CEA NN O I-INT
clearance NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
CEA NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
carcinoembryonic NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
CEA NN O O
) NN O O
clearance NN O O
after NN O O
tumor NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
with NN O O
serial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
CEA NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
retrospectively NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
CEA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
CEA NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
5.0 NN O I-PAR
ng/ml NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
exponential NN O O
trend NN O O
line NN O O
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
CEA NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
categorized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
R NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
calculated NN O O
through NN O O
trend NN O O
line NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
indicates NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
between NN O O
exponential NN O O
graph NN O O
and NN O O
measured NN O O
CEA NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
exponential NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
0.9 NN O O
< NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nearly NN O I-PAR
exponential NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
0.5 NN O O
< NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
clearance NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
: NN O O
0.5 NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
then NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
CEA NN O O
clearance NN O O
pattern NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
indicator NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
57 NN O O
months 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
was NN O O
62.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
48.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
58.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
52.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
88.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
74.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CEA NN O I-INT
clearance NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
prognostic NN O O
determinant NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-OUT
CEA NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
tumor NN O O
resection NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
persistent NN O O
CEA NN O O
source NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
require NN O O
consideration NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
follow-up NN O O
or NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19660462)

Norfloxacin NN O I-INT
modulates NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
directly NN O I-PAR
affects NN O I-PAR
neutrophils NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
decompensated NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
& NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
decontamination NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
norfloxacin NN O I-INT
show NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
cytokine NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
norfloxacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bowel NN O O
flora NN O O
and NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
norfloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
0.5-4 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
peak NN O O
samples NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
47 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
22-24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
trough NN O O
samples NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
ascitic NN O I-PAR
fluid NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
norfloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
temporal NN O O
profile NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Norfloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cytokines NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
expression NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
nuclear NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
NF NN O O
) NN O O
-kappaB NN O O
and NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
NF-kappaB NN O O
( NN O O
IkB-alpha NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
oxidative NN O O
burst NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
apoptotic NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
bacterial NN O O
DNA NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lipopolysaccharide NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ascitic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interferon-gamma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin-12 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
trough NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
between NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
norfloxacins NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-alpha NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.68 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
interferon-gamma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.66 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
interleukin-12 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.66 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.68 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
norfloxacin NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
highest NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
at NN O O
1-2 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
concurred NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
cytokines NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intracellular NN O I-OUT
norfloxacin NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
highest NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
microg/mL/10 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
concurred NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
NF-kappaB NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
anion NN O O
superoxide NN O O
generation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
apoptotic NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
phorbol NN O O
myristate NN O O
acetate NN O O
. NN O O

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
modulate NN O O
cytokine NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Norfloxacin NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
directly NN O O
affects NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19661796)

Preliminary NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
most NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
being NN O O
lost NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
transition NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
survivorship NN O O
, NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
face NN O O
special NN O O
challenges NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
place NN O O
them NN O O
at NN O O
particular NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
small-scale NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
2 NN O O
specific NN O O
aims NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
aim NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
rural NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O I-INT
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
intervention NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
aim NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Breast NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-three NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
wait-control NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
BCEI NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
face-to-face NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
supplemental NN O O
written NN O O
and NN O O
audiotape NN O O
materials NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Breast NN O I-INT
Cancer NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
modules NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
are NN O O
organized NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
QOL NN O O
framework NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
, NN O O
wait-control NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
3 NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
telephone NN O O
sessions NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
BCEI NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Research NN O O
questions NN O O
addressing NN O O
aim NN O O
1 NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
rural NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
be NN O O
recruited NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
their NN O O
participation NN O O
be NN O O
retained NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
questions NN O O
for NN O O
aim NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
do NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
BCEI NN O O
show NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
general NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
recruit NN O O
and NN O O
retain NN O O
53 NN O O
rural NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
wait-control NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
months NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
some NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
maintain NN O O
their NN O O
participation NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
do NN O O
participate NN O O
experience NN O O
significant NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19672771)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
versus NN O O
weekly NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
2-chlorodeoxyadenosine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hairy NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAKK NN O I-PAR
32/98 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
2-chlorodeoxyadenosine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cladribine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CDA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
hairy NN O O
cell NN O O
leukemia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
severe NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenic NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
toxicity NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
versus NN O O
daily NN O O
CDA NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O O
( NN O I-INT
CDA NN O I-INT
0.14 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
day NN O O
1-5 NN O O
[ NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
experimental NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
CDA NN O I-INT
0.14 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
once NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
[ NN O O
Arm NN O O
B NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
hematotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
complete NN O O
+ NN O O
partial NN O O
remission NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
was NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
64-88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
54-80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Best NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms 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
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3+4 NN O I-OUT
leukocytopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3+4 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

34 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
giving NN O O
CDA NN O I-INT
weekly NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19675193)

Sustained NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
glucose NN O O
monitoring NN O O
on NN O O
A1C NN O O
, NN O O
glucose NN O O
profiles NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CGM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intensively NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=25 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
CGM NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
CGM NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
6.8 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
A1C NN O O
> NN O O
or=7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

A1C NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
at NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
A1C NN O O
< NN O O
7.0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
21.8 NN O O
and NN O O
7.1 NN O O
events NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
person-years NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
71-180 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
intensively NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
CGM NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
benefit NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19680697)

Clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nanocrystalline NN O I-INT
hydroxyapatite NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
intrabony NN O O
periodontal NN O O
defects NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
papilla NN O O
preservation NN O O
flap NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
nanocrystalline NN O I-INT
hydroxyapatite NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nano-HA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
intrabony NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
split-mouth NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
defects NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
selected NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
nano-HA NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
conjunction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
papilla NN O I-INT
preservation NN O I-INT
flaps NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
papilla NN O I-INT
preservation NN O I-INT
flaps NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Probing NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PBL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-INT
customized NN O I-INT
acrylic NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
pocket NN O I-OUT
depths NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
again NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
investigated NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
uneventful NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sites NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
nano-HA NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
showed NN O I-INT
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
8.3 NN O O
? NN O O
1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
4.0 NN O O
? NN O O
1.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
PBL NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4.3 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
whereas 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
mean NN O O
PPD NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
from NN O O
7.9 NN O O
? NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
to NN O O
5.0 NN O O
? NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
PBL NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.6 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
statistically NN O O
greater NN O O
PPD NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PBL NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
intrabony NN O O
periodontal NN O O
defects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
nano-HA NN O O
paste NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
papilla NN O I-INT
preservation NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19681257)

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
whitening NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrices NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
whitening NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrices NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
Belgian NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
strip NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
dentifrice NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Crest NN O I-INT
Whitestrips NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
anticavity NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Crest NN O O
Cavity NN O O
Protection NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NaF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Mentadent NN O O
Whitening NN O O
Toothpaste NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
monofluorophosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MFP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Rembrandt NN O O
Low NN O O
Abrasion NN O O
Whitening NN O O
Toothpaste NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Strip NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
from NN O O
standardized NN O O
digital NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maxillary NN O O
facial NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
safety NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
from NN O O
oral NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
strip NN O O
use NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
use NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
12-week NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
peroxide NN O O
strip NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
-2.45 NN O O
Deltab* NN O O
, NN O O
2.39 NN O O
DeltaL* NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-0.96 NN O O
Deltaa* NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
yellowness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
brightness NN O I-OUT
favoring NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
peroxide NN O O
strip NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peroxide NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
+ NN O O
color NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Deltab* NN O O
& NN O O
DeltaL* NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
differing NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
continuously NN O O
used NN O O
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrices NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
whitening NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
timepoints NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
representing NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19681862)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
R-salbutamol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
discoid NN O I-PAR
lupus NN O I-PAR
erythematosus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
open NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
R-salbutamol NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
well-known NN O O
molecule NN O O
with NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
successfully NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
therapy-resistant NN O I-PAR
discoid NN O I-PAR
lupus NN O I-PAR
erythematosus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DLE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
R-salbutamol NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
DLE NN O O
lesions NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
DLE NN O I-PAR
lesion NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
R-salbutamol NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
through NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
scaling/hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
induration NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
investigator NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
for NN O O
scaling/hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
actively NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
scaling/hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0262 NN O O
; NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0238 NN O O
; NN O O
itching NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0135 NN O O
; NN O O
global NN O O
patient NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
induration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lesional NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
R-salbutamol-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0197 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
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Application NN O O
of NN O O
R-salbutamol NN O O
cream NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
on NN O O
scaling/hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
induration NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
itching NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
patient NN O O
global NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
R-salbutamol NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
new NN O O
topical NN O O
therapy NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
DLE NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19682342)

Large-dose NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
for NN O O
iron NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
rapid NN O O
, NN O O
large-dose NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
correcting NN O O
iron NN O O
deficiency NN O O
anemia NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
heavy NN O O
uterine NN O O
bleeding NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In 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
477 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
< NN O O
or=1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
over NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
weekly NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
calculated NN O O
replacement NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
65 NN O O
mg NN O O
elemental NN O O
iron NN O O
) NN O O
prescribed NN O O
orally NN O O
thrice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
responded NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
of NN O O
2.0 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
12.2-28.3 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
3.0 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
achieved NN O O
correction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Hb NN O O
> NN O O
or= NN O O
12 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
anemia NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
50 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

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
prescribed NN O O
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
vitality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatigue 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
rapid NN O O
IV NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
carboxymaltose NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
correcting NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
replenishing NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
stores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19686304)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES NN O O
Studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
excessive NN O O
sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
explores NN O O
4th NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
student NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
sun NN O I-PAR
protection NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Fall NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Sun NN O I-PAR
Protection NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
project NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
SPF NN O O
project NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
school NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
promoting NN O I-INT
sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hat NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
particular NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
Hillsborough NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
Schools NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Florida NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
data NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
before NN O O
any NN O O
intervention NN O O
activities NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
wore NN O O
long NN O I-OUT
sleeves NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
hat NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
brim NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
leaving NN O O
for NN O O
school NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
wore NN O O
a NN O O
hat NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
wide NN O I-OUT
brim NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
outside NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O O
. NN O O

Students NN O I-PAR
spent NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
59.1 NN O O
minutes NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
outdoors NN O O
while NN O O
attending NN O O
school NN O O
and NN O O
35.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
during NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O O
poses NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
to NN O O
student NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
wide-brimmed NN O I-INT
hat NN O I-INT
and NN O O
limiting NN O O
student NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19691092)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O I-INT
beam NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
recent NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
external NN O I-INT
beam NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EBRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
cryoablation NN O O
for NN O O
localized NN O O
disease NN O O
showed NN O O
cryoablation NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
external NN O I-INT
beam NN O I-INT
EBRT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
disease-specific NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
244 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EBRT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
dose NN O O
68 NN O O
Gy NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
antiandrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
QLQ NN O O
C30 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Index NN O O
( NN O O
PCI NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
few NN O O
exceptions NN O O
. NN O O

cryoablation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
PCI NN O O
urinary NN O O
function NN O O
cryoablation=69.4 NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
EBRT=90.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
resolved NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
arising NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
EBRT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cryoablation NN O O
patients NN O O
reporting NN O O
poorer NN O O
functioning NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
cryoablation=7.2 NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
EBRT=32.9 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15 NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
men NN O O
said NN O O
that NN O O
sexuality NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
big NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
long-term NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
poorer NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
by NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Men NN O O
who NN O O
wish NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
their NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
retaining NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
might NN O O
be NN O O
counseled NN O O
to NN O O
choose NN O O
EBRT NN O I-INT
over NN O O
cryoablation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19692186)

Aspirin-associated NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anticancer NN O I-PAR
mechanism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
consensus NN O O
view NN O O
has NN O O
emerged NN O O
favoring NN O O
an NN O O
anticancer NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
aspirin NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin-induced NN O I-INT
loss NN O O
of NN O O
stored NN O O
iron NN O O
from NN O O
chronic NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
mechanism NN O O
underlying NN O O
this NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
iron NN O O
depletion NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
iron NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
carcinogenesis NN O O
through NN O O
free-radical NN O O
mediated NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
promotion NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
growth NN O O
. NN O O

Low-dose NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
losses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transfused NN O I-OUT
radiolabeled NN O I-OUT
autologous NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Observational NN O O
studies NN O O
report NN O O
lower NN O O
serum NN O O
ferritin NN O O
values NN O O
with NN O O
regular NN O O
aspirin NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
induced NN O O
iron NN O O
reduction NN O O
against NN O O
cancer NN O O
mortality NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
FeAST NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
observation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
FeAST NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
conventionally NN O O
normal NN O O
reference NN O O
ranges NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
ferritin NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
observational NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
regular NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Delayed NN O O
anticancer NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O O
are NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
proposed NN O O
mechanism NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
continual NN O O
microbleeding NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
a NN O O
gradual NN O O
cumulative NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
stored NN O O
iron NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19701647)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
muscle NN O O
reflexes NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blockade NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
-K NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
-ATPase NN O O
pump NN O O
by NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
could NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
hyperkaliema NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
forearm NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
could NN O O
stimulate NN O O
the NN O O
mechano- NN O O
and NN O O
metaboreceptors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cross-over-design NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SpO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
handgrip NN O I-OUT
exercises NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
circulatory NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Digoxin NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
MBP NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-handgrip NN O O
ischemia NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SpO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Venous NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
digoxin-induced NN O I-INT
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
Na NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
-K NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
-ATPase NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
MBP NN O O
during NN O O
dynamic NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
potassium NN O O
and NN O O
lactic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
modest NN O O
direct NN O O
sensitization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O O
mechanoreceptors NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
reflexes NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
inotropic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
implicated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19702485)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
understudied NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preschoolers 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 I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ID NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
ID NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
titration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
child NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
optimal NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks 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
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Statistical NN O I-OUT
Manual NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Mental NN O I-OUT
Disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
th NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
edition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DSM-IV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale-Revised NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CPRS-R-DSM-IV-ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
parent-rated NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
preschoolers NN O O
; NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CPRS-R-DSM-IV-ADHD NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
PDD NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
Cohen NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
marginally NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
DD NN O O
sample NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
, NN O O
Cohen NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
upset NN O I-OUT
stomach NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep-related NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
lability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
child NN O O
discontinued NN O O
during NN O O
titration NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
predominant NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PDD/ID NN O I-PAR
favored NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
subtle NN O O
and NN O O
variable NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
and NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
preschoolers NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
monitored NN O O
closely NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19705924)

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
modelling NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
antihistaminic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
H1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bilastine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
model NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
histamine NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
single- NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
studies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
from NN O O
different NN O O
single-dose NN O O
and NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
183 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bilastine NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
160 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
220 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
multiple-dose NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
127 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
bilastine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
140 NN O O
or NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
as NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
4- NN O O
, NN O O
7- NN O O
or NN O O
14-day NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bilastine NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
mixed-effects NN O O
modelling NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
software NN O O
NONMEM NN O O
version NN O O
6.1 NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
modelled NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
two-compartment NN O O
open NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
first-order NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
histamine-induced NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
preselected NN O O
time NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
predicted NN O O
typical NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
model NN O O
previously NN O O
developed NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
indirect NN O O
response NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
relationships NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
flare NN O O
or NN O O
wheal NN O O
areas NN O O
and NN O O
bilastine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
estimated NN O O
for NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
simulations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
( NN O O
72-96 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
non-compartmental NN O O
analysis NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
linear NN O O
kinetics NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Bilastine NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
two-compartmental NN O O
kinetics NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rapid-absorption NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
first-order NN O O
absorption NN O O
rate NN O O
constant NN O O
= NN O O
1.50 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
following NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
approximately NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
or NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
the NN O O
selected NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
fit NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
indirect NN O O
response NN O O
model NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
selection NN O O
is NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
bilastine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
input NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
reaction NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
model NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
fit NN O O
of NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimates NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
relative NN O O
standard NN O O
errors NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
percentages NN O O
in NN O O
parentheses NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
apparent NN O I-OUT
zero-order NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
constant NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
k NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first-order NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
constant NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
k NN O O
( NN O O
out NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bilastine NN O I-OUT
IC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.44 NN O O
ng/mL/h NN O O
( NN O O
14.60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.09 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
15.14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5.15 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
16.16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
wheal NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11.10 NN O O
ng/mL/h NN O O
( NN O O
8.48 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.03 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
8.35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.25 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
14.56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
flare NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
simulation NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
bilastine NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
do NN O O
not NN O O
remain NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
IC NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
value NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
inter-dose NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
every NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
IC NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
value NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
considered NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
flare NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
wheal NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
relationships NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O O
were NN O O
reliably NN O O
described NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
indirect NN O O
response NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
model NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
accurate NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
bilastine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19708471)

Qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O O
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulatory NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
article NN O O
presents NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
5-month NN O O
intervention NN O O
directed NN O O
toward NN O O
improving NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
digestion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
Qigong NN O I-INT
Sensory NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
based NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medicine NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
two-pronged NN O O
: NN O O
Trainers NN O O
work NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
directly NN O O
20 NN O O
times NN O O
over NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
give NN O O
the NN O O
massage NN O O
daily NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
settings NN O O
-- NN O O
preschool NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
-- NN O O
by NN O O
teachers NN O O
( NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Teacher NN O O
evaluations NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
classroom NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
wait-list NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
parent NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
generalized NN O O
across NN O O
contexts NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
model NN O O
and NN O O
supporting NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
understanding NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19713225)

Arterial NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
HUNT NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
and NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
lacking 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
whether NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
arterial NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
also NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Cases NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=515 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=1,505 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nested NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
case-cohort NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HUNT NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
comprising NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=66,140 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nord-Tr?ndelag NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
age- NN O O
and NN O O
sex-adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
concentrations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
C-reactive NN O I-PAR
protein NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
highest NN O I-PAR
quintile NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
1.2-2.2 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quintile NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
strongest NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
sampling NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
three-fold NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quintile NN O O
. NN O O

Having NN O O
first NN O O
degree NN O O
relatives NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
not NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
[ NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
1.1-1.6 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
quintile NN O O
had NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
subjects NN O O
whose NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quintile NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
were NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
further NN O O
investigations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19716589)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
sperm NN O O
with NN O O
platelet-activating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
intrauterine NN O I-INT
insemination NN O I-INT
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
unselected NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sperm NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
platelet-activating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
intrauterine NN O I-INT
insemination NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IUI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PAF NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
mediator NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
sperm NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Assisted NN O I-PAR
Reproduction NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2nd NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Obstetrics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Gynecology NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Athens NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Aretaieion NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Athens NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Greece NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
infertility-all NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
IUI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
IUI NN O I-INT
cycles NN O O
per NN O O
couple NN O O
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
exogenous NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
cycles NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
IUI NN O I-INT
cycles NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
sperm NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12.24 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11.11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
or NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
PAF NN O I-INT
sperm NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
alter NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
generalized NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
sperm NN O O
in NN O O
unselected NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
IUI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19718941)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
spiritually NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
non-spiritually NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
among NN O O
church-attending NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Health NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
modestly NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
questionable NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

Church-based NN O O
programs NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
spiritually NN O O
based NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
spiritually NN O O
based NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
attend NN O I-PAR
church NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
determine NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
Churches NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
spiritually NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
non-spiritual NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trained NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
advisors NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
African-American NN O O
male NN O O
church NN O O
members NN O O
, NN O O
led NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
and NN O O
distributed NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
print NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
completed NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
immediate NN O O
follow-up NN O O
surveys NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
spiritually NN O O
based NN O O
intervention NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
men NN O O
read NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
materials NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
spiritually NN O O
based NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-spiritual NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Further NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
spiritually NN O O
based NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
health NN O O
communication NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19729979)

Weekly NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
paclitaxel-pretreated NN O I-INT
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
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Hellenic NN O O
Co-Operative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
weekly NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in 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
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
paclitaxel-containing NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
weekly NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weekly NN O O
infusions NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
rest NN O O
period NN O O
represented NN O O
1 NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
27.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.413 NN O O
) 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
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
weekly NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
superior NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
weekly NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19763803)

Azelnidipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
anti-coronary NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
serial NN O I-PAR
volumetric NN O I-PAR
intravascular NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Juntendo NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALPS-J NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Many NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blockers NN O O
( NN O O
CCBs NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
plaque NN O O
regression NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
anti-atherosclerotic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
CCBs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
CCB NN O O
on NN O O
volumetric NN O O
quantitative NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
plaques NN O O
accessed NN O O
by NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
( NN O O
IVUS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
confirm NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
CCBs NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
will NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
IVUS NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
dihydropyridine NN O O
CCBs NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
result NN O O
will NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
discovery NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1977089)

Nizatidine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O O
ulcer NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Dutch NN O O
investigation NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
230 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endoscopically NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
159 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
satisfied NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
exclusion NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
nocte NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O O
, NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
nocte NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
nocte NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Endoscopic NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
epithelialisation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Endoscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
not NN O O
healed NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Healing NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
negatively NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
habits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Nizatidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
nocte NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

dose NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
H2 NN O O
antagonist NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulceration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19779611)

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
telephone-delivered NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Given NN O O
escalating NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
broad-reach NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
Counselling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
targeting NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
socio-economic NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O I-PAR
city NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
A NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
modelling NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
between NN O O
February NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
a NN O O
cluster-randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
Counselling NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alternative NN O O
. NN O O

Economic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
state-transition NN O O
Markov NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
progress NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
through NN O O
five NN O O
health NN O O
states NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
ten NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Telephone NN O I-OUT
Counselling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
existing NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Real NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Telephone NN O I-INT
Counselling NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
78,489 NN O O
per NN O O
quality NN O O
adjusted NN O O
life NN O O
year NN O O
gained NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
represent NN O O
existing NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
comparator NN O O
for NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O

Comparing NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
Counselling NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O O
to NN O O
existing NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Real NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
29,375 NN O O
per NN O O
quality NN O O
adjusted NN O O
life NN O O
year NN O O
gained NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
existing NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Real NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
12,153 NN O O
per NN O O
quality NN O O
adjusted NN O O
life NN O O
year NN O O
gained NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
This NN O O
modelling NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O O
to NN O O
adopt NN O O
a NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
Counselling NN O I-INT
program NN O O
over NN O O
existing NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Real NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Choosing NN O O
the NN O O
'Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
over NN O O
existing NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Real NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
cost NN O O
per NN O O
quality NN O O
adjusted NN O O
life NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
supporting NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
or NN O O
sustainability NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
consideration NN O O
for NN O O
decision NN O O
makers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
economics NN O O
of NN O O
behavioural NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
improving NN O O
health NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
explicit NN O O
if NN O O
decision NN O O
makers NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
convinced NN O O
that NN O O
allocating NN O O
resources NN O O
toward NN O O
such NN O O
programs NN O O
is NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
uses NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Australian NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
, 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
: NN O O
Anzcrt.org.au NN O O
ACTRN012607000195459 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19779715)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
low-dose NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interferon-alpha NN O I-INT
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
maintenance NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
mRCC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
IL-2 NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
months NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
documented NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
suspension NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
until NN O O
death NN O O
or NN O O
intolerable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
maintenance NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TFPTD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
53.9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
TFPTD NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
14.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
% NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
versus NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
versus NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
arms NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
first NN O O
progression NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.54 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.35-0.86 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PS NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.53 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.35-0.81 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
female NN O O
gender NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.63 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.41-0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
TFPTD NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.60-1.31 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
WHO NN O O
grades NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Chronic NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
TFPTD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19786383)

A NN O O
good NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
medium- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
long-chain NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
medium- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
long-chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MLCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One-hundred-and-twelve NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
those NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
MLCT NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
long-chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
requested NN O O
to NN O O
consume NN O O
25-30 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oils NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Anthropometric NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
and NN O O
completed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LCT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MLCT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Larger NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
abdomen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MLCT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LCT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
female NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
medium-and NN O O
long-chain NN O O
triglycerides NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19786879)

The NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
pleasure NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
hearing NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hearing NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
major NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hearing-aid NN O I-INT
use NN O O
on NN O O
emotional NN O O
experience NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hearing NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
hearing NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hearing-aid NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
worn NN O I-PAR
hearing NN O I-PAR
aids NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
many NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
their NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
completing NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
relating NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
pleasure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
hearing-aid NN O I-INT
use NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
experienced NN O O
more NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
pleasure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
individuals NN O O
using NN O O
hearing NN O O
aids NN O O
for NN O O
long NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
reported NN O O
similar NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
pleasure NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pleasure NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
emotionally NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutral NN O I-OUT
pictures NN O I-OUT
differing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
luminance NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
pleasure NN O O
typically NN O O
decreases NN O O
with NN O O
decreasing NN O O
contrast NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
images NN O O
displayed NN O O
. NN O O

Once NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
fitted NN O O
with NN O O
hearing NN O O
aids NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pleasure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
contrast NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
highlight NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
anhedonia NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
provide NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
emotional NN O O
improvements NN O O
that NN O O
accompany NN O O
the NN O O
partial NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
hearing NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
these NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
specifically NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
hearing-impaired NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
surprising NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pleasure NN O O
ratings NN O O
for NN O O
pictures NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
hearing-aid NN O I-INT
use NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
compensation NN O O
of NN O O
hearing NN O O
loss NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
attention NN O O
functions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19797985)

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole 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
irritability NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability 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
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1:1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
8-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
caregiver-rated NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinician-rated NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
-12.4 NN O O
; NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
-13.2 NN O O
; NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
-14.4 NN O O
; NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
-8.4 NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Discontinuation NN O O
rates NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
leading NN O O
to NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
was NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
presyncope NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
aggression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
last NN O O
observation NN O O
carried NN O O
forward NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O O
+0.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
+1.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
+1.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
+1.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
generally NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irritability NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19801029)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
radial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
transradial NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Radial NN O O
artery NN O O
occlusion NN O O
( NN O O
RAO NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
infrequent NN O O
, NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
, NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
transradial NN O O
catheterization NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
few NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
heparin NN O O
and NN O O
patent NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
lower NN O O
its NN O O
incidence NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
possible NN O O
local NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intra-arterially NN O O
administered NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
during NN O O
transradial NN O O
procedures NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
500 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
U/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
unfractionated NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
5,000 NN O I-INT
U NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
intra-arterially NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
vasodilator NN O I-INT
cocktail NN O I-INT
intra-arterially NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
cardiac NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5F NN O I-INT
introducer NN O I-INT
sheath NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
activated NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
radial NN O O
compression NN O O
device NN O O
( NN O O
TR NN O O
Band NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
applied NN O O
after NN O O
sheath NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
plethysmographic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Chronic NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
= NN O O
0.231 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
activated NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
211 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
213 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-1.095 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
heparin NN O O
administration NN O O
provide NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
RAO NN O O
, NN O O
favoring NN O O
a NN O O
probable NN O O
systemically NN O O
mediated NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
local NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19803237)

[ NN O O
Observation NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
blood-letting NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cupping NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
gouty NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
gouty NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
eachgroup NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
blood-letting NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cupping NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Probenecid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Their NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
ob NN O O
served NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
effective NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
96.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
86.7 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
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
group NN O O
being NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
electroacupuncture NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
blood-letting NN O I-INT
puncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cupping NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
gouty NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19805710)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
caloric NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O O
plus NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
Be NN O O
In NN O O
CHARGE NN O O
! NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
alone NN O O
on NN O O
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eastern NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
midwestern NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
40th NN O I-PAR
percentile NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-seven NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
24-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
to NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
in NN O O
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
to NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
in NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
z NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
plus NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
alone NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
greater NN O O
average NN O O
increase NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
872 NN O O
vs NN O O
489 NN O O
cal/d NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
148 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
127 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
1.47 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.92 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
z NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.38 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.18 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
24-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
conditions NN O O
maintained NN O O
an NN O O
estimated NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
around NN O O
120 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
behavioral NN O O
plus NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
intervention NN O O
alone NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
9-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
24-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
achieved NN O O
similar NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
Registration NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00006169 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19807791)

Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
mixed NN O I-INT
nuts NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
differing NN O O
diet NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
acid NN O O
load NN O O
content NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Multicentric NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 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
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
interventional NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
recommended NN O I-INT
low-fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
virgin NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
nuts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
12-month NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
quantitative NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
scanning NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
densitometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dietary NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
net NN O I-OUT
endogenous NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NEAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
nuts NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
PRAL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NEAP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nuts NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
higher NN O O
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.63 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
=-1.01-6.35 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
0.31 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=-0.13-0.74 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.14 NN O O
) NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
deoxypyridoxine NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
Mediterranean NN O O
diet NN O O
with NN O O
virgin NN O O
olive NN O O
oil NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
dietary NN O O
acid NN O O
load NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
mixed NN O O
nuts NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
PTH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
Mediterranean NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
nuts NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19808281)

Long-term NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
repetitive NN O O
education NN O O
at NN O O
six-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
and NN O O
monitoring NN O O
for NN O O
adherence NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
REMADHE NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
programs NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
cardiologists NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
disease NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
on NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
combined NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unplanned NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
REMADHE NN O O
[ NN O O
Repetitive NN O O
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Monitoring NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ADherence NN O O
for NN O O
Heart NN O O
Failure NN O O
] NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
233 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
2.47+/-1.75 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unplanned NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.64 NN O O
; NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
to NN O O
0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
driven NN O O
by NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.3+/-1.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
0.8+/-1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19.9+/-51 NN O O
versus NN O O
11.1+/-24 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.5+/-10.6 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.6+/-2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
for NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
For NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
program NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
supervision NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cardiologist NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
unplanned NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
modest NN O O
program NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19814586)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
disintegrating NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
breakthrough NN O O
cancer NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Breakthrough NN O O
cancer NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
BTcP NN O O
) NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
clinical NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sublingual NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fast-acting NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
BTcP NN O O
in NN O O
opioid-tolerant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
opioid-tolerant NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BTcP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
centers NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
USA NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
comprised NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
open-label NN O O
titration NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
efficacy NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
disintegrating NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sublingual NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
ODT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order 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
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
post-administration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
60-min NN O O
post-dose NN O O
assessment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
efficacy NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

[ NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT00262678 NN O O
] NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
131 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
titration NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
ODT NN O O
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
SPID NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
49.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.6 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
post-administration NN O O
( NN O O
143.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
104.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
ODT NN O O
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
PID NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
post-dose NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0055 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.049 NN O O
for NN O O
PID NN O O
and NN O O
PR NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
recruitment NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
positive NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
prespecified NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.0414 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
ODT NN O O
was NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
systemically NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sublingually NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
41 NN O O
patients NN O O
experiencing NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=1 NN O O
study NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AEs NN O O
included NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
somnolence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
lability NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
possibly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
AEs NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
previously NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
ODT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
BTcP NN O O
in NN O O
opioid-tolerant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
ODT NN O O
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
post-administration NN O O
and NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
60-min NN O O
post-dose NN O O
assessment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Sublingual NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
ODT NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19817753)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
early NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
SIT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
attractive NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
house NN O I-PAR
dust NN O I-PAR
mites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
only NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
build-up NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
inhaled NN O I-OUT
corticosteroid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
controls NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
ICS NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
steroid+D NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Concomitantly NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O O
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
regulatory NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
steroids NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
on NN O O
allergen-specific NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
extract NN O O
suppressed NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
SIT NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
prevented NN O O
this NN O O
'adverse NN O O
' NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
steroids NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19833610)

Long-term NN O O
results NN O O
after NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
mononuclear NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
ASTAMI NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
long-term NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
after NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
mononuclear NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mBMCs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Oslo NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Autologous NN O I-PAR
Stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
Transplantation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Myocardial NN O I-PAR
Infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASTAMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
re-assessed NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mBMCs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
VO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
aim NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
equal 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
groups NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
or NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
MRI NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
exercise NN O O
testing NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mBMC-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
larger NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
2-3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
vs NN O O
0.6 NN O O
minutes 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
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
vs NN O O
3.1 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
mBMC NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
AMI NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mBMC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19833962)

Direct NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prime NN O O
example NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
that NN O O
psychological NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
nociceptive NN O I-PAR
processing NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
behavioral NN O O
data NN O O
that NN O O
show NN O O
decreased NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
pain-related NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
reduced NN O O
under NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
direct NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
spinal NN O O
inhibition NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O O
and NN O O
highlight NN O O
that NN O O
psychological NN O O
factors NN O O
can NN O O
act NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
earliest NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19852789)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Part NN O O
A NN O O
-- NN O O
medical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dimercapto NN O I-INT
succinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Phase NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
round NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
DMSA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
toxic NN O I-PAR
metals NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
on NN O O
to NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
6 NN O O
rounds NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
DMSA NN O O
greatly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lead NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
substantially NN O O
increased NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bismuth NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
somewhat NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thallium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mercury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antimony NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tungsten NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
essential NN O I-OUT
minerals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
potassium NN O O
and NN O O
chromium NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
single NN O O
round NN O O
of NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
dramatic NN O O
normalization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
almost NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
greatly NN O O
improved NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reasonably NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
removing NN O O
several NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
especially NN O O
lead NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
dramatically NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
normalizing NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
normalizing NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
1 NN O O
round NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
glutathione NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
rounds NN O O
increased NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19852790)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
part NN O O
B NN O O
- NN O O
behavioral NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dimercapto NN O I-INT
succinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
behavioural NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Phase NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
round NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
DMSA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
toxic NN O I-PAR
metals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
continue NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-INT
rounds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
DMSA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
one NN O O
round NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
rounds NN O O
of NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
round NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
partially NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
R2 NN O O
of NN O O
0.28-0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
round NN O O
of NN O O
DMSA NN O O
had NN O O
nearly NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
benefit NN O O
as NN O O
seven NN O O
rounds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assessment NN O O
measures NN O O
correlated NN O O
reasonably NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.60-0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
better 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
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.63-0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
rounds NN O O
of NN O O
DMSA NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reasonably NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
excretion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
toxic NN O I-PAR
metals NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19853700)

Patterns NN O O
of NN O O
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
complicating NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
PRoject NN O O
of NN O O
Ex-vivo NN O O
Vein NN O O
graft NN O O
ENgineering NN O O
via NN O O
Transfection NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
PREVENT-IV NN O O
) NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Current NN O O
practice NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
complicating NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
post-CABG NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PREVENT-IV NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
explored NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
rhythm NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
geographic NN O I-INT
region NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
post-CABG NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
663 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2,131 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Post-CABG NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rhythm NN O O
control NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
variations NN O O
across NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
post-CABG NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
rhythm NN O O
versus NN O O
rate NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
by NN O O
geographic NN O O
region NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
enrolling NN O O
site NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
academic NN O O
institution NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
post-CABG NN O I-PAR
AF NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
2.4 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
.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
a NN O O
rhythm NN O O
control NN O O
strategy NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
substantial NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
post-CABG NN O O
AF NN O O
across NN O O
sites NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
definitive NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
highlighting NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
rate NN O O
versus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
for NN O O
AF NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19861631)

Immunologic NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
persons NN O O
recruited NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
hookworm NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
from NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
hookworm NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
establishing NN O O
an NN O O
immunologic NN O O
phenotype NN O O
conducive NN O O
to NN O O
parasite NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
immunologic NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
iatrogenic NN O I-INT
hookworm NN O I-INT
infection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
relatively NN O O
safe NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
hookworm NN O I-INT
infection NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
immunogenic NN O O
, NN O O
inducing NN O O
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
potentiation NN O O
of NN O O
IgE NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
environmental NN O I-OUT
allergens NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
sensitized NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
infected NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
conducive NN O O
immunologic NN O O
phenotype NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19884541)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
intrathecal NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CNS NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
consists NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
intrathecal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ie NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
long-term NN O O
neurotoxicities NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
IT NN O O
strategies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
directly NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
multisite NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
171 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9.99 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IT NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
triple NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CCG NN O I-PAR
1952 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
neurocognitive NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
licensed NN O I-PAR
psychologist NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
assignment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
IT NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
Processing NN O I-OUT
Speed NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
3.6 NN O O
points NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
about NN O O
one NN O O
fourth NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
since NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
19.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
IT NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
Processing NN O I-OUT
Speed NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
below-average NN O O
range NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Otherwise NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
performed NN O O
similarly NN O O
on NN O O
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
full-scale NN O I-OUT
intelligence NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
academic NN O I-OUT
achievement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention/concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
sex NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
post-therapy NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
special NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychotropic NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O O
previously NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IT NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
processing NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
IT NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19886920)

Sustained NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
SQ-standardized NN O O
grass NN O O
allergy NN O O
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O O
has NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
decades NN O O
with NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
trigger NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
allergy NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
is NN O O
substantial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
sustained NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SQ-standardized NN O O
grass NN O I-INT
allergy NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Graza NN O O
( NN O O
Phleum NN O O
pratense NN O O
75,000 NN O O
SQ-T/2800 NN O O
BAU NN O O
; NN O O
ALK NN O O
, NN O O
Denmark NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate-severe NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
grass NN O I-INT
AIT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
157 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
126 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RQLQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
completed NN O O
weekly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
RQLQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
difference NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
( NN O O
28 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
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
grass NN O O
AIT NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
seven NN O O
RQLQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
RQLQ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
average NN O O
pollen NN O O
counts NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
separation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
subjects NN O O
inadequately NN O O
controlled NN O O
by NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
grass NN O O
AIT NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
sustained NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19895777)

Screening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
referral NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SBIRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
Polish NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
three-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
referral NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SBIRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
drinking NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
at-risk NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
drinkers NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sosnowiec NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Poland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
23-week NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
4:00 NN O I-PAR
PM NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
midnight NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
446 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
conditions NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
two-stage NN O O
process NN O O
: NN O O
screened NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
147 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
152 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
147 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
blindly NN O O
reassessed NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
telephone NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
at-risk NN O O
drinking NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
drinking NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drinks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
drinks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
occasion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
assessment NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
found NN O O
some NN O O
significant NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
brief-intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
Western NN O O
cultures NN O O
, NN O O
findings NN O O
here NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intervention NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
differential NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ED NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
warrant NN O O
additional NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ED NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19897063)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
turnover NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
accelerated NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
cessation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
turnover NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
and 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
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
osteopenic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
for NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Raloxifene NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PINP NN O O
by NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Continuation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
maintained NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
120 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
192 NN O O
weeks NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
throughout NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
spine NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
hip NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
greater 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
suggesting NN O O
accelerated NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
raloxifene NN O O
was NN O O
lost NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19897177)

Intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
hallmark NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
qualitative NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

Deficits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
recognize NN O O
the NN O O
emotions NN O O
of NN O O
others NN O O
are NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
no NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
administered NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autistic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
then NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Reading NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Mind NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Eyes NN O I-OUT
Task NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
reliable NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
improved NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Reading NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Mind NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Eyes NN O I-OUT
Task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
shown NN O O
when NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
improves NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
earlier NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
people 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


-DOCSTART- (1990041)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
beta-hemolytic NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
cefaclor NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
penicillin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
beta-lactamase-producing NN O O
organisms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharynx NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recommended NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
beta-hemolytic NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
parenteral NN O O
or NN O O
oral NN O O
form NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
continued NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
streptococcal NN O O
organism NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharynx NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
do NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
beta-lactamase NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
bacteria NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharynx NN O O
could NN O O
potentially NN O O
inactivate NN O O
the NN O O
penicillin NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
cefaclor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
inactivation NN O O
by NN O O
beta-lactamase NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O O
for NN O O
eradicating NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
beta-hemolytic NN O I-PAR
streptococcal NN O I-PAR
organism NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
throats NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pharyngitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
extensive NN O O
cultures NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
beta-lactamase-producing NN O O
organisms NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
pharyngeal NN O I-PAR
organisms NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
producing NN O I-PAR
beta-lactamase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cefaclor NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O O
when NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
beta-lactamase-producing NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
beta-lactamase-producing NN O I-OUT
organisms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharynx NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
penicillin NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
cefaclor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19901118)

Conjugated NN O O
equine NN O O
estrogen NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
substudy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
initiative NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Increased NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
mammography NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
hormone NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEEs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diverse NN O I-PAR
racial/ethnic NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CEE NN O O
alone NN O O
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
subsample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Initiative NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WHI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
WHI NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
CEE NN O I-INT
0.625 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CEE NN O O
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
stratified NN O O
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
435 NN O I-PAR
racially NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ethnically NN O I-PAR
diverse NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
WHI NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
CEE NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.6 NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
2.4 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
year NN O O
1 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
percentage NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-1.7 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
1.7 NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.7 NN O O
to NN O O
2.7 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
1.2 NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
across NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
CEE NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
but NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
sustained NN O O
over NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CEE NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19904268)

Chemoradiotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gemcitabine/cisplatin NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
No NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LAPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Within NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LAPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
CRT NN O O
) NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
conventionally NN O O
fractionated NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
50 NN O O
Gy NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
concurrent NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
350 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
RT-5-FU NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
RT-GC NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
full-dose NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
RT-GC+GC NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the 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
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
9-month NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT-5-FU NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT-GC NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT-GC+GC NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
9.6 NN O O
, NN O O
9.3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.61 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
19 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
with NN O O
4.0 NN O O
, NN O O
5.6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6.0 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
GC-containing NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropaenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
CRT NN O O
regimens NN O O
tested NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
investigators NN O O
' NN O O
definition NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
OS NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
gemcitabine NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
LAPC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19910076)

First-line NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
quality NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
directed NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Gruppo NN O I-PAR
Oncologico NN O I-PAR
Italia NN O I-PAR
Meridionale NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND 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
has NN O O
gained NN O O
greater NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
palliative NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
doublet NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
QoL NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VNR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
a NN O O
newer NN O O
more NN O O
tolerated NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
regimens NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
QoL NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
grading NN O O
chemo-related NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
prospectically NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
DCT NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
every NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
VNR NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

G-CSF NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
EPO NN O I-INT
were NN O O
employed NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Health-related NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
every NN O O
cycle NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC-QLQ-C30 NN O O
and NN O O
LC13 NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
NCI-NCCN NN O O
CTC NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
Recist NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
pts NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DCT/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
pts NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
one NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
mean NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
rates NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
pts NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
QoL NN O O
assessment NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Global NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LC13 NN O O
module NN O O
) NN O O
improved NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
slightly NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
DCT/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
14 NN O O
pts NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CL NN O O
24-40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
PR NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
SD NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
TGCR NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
12 NN O O
pts NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
PR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
SD NN O O
a NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
TGCR NN O O
. 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

Median NN O I-OUT
time-to-progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.2 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DCT/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
one NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.1 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1-26+ NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1-28+ NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
DCT/CDDP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
G3-4 NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
G-CSF/EPO NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Global NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time-to-progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
statistically NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VNR/CDDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DCT/CDDP NN O I-INT
one NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
decision-making NN O O
for NN O O
pts NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
plus NN O O
biologics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19910194)

Conservative NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Breast NN O I-INT
conserving NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
including NN O O
postoperative NN O O
irradiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
breast NN O O
tissue NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
accepted NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
question NN O O
is NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
necessity NN O O
for NN O O
irradiating NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
749 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
55-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
infiltrating NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
conservative NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
in-breast NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IBR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IBR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgery-only NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
plus NN O O
RT NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evaluation NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
breast NN O O
irradiation NN O O
after NN O O
conservative NN O O
surgery NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
without NN O O
exposing NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distant-disease NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Prolonged NN O O
follow-up NN O O
will NN O O
further NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
risks NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
sequelae NN O O
potentially NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
breast NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19911168)

Dose-dependent NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
R317573 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
regional NN O O
brain NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Corticotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mood NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
disorders NN O O
although NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
supporting NN O O
their NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dose-response NN O O
relationship NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
tested NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CRF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
R317573 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
regional NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rCMglu NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
fluoro-2-deoxy-D NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-glucose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FDG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
positron NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
following NN O O
single-dose NN O O
challenges NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Single NN O O
30- NN O O
and NN O O
200-mg NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
R317573 NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
dose-related NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
rCMglu NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Relative NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
rCMglu NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
frontal NN O O
cortical NN O O
regions NN O O
while NN O O
relative NN O O
decreases NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
putamen NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
amygdala NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
decreases NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
cerebellum NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
parahippocampal NN O O
gyrus NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
R317573 NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
acute NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
rCMglu NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
regions NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
behaviorally NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
mood NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
some NN O O
regions NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
target NN O O
) NN O O
density NN O O
. NN O O

Measuring NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
rCMglu NN O I-INT
with NN O O
FDG-PET NN O I-INT
may NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
defining NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
active NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
targets NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
selective NN O O
radiotracers NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19912211)

Bipolar NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
less NN O O
bleeding NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
monopolar NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-PAR
single-centre NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
202 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
monopolar NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
speed NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
202 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
waiting NN O I-PAR
list NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Surgmaster NN O I-INT
TURis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Olympus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Tokyo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Japan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
monopolar NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Storz NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
T?bingen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Germany NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
photometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Other NN O O
variables NN O O
compared NN O O
included NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
resection NN O O
speed NN O O
and NN O O
transfusion NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
radicality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
235 NN O O
mL NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
and NN O O
350 NN O O
mL NN O O
for NN O O
monopolar NN O O
TURP 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
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
transfused NN O O
with NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11 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
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
much NN O O
lower NN O O
75th NN O O
percentile NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
bipolar NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
472 NN O O
vs NN O O
855 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Bipolar NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TURis NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
speed NN O O
as NN O I-INT
monopolar NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
but NN O O
caused NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
difference NN O O
being NN O O
greatest NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
blood NN O O
losses NN O O
. NN O O

Bipolar NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
also NN O O
required NN O O
fewer NN O O
erythrocyte NN O O
transfusions NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
monopolar NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19915222)

Intravenous NN O O
platelet NN O O
blockade NN O O
with NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
during NN O O
PCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
rapid-acting NN O O
, NN O O
reversible NN O O
adenosine NN O O
diphosphate NN O O
( NN O O
ADP NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
ischemic NN O O
events NN O O
during NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
5362 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clopidogrel NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
cangrelor NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
composite 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
or NN O I-OUT
ischemia-driven NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Enrollment NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
when NN O O
an NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
superiority NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
185 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2654 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cangrelor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
7.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2641 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
8.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cangrelor NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.71 NN O O
to NN O O
1.07 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
modified NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
missing NN O O
data NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
prespecified NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.31 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.11 NN O O
to NN O O
0.85 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.13 NN O O
to NN O O
0.83 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
one NN O O
scale NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cangrelor NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
groin NN O I-OUT
hematomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
periprocedural NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
during NN O O
PCI NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prespecified NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
stent NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cangrelor NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ADP NN O I-INT
blockade NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cangrelor NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00385138 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (19918712)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
boswellic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
photo NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age-damaged NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biophysical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
echographic NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
split-face NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Boswellic NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
pentacyclic NN O O
triterpenes NN O O
with NN O O
strong NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
their NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
source NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
extract NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gum NN O O
resin NN O O
of NN O O
Boswellia NN O O
serrata NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
tropical NN O O
tree NN O O
that NN O O
grows NN O O
in NN O O
India NN O O
and NN O O
Africa NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
split-face NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
base NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
BAs NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
ingredients NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
manifestations NN O O
of NN O O
photoaging NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
applied NN O O
creams NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
2-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Dover NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
photoaging NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
biophysical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ecographic NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
registered NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
tactile NN O I-OUT
roughness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fine NN O I-OUT
lines NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
half NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
BAs NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
noninvasive NN O O
instrumental NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
investigations NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
elasticity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
sebum NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
echographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
reshaping NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dermal NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
always NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
BAs NN O I-INT
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
selected NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-PAR
photoaging NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (1991872)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
microflora NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
surfaces NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
root-surface NN O O
caries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnishes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
microflora NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
root NN O O
surfaces NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
root-surface NN O O
caries NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
surgically NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
distributed NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
among NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dentition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
three-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
plaque NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
selected NN O O
sound NN O O
and NN O O
carious NN O O
root NN O O
surfaces NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
root-surface NN O O
caries NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
texture NN O O
, NN O O
depth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
color NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
root-surface NN O O
lesions NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

Mutans NN O I-OUT
streptococci NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
surfaces NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
suppressed NN O I-OUT
significantly 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
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
varnish NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
non-significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Actinomyces NN O I-OUT
viscosus/naeslundii NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
varnish NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decayed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
filled NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
surfaces NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
root-surface NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
hardened NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19919399)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
device-guided NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
considerable NN O O
efforts NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
sometimes NN O O
hard NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
treatment NN O O
goals NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
classical NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

Reducing NN O O
breathing NN O O
frequency NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
advocated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
helps NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
slow NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
Resperate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
listened NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS 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
change NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
; NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
-4.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-12.4 NN O O
to NN O O
3.9 NN O O
) NN O O
/-2.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-8.4 NN O O
to NN O O
3.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
in NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O O
achieving NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
breaths/min NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
non-compliant NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

QoL NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Resperate NN O O
on NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
QoL 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

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
moment NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
device NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
added NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1992319)

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cryptococcal NN O I-PAR
meningitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
California NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cryptococcal NN O O
meningitis NN O O
remains NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
fluconazole NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
sterile NN O I-PAR
cultures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cerebrospinal NN O I-PAR
fluid NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
culture-proved NN O I-PAR
cryptococcal NN O I-PAR
meningitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
either NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
silent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
basis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cultures NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
became NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
patients 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
shortly NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
37 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cryptococcal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
34 NN O O
percent NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
to NN O O
53 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
11 NN O O
recurrent NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
prostatic NN O O
massage NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
four NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
meningeal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
164 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
, NN O O
13.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
serum NN O O
cryptococcal-antigen NN O O
titer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
; NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
prolonged NN O O
primary NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
flucytosine NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
; NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
, NN O O
1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
maintenance-treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
silent NN O O
persistent NN O O
infection NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
after NN O O
clinically NN O O
successful NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cryptococcal NN O O
meningitis NN O O
. NN O O

Maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
fluconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
recurrent NN O O
cryptococcal NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19926166)

Routine NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
immature NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
puts NN O O
them NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O O
sepsis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
part-blinded NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
sepsis NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preterm NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
12h NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
unless NN O I-INT
clinically NN O I-INT
indicated NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
necrotising NN O I-OUT
enterocolitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NEC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
intervention NN O O
31.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
25.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.392 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
positive NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NEC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
routine NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
use NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19928389)

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
posture NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O O
respirations NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
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
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O O
respirations NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of 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
Orthopnea NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cardinal NN O O
symptom NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
sleeping NN O O
angle 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
assess NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sleeping NN O I-INT
angle NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
overnight NN O O
polysomnography NN O O
with NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
impedance NN O O
cardiographic NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

Sleeping NN O I-OUT
polysomnographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
cardiographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sleep NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
slept NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Seventeen NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O I-OUT
apneas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
index NN O O
> NN O O
5/h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
hypopneas NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
index NN O O
> NN O O
5/h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypopnea NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
sleeping NN O O
angle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
sleeping NN O O
angle NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
only NN O O
during NN O O
supine NN O O
sleep NN O O
and NN O O
non-rapid NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
sleep NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
absent NN O O
in NN O O
non-supine NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
rapid NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
sleep NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
. NN O O

Thoracic NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
impedance NN O O
cardiography NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
sleeping NN O O
angle NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Changing NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
sleeping NN O O
angle NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
45 NN O O
degrees NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O O
apneas NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
decrease NN O O
occurs NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
base NN O O
of NN O O
hypopneas NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Cheyne-Stokes NN O O
apneas NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
congestion NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19931151)

Tetracaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ametop NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intramuscular NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
palivizumab NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
synagis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Infants NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
many NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
immunizations NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
tetracaine NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intramuscular NN O I-PAR
palivizumab NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
injections NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
tetracaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
pediatric NN O O
nurse NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O O
tetracaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
times NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
pain-reduction NN O O
strategies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19941058)

Low-frequency NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
event-related NN O O
potential NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
novelty NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
on 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
( NN O O
Sokhadze NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
Appl NN O O
Psychophysiol NN O O
Biofeedback NN O O
34:37-51 NN O O
, NN O O
2009a NN O O
) NN O O
we NN O O
reported NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
attention-orienting NN O O
frontal NN O O
event-related NN O O
potentials NN O O
( NN O O
ERP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sustained-attention NN O O
centro-parietal NN O O
ERPs NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
oddball NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
over-process NN O O
information NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
successful NN O O
differentiation NN O O
of NN O O
target NN O O
and NN O O
novel NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-frequency NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
Transcranial NN O I-INT
Magnetic NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
novelty NN O O
processing NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
low-frequency NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
application NN O O
to NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
DLFPC NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cortical NN O O
excitatory/inhibitory NN O O
balance NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
double NN O O
bouquet NN O O
interneurons NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
post-TMS NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
amplitude NN O O
and NN O O
latency NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
ERP NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
validate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
low-frequency NN O O
rTMS NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
modulatory NN O O
tool NN O O
that NN O O
altered NN O O
the NN O O
disrupted NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
excitation NN O O
to NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
rTMS NN O O
the NN O O
parieto-occipital NN O I-OUT
P50 NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
distracters NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
the NN O O
amplitude NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frontal NN O I-OUT
P50 NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
non-target NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Low-frequency NN O O
rTMS NN O O
minimized NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
irrelevant NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Improved NN O O
selectivity NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
cortical NN O O
responses NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
differentiation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
later-stage NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
evident NN O O
by NN O O
our NN O O
P3b NN O O
and NN O O
P3a NN O O
component NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
middle-latency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frontal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
centro-parietal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parieto-occipital NN O I-OUT
regions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distracter NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
rTMS NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
rTMS NN O O
may NN O O
prove NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
research NN O O
tool NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
addressing NN O O
the NN O O
stimulus NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19948568)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Early NN O O
Start NN O O
Denver NN O O
Model NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O I-INT
Start NN O I-INT
Denver NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
developmental NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
toddlers 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 I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
ESDM NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
developmental NN O O
and NN O O
applied NN O O
behavioral NN O O
analytic NN O O
principles NN O O
and NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
trained NN O O
therapists NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
referral NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
providers NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
commonly NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
community-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
ESDM NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
entering NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ESDM NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
improved NN O O
17.6 NN O O
standard NN O O
score NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
15 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
7.0 NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ESDM NN O O
group NN O O
maintained NN O O
its NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
normative NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
span NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
ESDM NN O I-INT
also NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
experience NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
autism NN O O
to NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
otherwise NN O O
specified NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
developmental NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
improving NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reducing NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
underscore NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19948625)

Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
manifesting NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
tantrums NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggression NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1:1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
flexibly NN O I-INT
dosed NN O I-INT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ninety-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
47 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
from NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
through NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Aripiprazole NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
global NN O O
improvements NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
through NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
still NN O O
persist NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Discontinuation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptom-related NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
8.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
serious NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
on NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
kg NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious 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
irritability NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19951297)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
ethnic NN O O
matching NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
provider NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
brief NN O O
alcohol NN O O
interventions NN O O
among NN O O
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
addressing NN O O
their NN O O
treatment NN O O
needs NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
client NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
culture-specific NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
norms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
attitudes NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
Hispanic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
provided NN O O
intervention NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
Hispanic NN O O
clinician NN O O
improved NN O O
drinking NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
Level NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
Trauma NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
alcohol-related NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hierarchical NN O O
linear NN O O
modeling NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ethnic NN O I-OUT
match NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
including NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
drinks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
occasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analyses NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
acculturation NN O O
and NN O O
immigration NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
brief NN O O
motivational NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
ethnic NN O O
match NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
provider NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
ethnic NN O O
match NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
foreign-born NN O O
Hispanics NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
acculturated NN O O
Hispanics NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
As NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
ethnic NN O O
match NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
provider NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brief NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
Hispanics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ethnic NN O O
concordance NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
provider NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
impacted NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
through NN O O
several NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
including NN O O
cultural NN O O
scripts NN O O
, NN O O
ethnic-specific NN O O
perceptions NN O O
pertaining NN O O
to NN O O
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ethnic-specific NN O O
preferred NN O O
channels NN O O
of NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19958108)

Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
obtained NN O O
mydriasis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
obtained NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
with NN O O
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
% NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
tropicamide NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
fundoscopy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
dilated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
yropicamide NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
0 NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
eyes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
drop NN O O
per NN O O
eye NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
pupil NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
40 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
instillation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
regarding NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
pupil NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
0 NN O O
was NN O O
8.57 NN O O
and NN O O
8.73 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistic NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pupil NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
drug NN O O
combination NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
achieve NN O O
mydriasis NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
as NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
adequate NN O O
fundus NN O O
examination NN O O
and/or NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19958945)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nerve NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
external NN O O
branch NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
nerve NN O O
during NN O O
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
under NN O O
local/regional NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuromonitoring NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
external NN O O
branch NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
nerve NN O O
( NN O O
EBSLN NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
mini-incision NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
under NN O O
local/regional NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
mini-incision NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
nerve NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
EBSLN NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Voice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swallowing NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Voice NN O I-OUT
Handicap NN O I-OUT
Index-10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VHI-10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Reflux NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Recruitment NN O I-PAR
led NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visualized NN O I-OUT
EBSLN NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
VHI-10 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O O
voice NN O O
handicap NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
RSI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Nerve NN O O
monitoring NN O O
aids NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
visualization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EBSLN NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
mini-incision NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
under NN O O
local/regional NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patient-assessed NN O O
voice NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
impact NN O O
swallowing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (19965647)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
all-trans NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonacute NN O I-PAR
promyelocytic NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
overall NN O O
results NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
genotypic NN O I-PAR
subgroups NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
NPM1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
FLT3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CEBPA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
all-trans NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATRA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonacute NN O I-PAR
promyelocytic NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
myelodysplastic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
considered NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
molecular NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
1075 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
ATRA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
daunorubicin/Ara-C/thioguanine NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Ara-C NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
FLT3 NN O O
internal NN O O
tandem NN O O
duplications NN O O
and NN O O
NPM1 NN O O
mutations NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
592 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CEBPA NN O O
mutations NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
423 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
MN1 NN O O
expression NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
195 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
with NN O O
incomplete NN O O
count NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
8-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
cytarabine NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
interactions NN O O
by NN O O
FLT3/internal NN O I-OUT
tandem NN O I-OUT
duplications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NPM1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CEBPA NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
ATRA NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
MN1 NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
when NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
karyotype NN O O
. NN O O

ATRA NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
overall NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
identify NN O O
any NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
survival NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
ATRA NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (19968217)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
precautions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Currently NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
replacements NN O O
( NN O O
THRs NN O O
) NN O O
include NN O O
activity NN O O
restrictions NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
postoperative NN O O
dislocation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
hip NN O O
restrictions NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
anterolateral NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
THRs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
standard NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
restrictions NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
avoid NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
avoidance NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
car NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
car NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
restrictions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
differences NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Short NN O O
Form NN O O
12-question NN O O
Health NN O O
Survey NN O O
and NN O O
Harris NN O O
Hip NN O O
Score NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time-points NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
drove NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
cane NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
cane NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
limp NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
incidents NN O O
of NN O O
dislocation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
faster NN O O
to NN O O
ambulate NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
cane NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
cane 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
without NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
limp NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
drove NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pace NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
early NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
pace NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
pathway NN O O
with NN O O
hip NN O O
precautions NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (1997878)

Sinemet NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sinemet NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
release NN O O
carbidopa/levodopa NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
carbidopa/levodopa NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Comparable NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
dosing NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
with NN O O
Sinemet NN O O
CR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (1999025)

Ten-year NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
and NN O O
prognosis NN O O
after NN O O
infarction NN O O
. NN O O

Department NN O O
of NN O O
Veterans NN O O
Affairs NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Artery NN O O
Bypass NN O O
Surgery NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
10-year NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
fatal NN O O
and NN O O
nonfatal NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
after NN O O
infarction NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
686 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Veterans NN O O
Administration NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Artery NN O O
Bypass NN O O
Surgery NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
new NN O O
Q NN O O
wave NN O O
findings NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
compatible NN O O
with NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
enzyme NN O I-PAR
elevations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
electrocardiographic NN O I-PAR
findings NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
comparisons NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
original NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
; NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
cohort NN O O
had NN O O
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
10-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
perioperative NN O O
infarctions NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
/yr NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
/yr NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Cox NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postinfarction NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
striking NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
: NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
subsequently NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
estimated NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
nearly NN O O
identical NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
infarctions NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
surgery NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
overall NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
( NN O O
fatal NN O O
infarctions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19995250)

Breast NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
alleviates NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
restores NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
seek NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
mammaplasty NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
have NN O I-PAR
pathological NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
aspect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
reduction NN O I-INT
mammaplasty NN O I-INT
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
consideration NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
how NN O O
reduction NN O I-INT
mammaplasty NN O I-INT
affected NN O O
macromastia NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conservative NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
RBDI NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Raitasalo NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
modification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
short NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Beck NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conservative NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
conservative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
depressed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
anxious NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
reduction NN O O
mammaplasty NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
restored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (19996335)

The NN O O
6 NN O O
minute NN O O
walk NN O O
in NN O O
idiopathic NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
: NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
minimum NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

RATIONALE NN O O
The NN O O
response NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
minute NN O I-INT
walk NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6MWT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IPF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
only NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
walk NN O O
distance NN O O
that NN O O
constitutes NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
MID NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
6MWD NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6MWT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
distance NN O O
that NN O O
constitutes NN O O
the NN O O
MID NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IPF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
recently NN O O
completed NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IPF NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
6MWT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
Saint NN O I-PAR
George NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Respiratory NN O I-PAR
Questionnaire NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SGRQ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
vital NN O I-PAR
capacity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FVC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
6MWD NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
anchor- NN O O
and NN O O
distribution-based NN O O
approaches NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
MID NN O O
for NN O O
6MWD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SGRQ NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
clinical NN O O
anchors NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
123 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
alive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
6MWT NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
6MWD NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
378.1 NN O O
m NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
vs NN O O
376.8 NN O O
m NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
vs NN O O
361.3 NN O O
m NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
point NN O O
estimate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
6MWD NN O I-OUT
MID NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28 NN O O
m NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
10.8-58.5 NN O O
m. NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IPF NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
physiological NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
alive NN O O
and NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
a NN O O
6MWT NN O O
, NN O O
6MWD NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MID NN O O
for NN O O
6MWD NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
approximately NN O O
28 NN O O
m. NN O O
Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
using NN O O
other NN O O
anchors NN O O
and NN O O
derivation NN O O
methods NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
refine NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MID NN O O
for NN O O
6MWD NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (19998583)

Bioequivalence NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
lamivudine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
stavudine NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
and NN O O
stavudine NN O I-INT
capsule NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
combination NN O O
tablet NN O O
of NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
134678-17-4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stavudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
3056-17-5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stavudine NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
volunteers NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
or NN O O
reference NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
analytes NN O O
lamivudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stavudine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
analytical NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test/reference NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
In-transformed NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
variables NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-t NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-infinity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
clearly NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
125 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
reference NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20001837)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Thai NN O O
traditional NN O O
massage NN O O
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
any NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Thai NN O I-INT
Traditional NN O I-INT
Massage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TTM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
major NN O O
behavioral NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-PAR
disturbances NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTINGS/LOCATION NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
Centre NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
Red NN O I-PAR
Cross NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Standard NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SI NN O O
with NN O O
TTM NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
assessed NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Conners NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
Diary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
sleeping NN O O
patterns NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
4.67 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.82 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
among NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
Conners NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
statistical NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
for NN O O
conduct NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inattention-passivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleeping NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Conners NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
massage NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
when NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
conduct NN O I-OUT
problem 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
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
TTM NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
stereotypical NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
TTM NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
complementary NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
autistic NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20004739)

A NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
resting NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PNTREE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O O
require NN O O
prolonged NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
preparative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O O
. NN O O

PN NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
engraftment NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
mortality NN O O
during NN O O
HSCT NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
linked NN O O
with NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Some NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
complications NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
providing NN O O
PN NN O O
in NN O O
excess NN O O
of NN O O
nutrient NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
( NN O O
REE NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
indirect NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
, NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
HSCT NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
documented NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
mid-arm NN O O
muscle NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
depletion NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
triceps NN O O
skinfold NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
stores NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
expenditure NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
and NN O O
nutritional NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
affect NN O O
REE NN O O
during NN O O
HSCT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
standard NN O O
nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
overfeeding NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
are NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
provide NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
REE NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
140 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
estimated NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
expenditure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
is NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
REE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
unique NN O O
and NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
nutritional NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
guide NN O O
nutritional NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
other NN O O
catabolic NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20008622)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
versus NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
molecular NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
tyrosine NN O O
kinase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
optimization NN O O
and NN O O
selectivity NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-INT
800 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
476 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
2:1 NN O O
to NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
319 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
157 NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
molecular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
MMR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
cytogenetic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCyR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
MMR NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.2035 NN O O
; NN O O
CCyR NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.3470 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
MMR NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
faster NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
800 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
MMR NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imatinib NN O O
400-mg/d NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0035 NN O O
by NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CCyR NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
800-mg/d NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
CCyR NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0146 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
800-mg/d NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
imatinib NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
MMR NN O O
rates NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
imatinib NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
MMR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CCyR NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
800 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

Continued NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
earlier NN O O
responses NN O O
on NN O O
high-dose NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20010551)

Divalproex NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
ASDs NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
deficits NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
interests NN O O
. NN O O

Irritability/aggression NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
comorbid NN O O
symptom NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
greatly NN O O
impacts NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
irritability/aggression 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
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
evaluator NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
gavetheir NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
manner NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
9.46+/-2.46 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
63.3+/-23.9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
subjects NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
discontinued NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
increased NN O O
irritability NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
irritability NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
vs NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CGI-irritability NN O O
OR NN O O
: NN O O
16.7 NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ABC-Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
valproate NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
divalproex NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
adolescents NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Larger NN O O
sample NN O O
follow-up NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20019137)

Body NN O O
size NN O O
indexes NN O O
for NN O O
optimizing NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
for NN O O
aortic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
enhancement NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
multidetector NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
lean NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TBW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LBW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
required NN O O
for NN O O
contrast NN O O
material-enhanced NN O O
multidetector NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aorta NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Institutional NN O O
review NN O O
committee NN O O
approval NN O O
and NN O O
written NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 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
, NN O I-PAR
64.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
19-88 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
multidetector NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
abdomen NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
each NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
TBW NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
of NN O O
TBW NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
LBW NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.821 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
of NN O O
LBW NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
BV NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
8.6 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
per NN O O
liter NN O O
of NN O O
BV NN O O
; NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
9.9 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
of NN O O
BV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
in NN O O
CT NN O O
number NN O O
between NN O O
unenhanced NN O O
and NN O O
contrast-enhanced NN O O
images NN O O
per NN O O
gram NN O O
of NN O O
iodine NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O O
hepatic NN O O
enhancement NN O O
( NN O O
MHE NN O O
) NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
TBW NN O O
, NN O O
LBW NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BV NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
portal NN O O
venous NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
coefficients NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
gram NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
TBW NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
aorta NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O O
were NN O O
-0.71 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.79 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TBW NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
-0.80 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.86 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LBW NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
-0.68 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.66 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BV NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
marginally NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LBW NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BV NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusted NN O I-OUT
MHE NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
constant NN O O
at NN O O
77.9 NN O O
HU NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.2 NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LBW NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
TBW NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TBW NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
BV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.70 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
TBW NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O I-OUT
LBW NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rather NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
TBW NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
BV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
iodine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
consistent NN O O
hepatic NN O O
enhancement NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
estimated NN O O
more NN O O
precisely NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
patient-to-patient NN O O
variability NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20020319)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-INT
1-2-3 NN O I-INT
Project NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
piloted NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
Autism-1-2-3 NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
that NN O O
targeted NN O O
at NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
gesture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vocalization/words NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ritvo-Freeman NN O I-OUT
Real NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Symbolic NN O I-OUT
Play NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Parenting NN O I-OUT
Stress NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
improved NN O O
in NN O O
language/communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reciprocal NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symbolic NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O O
perceived NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
own NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
short-term NN O O
training NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
waiting NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20027352)

Efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
anaferon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
complex NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
genital NN O I-PAR
herpes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficiency NN O O
and NN O O
IFN-inducing NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
anaferon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
genital NN O I-PAR
herpes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
relapses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
anaferon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
complex NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intoxication NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
IFN-gamma-producing NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
leukocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20031809)

Stress NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
prolongs NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Stockholm NN O O
Women NN O O
's NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Trial NN O O
for NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Heart NN O O
Disease NN O O
( NN O O
SWITCHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Psychosocial NN O O
stress NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
worsen NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O O
that NN O O
counteract NN O O
women NN O O
's NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
stress NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
implemented NN O O
a NN O O
stress NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
investigated NN O O
its NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group-based NN O I-INT
psychosocial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Initiated NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
women NN O O
met NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
sessions NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
spread NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
provided NN O O
education NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
self-monitoring NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
restructuring NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
emphasis NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
work NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compliance NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
From NN O O
randomization NN O O
until NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
7.1 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
died NN O O
, NN O O
yielding NN O O
an NN O O
almost NN O O
3-fold NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.15 NN O O
to NN O O
0.74 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Introducing NN O O
baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aspirin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beta-blockers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angiotensin-converting NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
inhibitors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calcium-channel NN O I-OUT
blockers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
statins NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-INT
multivariate NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
group-based NN O I-INT
psychosocial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
prolong NN O O
lives NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20034362)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autosomal NN O I-PAR
dominant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Autosomal NN O I-PAR
dominant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADPKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
progressive NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
end-stage NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Experimental NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
may NN O O
slow NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
general NN O O
and NN O O
ADPKD NN O O
specifically NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
on NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADPKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
pravastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O O
visits NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
assessing NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pravastatin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
taking NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ADPKD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
statistical NN O O
power NN O O
limits NN O O
the NN O O
external NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
larger NN O O
, NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
statin NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20035541)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
or NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stripping NN O O
for NN O O
great NN O I-PAR
saphenous NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
early NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
varicose NN O O
veins NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
great NN O I-PAR
saphenous NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GSV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
incompetence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
RFA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
or NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
saphenofemoral NN O O
disconnection NN O O
and NN O O
stripping NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
radiological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient-based NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
successful NN O O
obliteration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GSV NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Complete NN O I-OUT
above-knee NN O I-OUT
stripping NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
41 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RFA NN O O
took NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O O
: NN O O
median NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
76 NN O O
( NN O O
67-84 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
39-54 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
returned NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
earlier NN O O
after NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
2-5 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
12.5 NN O O
( NN O O
4-21 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
after NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
on NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
1.70 NN O O
( NN O O
0.50-4.30 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
4.0 NN O O
( NN O O
2.35-6.05 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

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
favoured NN O O
RFA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
RFA NN O O
took NN O O
longer NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
but NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
suitable NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
great NN O I-PAR
saphenous NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20038728)

Acupuncture NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antiestrogen NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
conventional NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
contraindicated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Venlafaxine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Effexor NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
numerous NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
produces NN O O
fewer NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
than NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Health NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
By NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
hot NN O O
flashes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O O
remained NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
18 NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
negative NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Acupuncture NN O I-INT
had NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
drive NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
reported NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clarity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thought NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
durable NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
vasomotor NN O O
symptoms NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
antiestrogen NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
use NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20042310)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Neoadjuvant NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
local NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
locally NN O O
advanced NN O O
rectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
LARC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
cetuximab NN O O
with NN O O
capecitabine-based NN O O
CRT NN O O
in NN O O
LARC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II/III NN O I-PAR
LARC NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
1250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
cetuximab NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
weekly NN O O
intravenous NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
including NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
825 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
weekends NN O O
during NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
45 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
x NN O O
1.8 NN O O
Gy NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O O
mesorectal NN O O
excision NN O O
was NN O O
scheduled NN O O
4-6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
following NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
CRT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TMN NN O I-OUT
staging NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
: NN O O
T4N2 NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
T3N2 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
T2N2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
T3N1 NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
T2N1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
T3N0 NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
included NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
1/2 NN O I-OUT
acneiform NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
radiodermatitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

pCR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall- NN O O
, NN O O
T- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-downstaging NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
preservation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O O
tumors NN O O
were NN O O
located NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
cm NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
anal NN O O
verge NN O O
. NN O O

Non-fatal NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
death NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
sepsis NN O O
following NN O O
colonic NN O O
necrosis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Neoadjuvant NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
capecitabine-based NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
tolerable NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
LARC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whilst NN O O
the NN O O
pCR NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
recent NN O O
reports NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
pathological NN O O
downstaging NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20043831)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
distance NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
occupational NN O O
health NN O O
setting NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
CoAct NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
CoAct NN O O
( NN O O
Cocreating NN O O
Activity NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
investigating NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O O
activity NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
distance NN O O
counselling NN O O
via NN O O
telephone NN O O
and NN O O
secure NN O O
web NN O O
messages NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
counselling NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
occupational NN O O
health NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purposes NN O O
include NN O O
also NN O O
analysing NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
on NN O O
productivity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
participant NN O O
flow NN O O
until NN O O
and NN O O
including NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
CoAct NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
distance NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
modification NN O O
and NN O O
takes NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1100 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Finnish NN O I-PAR
insurance NN O I-PAR
company NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MET NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
utilisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
various NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
employer NN O O
's NN O O
registers NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
No NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
yet NN O O
available NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
distance NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
occupational NN O O
health NN O O
setting NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
such NN O O
intervention NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00994565 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20048611)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
device NN O O
for NN O O
linear NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
incisions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3M NN O I-INT
Steri-Strip NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
Surgical NN O I-INT
Skin NN O I-INT
Closure NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
subcuticular NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Technological NN O O
innovations NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
adopted NN O O
before NN O O
scientific NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
accepted NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
suture NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
coaptive NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3M NN O I-INT
Steri-Strip NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
Surgical NN O I-INT
Skin NN O I-INT
Closure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
linear NN O I-INT
incisions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
Wise-pattern NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
paired NN O O
incisions NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
suture NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Key NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
closure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
surgeons NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
scar NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
, NN O O
visual NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
linear NN O O
scars NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
closure NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
signed NN O O
rank NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
a NN O O
surgeon NN O O
judged NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O O
S NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
nonviable NN O O
closure NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
mismatched NN O O
wound NN O O
edges NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
abdomen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
for NN O O
breast NN O O
was NN O O
2.0 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
suture NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
at NN O O
4.6 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
1.5 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O O
S NN O O
versus NN O O
suture NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
abdomen NN O O
was NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
4.9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
10.1 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
closures NN O O
[ NN O O
5.8 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.7 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
6.9 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.142 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
7.7 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
1.8 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
7.7 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.3 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
abdomen NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.903 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
closure NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
linear NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breasts NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.8 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O O
S NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
at NN O O
2.6 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
2.9 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
suture NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
surgeon NN O O
rated NN O O
breast NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O O
S NN O O
scars NN O O
worse NN O O
than NN O O
suture NN O O
scars NN O O
( NN O O
4.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
3.7 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
abdominal NN O O
scars 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
patient NN O O
or NN O O
surgeon NN O O
ratings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
permits NN O O
faster NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
suture NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
comfort NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
surgeons NN O O
increase NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Steri-Strip NN O O
S NN O O
on NN O O
abdominal NN O O
wounds NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20051135)

Improved NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
once-daily NN O O
versus NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
mometasone NN O I-INT
furoate NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
powder NN O O
inhaler NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Poor NN O O
adherence NN O O
with NN O O
prescribed NN O O
asthma NN O O
medication NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
barrier NN O O
to NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
mometasone NN O I-INT
furoate NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
powder NN O O
inhaler NN O O
( NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
adherence NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
mimic NN O O
an NN O O
actual NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
MF-DPI NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
MF-DPI NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
primarily NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
device NN O O
counter NN O O
divided NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
scheduled NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Self-reports NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

Health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
missed NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
1233 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
automatic NN O O
dose NN O O
counter NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
400 NN O O
microg NN O O
once-daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
( NN O O
93.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
( NN O O
89.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
self-reports NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
400 NN O O
microg NN O O
QD NN O O
PM NN O O
( NN O O
97.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
( NN O O
95.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adherence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O O
( NN O O
12-17 NN O O
years NN O O
old NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
once-daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
MF-DPI NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
. NN O O

Very NN O O
few NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
missed NN O I-OUT
work/school NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Mean NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
MF-DPI NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimen.This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ISMJE NN O O
requirements NN O O
for NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20054544)

Paracetamol NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
demand NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
transaxillary NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
a NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
marked NN O O
discomfort NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
repeated NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
could NN O O
decrease NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
rescue NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
after NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
via NN O O
the NN O O
transaxillary NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
enrolled NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
21-60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
gasless NN O I-INT
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
via NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
transaxillary NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
solution NN O O
infused NN O O
over NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
6-h NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paracetamol 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

Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
65.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
44.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
postoperative NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
confusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
repeated NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
is NN O O
easy NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
gasless NN O I-INT
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
thyroidectomy NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
transaxillary NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20056901)

Modafinil NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
during NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
withdrawal NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RATIONALE NN O O
Continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
use NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
motor NN O O
vehicle NN O O
accidents NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
apnea NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
interruption NN O O
of NN O O
CPAP NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
daytime NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
wakefulness NN O O
promoter NN O O
, NN O O
modafinil NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
this NN O O
decline NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
nights NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
night NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
subsequent NN O O
nights NN O O
( NN O O
nasal NN O O
airflow NN O O
monitored NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mornings NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
CPAP NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
nights NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
modafinil NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
5-week NN O O
washout NN O O
. NN O O

Driving NN O I-OUT
simulator NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
alertness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
AusEd NN O O
driving NN O O
simulator NN O O
, NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
vigilance NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Karolinska NN O O
Sleepiness NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
CPAP NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
sleep-disordered NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evident NN O O
and NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
modafinil NN O O
improved NN O O
simulated NN O I-OUT
driving NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
steering NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
; NN O O
lapses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
concurrent NN O O
task NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
1/reaction NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
lapses NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Modafinil NN O O
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
simulated NN O O
driving NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OSA NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
acutely NN O O
interrupted NN O O
CPAP NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the 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
at NN O O
www.anzctr.org.au NN O O
( NN O O
ACTRN12606000027516 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20058059)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
parent-assisted NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Friendship NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
Children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Friendship NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
manualized NN O I-INT
parent-assisted NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
among NN O O
second NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
fifth NN O I-PAR
grade 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 I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DTC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Targeted NN O O
skills NN O O
included NN O O
conversational NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
entry NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
friendship NN O I-OUT
networks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
sportsmanship NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
host NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
dates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
handling NN O I-OUT
teasing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
post-testing NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CFT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
DTC NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
parent NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
date NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
popularity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
loneliness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
At NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
parent NN O O
measures NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
CFT NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
reliable NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
measure NN O O
at NN O O
post-test NN O O
and NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20061334)

Preoperative NN O O
lanreotide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
acromegalic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
macroadenomas NN O I-PAR
increases NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
4-month NN O O
preoperative NN O O
lanreotide NN O O
treatment NN O O
would NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
acromegalic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
macroadenomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
4-month NN O O
preoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
lanreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
starting NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/week NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
if NN O O
mean NN O O
GH NN O O
> NN O O
2.5 NN O O
microg/l NN O O
on NN O O
GH NN O O
day NN O O
curves NN O O
; NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
transsphenoidal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
direct NN O O
surgery NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
IGF1 NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
age-adjusted NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
pool NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was 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

Five NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Cure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
49.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
35.0-63.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
pretreated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
7.6-29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
direct NN O O
surgery NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Surgical NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14.3 NN O O
and NN O O
10.2 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.538 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
being NN O O
4.5+/-1.6 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.8+/-1.9 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.328 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
lanreotide NN O I-INT
before NN O O
transsphenoidal NN O O
surgery NN O O
improves NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GH-secreting NN O I-PAR
pituitary NN O I-PAR
macroadenomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pretreatment NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
or 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
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00993356 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20061873)

Evidence NN O O
for NN O O
poorer NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
trauma-related NN O I-PAR
cognitions NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
prolonged NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
restructuring NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
implications NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
matching NN O O
in NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
stress NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
assumption NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
PTSD NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
trauma-related NN O I-PAR
cognitions NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
benefit NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
package NN O O
that NN O O
includes NN O O
exposure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
includes NN O O
exposure NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
assumption NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
PTSD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
prolonged NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
prolonged NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
restructuring NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
expectations NN O O
, NN O O
findings NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
trauma-related NN O O
cognitions NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
PTSD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
) NN O O
fared NN O O
slightly NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
combining NN O O
exposure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
restructuring NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
cognitions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PTSD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
for NN O O
examining NN O O
Person NN O O
X NN O O
Treatment NN O O
interactions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
combining NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
PTSD NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20068494)

Monitoring NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
athletic NN O O
performance NN O O
with NN O O
mixed NN O O
linear NN O O
modeling NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
sophisticated NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
track NN O O
athletic NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
factors NN O O
affecting NN O O
it NN O O
in NN O O
practical NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
mixed NN O O
linear NN O O
modeling NN O O
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
athletic NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Elite NN O I-PAR
sprint NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
middle-distance NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
21-26 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
6-13 NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
competition NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
Olympic-qualifying NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
specialty NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
diet-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
swimmers NN O O
consumed NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
swimmers NN O O
also NN O O
knowingly NN O O
consumed NN O O
varying NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
mixed NN O O
linear NN O O
modeling NN O O
of NN O O
log-transformed NN O O
swim NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
training NN O O
versus NN O O
competition NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
morning NN O O
versus NN O O
evening NN O O
swims NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
. NN O O

Predictor NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
coded NN O O
as NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
represent NN O O
absence NN O O
or NN O O
presence NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
fixed NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
performance NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
linear NN O O
fixed NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
interacted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
random NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
athlete NN O O
to NN O O
represent NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
linear NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Most NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
clear NN O O
, NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
competition NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
typical NN O O
errors NN O O
of NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
linearly NN O O
by NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
swimmers NN O O
performed NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
evenings NN O O
versus NN O O
mornings NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
competition NN O O
versus NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
100-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
enhanced NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
competition NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
substantial NN O O
but NN O O
unclear NN O O
individual NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
caffeine NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mixed NN O O
linear NN O O
modeling NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
applied NN O O
successfully NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
factors NN O O
affecting NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
squad NN O O
of NN O O
elite NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20069077)

PROCLAIM NN O O
: NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
low-dose NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
intravascular NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O O
atherothrombotic NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
atherothrombosis NN O O
and NN O O
intravascular NN O O
inflammation NN O O
share NN O O
predictive NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
CD40 NN O O
ligand NN O O
, NN O O
P-selectin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
pro-brain NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
89 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
92 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD40 NN O I-OUT
ligand NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-terminal NN O I-OUT
pro-brain NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
each NN O O
treatment 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
at NN O O
Week NN O O
6 NN O O
in NN O O
model-adjusted NN O I-OUT
CD40-ligand NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
least-squares NN O O
means NN O O
= NN O O
-186.5 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-342.3 NN O O
to NN O O
-30.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
for NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
P-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
N-terminal NN O I-OUT
pro-brain NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CD40-ligand NN O I-OUT
biomarker NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20070284)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
low-dose NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
Antiviral NN O I-PAR
Long-Term NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
Cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HALT-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
long-term NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
on NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
sexual NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
HALT-C NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
517 NN O I-PAR
HALT-C NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
peginterferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
microg/week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
532 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
3.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatocellular NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
decompensation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sexual NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
serially NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
427 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
622 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Physical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Vitality NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decline NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
than NN O O
untreated NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
HRQOL NN O O
rebounded NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
ended NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
declines NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
Sexual NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
peginterferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
followed NN O O
up NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
NCT00006164 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20087785)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
tumor NN O O
burden NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Completion NN O I-INT
lymph NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLND NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
sentinel NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SLN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
extensive NN O O
pathological NN O O
workup NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
are NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
SLN NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
SLN NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Brazil NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
SLN NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
surgeon NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
positive NN O O
SLN NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
negative NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
pathologists NN O O
. NN O O

Different NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
SLN NN O O
tumor NN O O
burden NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
positive NN O O
non-SLN NN O O
after NN O O
CLND NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
381 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
SLN NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean/median NN O O
Breslow NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
3.4/2.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SLN NN O O
positive NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
5.72/4.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
> NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
macrometastasis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=2 NN O O
mm NN O O
but NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
micrometastasis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=0.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
submicrometastasis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
positive NN O O
non-SLN NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
macrometastasis NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
micrometastasis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
submicrometastases NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
3-year NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
was NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
negative NN O O
SLN NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
micrometastases NN O O
, NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
macrometastases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
submicrometastases 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
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SLN NN O O
metastatic NN O O
deposits NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
=0.2 NN O O
mm NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
positive NN O O
non-SLNs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
recurrences NN O O
or NN O O
deaths NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
prognosis NN O O
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O O
SLN NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20089562)

Epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
final NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Taxotere NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ED NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line 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
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
ED NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
EC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
90 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
ORR NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
EC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ED NN O I-INT
were NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.63 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
10.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
10.3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
30.0 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
0.663 NN O O
; NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) 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

Although NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
leucopenia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O O
ED NN O I-INT
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
73 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
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
non-haematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
infrequent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20090434)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
scheduled NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
around-the-clock NN O O
( NN O O
ATC NN O O
) NN O O
analgesic NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
nurse NN O O
coaching NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
with NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
( NN O O
PRN NN O O
) NN O O
dosing NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrocodone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
167 NN O O
mg/2.5 NN O O
mg/5 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
N=39 NN O O
) NN O O
-every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
PRN NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
postoperative NN O O
instructions NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
N=34 NN O O
) NN O O
-every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
ATC NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
postoperative NN O O
instructions NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
N=40 NN O O
) NN O O
-every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
ATC NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
postoperative NN O O
instructions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parents NN O I-OUT
completed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioid-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O O
administration NN O O
or NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
ATC NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PRN NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATC NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
more NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRN NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRN NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
swallowing NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
scheduled NN O O
analgesic NN O O
dosing NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioid-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
Scheduled NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
and NN O O
hydrocodone NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
PRN NN O O
dosing NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
after NN O O
tonsillectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Nurse NN O O
coaching NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
impact NN O O
parent NN O O
's NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
ATC NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20100962)

Pazopanib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Pazopanib NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
angiogenesis NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
platelet-derived NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
c-Kit NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
pazopanib NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cytokine-pretreated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
2:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
pazopanib NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
Criteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Solid NN O I-OUT
Tumors NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Radiographic NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
tumors NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
435 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
233 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
naive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
202 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
cytokine NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
with NN O O
pazopanib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
PFS NN O O
9.2 NN O O
v NN O O
4.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.34 NN O O
to NN O O
0.62 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-INT
subpopulation NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
PFS NN O O
11.1 NN O O
v NN O O
2.8 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.40 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.27 NN O O
to NN O O
0.60 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cytokine-pretreated NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
PFS NN O O
, NN O O
7.4 NN O O
v NN O O
4.2 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.54 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.35 NN O O
to NN O O
0.84 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
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
pazopanib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
year 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
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
for NN O O
pazopanib NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Pazopanib NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
PFS NN O O
and NN O O
tumor NN O O
response NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cytokine-pretreated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
RCC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20102444)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
estrogen NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
local NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vulvovaginal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
suffer NN O O
from NN O O
distressing NN O O
problems NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
urogenital NN O O
atrophy NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
circulating NN O O
estrogen NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
hormones NN O I-INT
may NN O O
provide NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
women NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
judiciously NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
estrogen NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
local NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
urogenital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
urogenital NN O I-PAR
atrophy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
nonhormonal NN O I-INT
lubricant NN O I-INT
KY NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
urogenital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexuality NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
urogenital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexuality NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
along NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VMI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
urogenital NN O O
atrophy NN O O
and NN O O
sexual NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
sexuality NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greatest NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
estrogen-androgen NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
therapies NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
accepted NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
compliance NN O O
issue NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Local NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
either NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
androgen NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
urogenital NN O I-OUT
atrophy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20102495)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
famotidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
gastritis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
racing NN O I-PAR
Alaskan NN O I-PAR
sled NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Omeprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
both NN O O
reduce NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
gastritis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
administering NN O O
famotidine NN O O
is NN O O
easier NN O O
than NN O O
administering NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
during NN O O
racing NN O O
competition NN O O
. NN O O

HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Famotidine NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
than NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
gastritis NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
famotidine NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
than NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
gastritis NN O O
. NN O O

ANIMALS NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
Randomized NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
sled NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
Randomized NN O I-PAR
positive-control NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
sled NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
Equal NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
q24h NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Gastroscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dogs NN O O
ran NN O O
330 NN O O
miles NN O O
. NN O O

Mucosal NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
blindly NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
Equal NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
dogs NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
q24h NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
high-dose NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
q12h NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Gastroscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dogs NN O O
ran NN O O
300 NN O O
miles NN O O
. NN O O

Mucosal NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
blindly NN O O
scored NN O O
by NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Famotidine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
7/16 NN O O
versus NN O O
11/16 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
high-dose NN O O
famotidine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
versus NN O O
1.2 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2/23 NN O O
versus NN O O
7/21 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.049 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Although NN O O
famotidine NN O O
provides NN O O
some NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
famotidine NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
gastritis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
running NN O O
300 NN O O
miles NN O O
. NN O O

Routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
stress-associated NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
exercising NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
racing NN O I-PAR
Alaskan NN O I-PAR
sled NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20104460)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
milrinone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
short-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
needing NN O O
inotropic NN O O
support NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O O
complication NN O O
after NN O O
on-pump NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
milrinone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CABG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVEF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
on-pump NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
milrinone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
24-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
agent NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
microg/kg/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transthoracic NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
phosphokinase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MB NN O I-OUT
isoenzyme NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CK-MB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
agents NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
milrinone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intra-aortic NN O I-OUT
balloon NN O I-OUT
pump NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
mean NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
LVEF NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
milrinone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
post-operative NN O O
LVEFs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
perioperative NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
milrinone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
on-pump NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
LVEF NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20106358)

Comparable NN O O
patencies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
and NN O O
right NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
or NN O O
saphenous NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
beyond NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Radial NN O O
Artery NN O O
Patency NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
conduit NN O O
for NN O O
coronary NN O O
targets NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
anterior NN O O
descending NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
long-term NN O O
patencies NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
internal NN O O
thoracic NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
saphenous NN O O
vein NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
Radial NN O O
Artery NN O O
Patency NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
10-year NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
radial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
198 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
196 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
radial NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
saphenous NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
descending NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
conduit NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
graft NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
largest NN O O
target NN O O
. NN O O

Protocol-directed NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
weighted NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Grafts NN O O
are NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
failed NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
occlusion NN O O
, NN O O
string NN O O
sign NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
stenosis NN O O
, NN O O
independently NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
assessors NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
is NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
mean NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
of NN O O
5.5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
protocol NN O O
angiography NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
237 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
preoperative NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
urgency NN O O
. NN O O

Patencies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
conduits NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.54 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
estimated NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
patencies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
radial NN O O
minus NN O O
right NN O O
internal NN O O
thoracic NN O O
artery NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
radial NN O O
minus NN O O
saphenous NN O O
vein NN O O
graft NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
At NN O O
mean NN O O
5-year NN O O
angiography NN O O
in NN O O
largely NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
or NN O O
venous NN O O
conduit NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
graft NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
patency NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
offers NN O O
surgeons NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
now NN O O
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
flexibility NN O O
in NN O O
planning NN O O
revascularization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20137718)

[ NN O O
Value NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O O
64 NN O I-INT
multi-slice NN O I-INT
spiral NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
amyloid NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
decision-making NN O O
in NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O O
64 NN O I-INT
multi-slice NN O I-INT
spiral NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MSCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
amyloid NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O I-PAR
staging NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Prospectively NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
MSCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
both NN O O
MSCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
combinative NN O O
assessment NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
preoperative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
; NN O O
MSCT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
MSCT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
for NN O O
tumor NN O O
staging NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
T NN O O
, NN O O
N NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TNM NN O O
staging NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concordance NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
operative NN O O
strategy 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

RESULTS NN O O
Total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
225 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
110 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
MSCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
MSCT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
MSCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
accuracies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
staging NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
M NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNM NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
87.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
85.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
MSCT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
rates NN O O
was NN O O
85.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
67.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
66.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNM NN O I-OUT
staging NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
and NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
94.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
81.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Combinative NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
MSCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SAA NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
staging NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
provide NN O O
higher NN O O
predictive NN O O
coincidence NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
operative NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2014078)

Prophylactic NN O I-PAR
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
complicated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
oligohydramnios NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O O
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
term NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
post-dates NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
decreased NN O I-PAR
amniotic NN O I-PAR
fluid NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
warmed NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
room-temperature NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
had 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
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variable NN O I-OUT
decelerations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
total NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
variable NN O O
decelerations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
observed NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
newborn NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
there NN O O
any NN O O
apparent NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
warmed NN O O
saline NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
room-temperature NN O O
saline NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
premature NN O O
gestations NN O O
with NN O O
oligohydramnios NN O O
, NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
amnioinfusion NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
perhaps NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
term NN O O
fetus NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O O
recurrent NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
decelerations NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
metabolic NN O O
changes NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
premature NN O O
fetus NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2014978)

Prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
Clostridium NN O I-OUT
difficile NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O O
colonization NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
following NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
108 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
2-g NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cephalosporin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mezlocillin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Stool NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
cultured NN O O
for NN O O
Clostridium NN O O
difficile NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
later NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
. NN O O

C. NN O I-OUT
difficile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
23.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
cephalosporin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cefazolin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
14.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cefotetan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
25.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cefoperazone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
43.7 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
mezlocillin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
no NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
patient NN O O
experienced NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20149953)

Helping NN O O
women NN O O
make NN O O
choices NN O O
about NN O O
mammography NN O O
screening NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
online NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O O
aid NN O O
for NN O O
40-year-old NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
women NN O O
's NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
harms NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
an NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
online NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
among NN O O
321 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
38-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
online NN O I-INT
DA NN O I-INT
which NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
explained NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
harms NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
values NN O O
clarification NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
worksheet NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
harms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
informed NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
DA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
online NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
knowledgeable NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
score NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
7.35 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.27 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
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
made NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
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

Of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
made NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
now NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
made NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
informed NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
DA NN O O
was NN O O
helpful NN O O
, NN O O
balanced NN O O
and NN O O
clear NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
make NN O O
women NN O O
anxious NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
DA NN O O
increased NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
indecision NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
feelings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PRACTICE NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
This NN O O
decision NN O O
aid NN O O
is NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
access NN O O
online NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
supporting NN O O
women NN O O
aged NN O O
40 NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
considering NN O O
whether NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
screening NN O O
now NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
wait NN O O
until NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
50 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
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
DAs NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
inform NN O O
women NN O O
about NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
and NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20152559)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Endeavor NN O I-INT
zotarolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TAXUS NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
in NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
native NN O O
coronary NN O O
lesions NN O O
12-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ENDEAVOR NN O O
IV NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
ENDEAVOR NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Zotarolimus-Eluting NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Paclitaxel-Eluting NN O I-INT
Stents NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Artery NN O O
Disease NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
zotarolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
First-generation NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stents NN O O
have NN O O
reduced NN O O
angiographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
restenosis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
long-term NN O O
safety NN O O
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second-generation NN O I-INT
drug-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
delivers NN O O
zotarolimus NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
antiproliferative NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
biocompatible NN O O
phosphorylcholine NN O O
polymer NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
cobalt NN O O
alloy NN O O
thin-strut NN O O
stent NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
promising NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ZES NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PES NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
noninferiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
9-month NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
cardiac 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
or NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1,548 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ZES NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
773 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PES NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
775 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
ZES NN O O
was NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
PES NN O O
with NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
( NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
fewer NN O O
periprocedural NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarctions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ZES NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.2 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
whereas NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months 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
groups NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac 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
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
8-month NN O O
binary NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
in-segment NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ZES NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
PES NN O O
( NN O O
15.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.284 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
12-month NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.228 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
planned NN O O
angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.756 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
ZES NN O I-INT
has NN O O
similar NN O O
clinical NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PES NN O I-INT
in NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
medium NN O O
complexity NN O O
single NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
coronary NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ENDEAVOR NN O O
IV NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
; NN O O
NCT00217269 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2015394)

Allogeneic NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
irradiation NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
while NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
120 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
total NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
HLA-identical NN O I-INT
siblings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cyclosporine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
acute NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
2.0 NN O O
Gy NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
irradiation NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
2.25 NN O O
Gy NN O O
fractions NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probabilities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
0.25 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
12.0 NN O O
Gy NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.00 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
15.75 NN O O
Gy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
probabilities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
0.60 NN O O
and NN O O
0.58 NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
12.0 NN O O
Gy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.66 NN O O
and NN O O
0.66 NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
15.75 NN O O
Gy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
4-year NN O I-OUT
probabilities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transplant-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.24 NN O O
and NN O O
0.34 NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.13 NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.33 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
12.0 NN O O
Gy NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.44 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
15.75 NN O O
Gy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lower NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
mortality NN O O
from NN O O
causes NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
relapse NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20155309)

Pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Reciprocal NN O I-INT
Imitation NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
teaching NN O O
elicited NN O O
and NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O O
significant NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reciprocal NN O I-INT
Imitation NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
imitation NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
imitate NN O O
during NN O O
play NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
RIT NN O O
on NN O O
elicited NN O O
and NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elicited NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
replicating NN O O
previous NN O O
single-subject NN O O
design NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
play NN O O
repertoire NN O O
make NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
during NN O O
RIT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20159310)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
anti-interferon-alfa NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
psoriasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Interferon-alfa NN O O
( NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
psoriasis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
fully NN O O
human NN O O
anti-IFN-alpha NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
established NN O O
plaque NN O O
psoriasis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
18-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-escalating NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
plaque NN O I-PAR
psoriasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.3-30.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
; NN O O
one NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
causing NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
subject NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
dismissal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
cohort NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
nonimmunogenic NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
half-life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
IFN NN O O
gene NN O O
signature NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
LIMITATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
addressed NN O O
only NN O O
IFN-alpha NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
psoriatic NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
MEDI-545 NN O I-INT
supports NN O O
further NN O O
clinical NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

IFN-alpha NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
established NN O O
plaque NN O O
psoriasis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20164800)

Relief NN O O
of NN O O
periorbital NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
angle NN O O
closure NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
attack NN O O
by NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BoNT-A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
intractable NN O I-PAR
periorbital NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
angle NN O I-PAR
closure NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AACG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
periorbital NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
AACG NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
injected NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
BoNT-A NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
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
7 NN O O
, 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

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VARS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
index NN O O
scores NN O O
measured NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
quality-of-life NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
0.299 NN O O
and NN O O
2.61 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VARS NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
disclosed NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
mainly NN O O
between NN O O
days NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
but NN O O
declined NN O O
slightly NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
conjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
or NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
BoNT-A NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
periorbital NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
AACG NN O O
attack NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
effects NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20167900)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tailored NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
messages NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Project NN O O
SCAPE NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mailed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
self-examination NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Honolulu NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
HI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Long NN O I-PAR
Island NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
NY NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
completing NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
survey NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
personalized NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
general NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
compared NN O O
sun NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
self-examination NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
location NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
age 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
596 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
tailored NN O O
materials NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
sun-protection NN O I-OUT
habits NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hats NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sunglasses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
self-examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Some NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
moderated NN O O
by NN O O
location NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tailored NN O I-INT
communications NN O I-INT
including NN O O
personalized NN O O
risk NN O O
feedback NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
sun-protection NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
self-examination NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
convenient NN O O
, NN O O
low-cost NN O O
interventions NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
settings NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
further NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
their NN O O
long-term NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20185596)

Reducing NN O O
polycystic NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
ADPKD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
of NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
octreotide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
No NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
polycystic NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
autosomal-dominant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADPKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
limited NN O O
kidney NN O O
volume NN O O
growth NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADPKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
secondary NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
octreotide-induced NN O I-INT
changes NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
concomitant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O O
and NN O O
kidney NN O O
volumes NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
analyzing NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Liver NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1595 NN O O
+/- NN O O
478 NN O O
ml NN O O
to NN O O
1524 NN O O
+/- NN O O
453 NN O O
ml NN O O
with NN O O
octreotide NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appreciably NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
-71 NN O O
+/- NN O O
57 NN O O
ml NN O O
versus NN O O
+14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
85 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Octreotide-induced NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
fully NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
parenchyma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1506 NN O O
+/- NN O O
431 NN O O
ml NN O O
to NN O O
1432 NN O O
+/- NN O O
403 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
concomitant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
octreotide NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
differed NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O I-INT
octreotide NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-71 NN O O
+/- NN O O
57 NN O O
ml NN O O
versus NN O O
+71 NN O O
+/- NN O O
107 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
+14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
85 NN O O
ml NN O O
versus NN O O
+162 NN O O
+/- NN O O
114 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
103 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
125 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
octreotide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Octreotide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ADPKD NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2019772)

Vancomycin NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
empirical NN O O
combination NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
fever NN O O
in NN O O
granulocytopenic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
European NN O O
Organization NN O O
for NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
( NN O O
EORTC NN O O
) NN O O
International NN O O
Antimicrobial NN O O
Therapy NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Canada-Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
747 NN O I-PAR
febrile NN O I-PAR
granulocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ceftazidime NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amikacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
vancomycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
initial NN O O
empirical NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Single NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
bacteremias NN O O
responded NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CA NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CAV NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
single NN O O
gram-negative NN O O
bacteremias NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
documented NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
infections NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CA NN O O
and NN O O
CAV NN O O
were NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
each NN O O
trial NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.85 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.82 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.22 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.93 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
bacteremia NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
true NN O O
empirical NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Antibiotic-associated NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
vancomycin NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
empirical NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O O
to NN O O
initial NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
granulocytopenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20199680)

The NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
web- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
print-based NN O I-INT
decision NN O I-INT
aid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Whether NN O O
early NN O O
detection NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
PCa NN O O
) NN O O
will NN O O
reduce NN O O
disease-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
tools NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
informed NN O O
decision NN O I-OUT
making NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
several NN O O
decision NN O O
aids NN O O
( NN O O
DAs NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
, NN O O
very NN O O
few NN O O
have NN O O
included NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
men NN O O
clarify NN O O
their NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preferences NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
PCa NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
DA NN O O
has NN O O
utilized NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
web-based NN O O
format NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
allows NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
expansion NN O O
and NN O O
customization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
DAs NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
booklet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
website NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
values NN O O
clarification NN O O
component NN O O
and NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
diverse NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
two NN O O
feasibility NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45-70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Internet NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
willingness NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
web- NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
print-based NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
booklet NN O O
was NN O O
adapted NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
previous NN O O
versions NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RCTs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
website NN O I-INT
was NN O O
created NN O O
to NN O O
closely NN O O
match NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
revised NN O O
booklet NN O O
. NN O O

Usability NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
feedback NN O O
regarding NN O O
draft NN O O
versions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tools NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
reviewed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
plain NN O O
language NN O O
expert NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
interdisciplinary NN O O
research NN O O
team NN O O
. NN O O

Feedback NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
presentation NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
iterative NN O O
modifications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tools NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
feasibility NN O O
studies NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Internet NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
medium NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
computer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
had NN O O
access NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Feedback NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
usability NN O O
testing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
incorporated NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
versions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
booklet NN O O
and NN O O
website NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
usability NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
highlighted NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
decision NN O I-PAR
making NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Informed NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
for NN O O
PCa NN O O
screening NN O O
is NN O O
crucial NN O O
at NN O O
present NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
recommendation NN O O
either NN O O
for NN O O
or NN O O
against NN O O
screening NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
emerge NN O O
from NN O O
ongoing NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
detailed NN O O
our NN O O
efforts NN O O
at NN O O
developing NN O O
print- NN O O
and NN O O
web-based NN O O
DAs NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
best NN O O
meet NN O O
their NN O O
PCa NN O O
screening NN O O
preferences NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
ongoing NN O O
RCT NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
these NN O O
materials NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
goal NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
dissemination NN O I-OUT
project NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT00623090 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20201661)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
neodymium-doped NN O I-INT
yttrium NN O I-INT
aluminum NN O I-INT
garnet NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
knife NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
of NN O O
urethral NN O O
strictures NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
neodymium-doped NN O I-INT
yttrium NN O I-INT
aluminum NN O I-INT
garnet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nd NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
urethral NN O I-PAR
strictures NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Sachse NN O O
's NN O O
optical NN O O
urethrotomy NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
61.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
urethral NN O I-PAR
strictures NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2.4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
qualified NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
30 NN O O
men NN O O
treated NN O O
using NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
urethral NN O I-INT
strictures NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VLASU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Nd NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAGlaser NN O I-INT
and NN O O
20 NN O O
men NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
correction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
urethral NN O I-INT
strictures NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
Sachse NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
optical NN O I-INT
urethrotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
optical NN O I-INT
urethrotomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
VLASU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
repetition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
VLASU NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
strictures 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
VLASU NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
modern NN O O
, NN O O
low-invasive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repeatable NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
technically NN O O
simple NN O O
and NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
master NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
22 NN O O
Char NN O O
optical NN O O
urethrotome NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
stricture NN O O
site NN O O
is NN O O
impossible NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
strictures NN O O
during NN O O
one NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20203165)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
membrane NN O O
permeability NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Both NN O O
larger NN O O
molecule NN O O
removal NN O O
and NN O O
dialyzer NN O O
biocompatibility NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-flux NN O I-INT
hemodialysis NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HD NN O O
) NN O O
-associated NN O O
favorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
delineate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
membrane NN O O
permeability 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
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
, NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
aortic NN O O
pulse NN O O
wave NN O O
velocity NN O O
( NN O O
PWV NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
dialyzers NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
identical NN O O
membranes NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
flux NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
anuria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
low-flux NN O I-PAR
polysulfone NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
HD NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
; NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
HD NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
24 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
started NN O O
on NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O I-INT
HD NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Apart NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
dialyzer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O O
prescription NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Predialysis NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-microglobulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
high-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
membranes NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
aortic NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
after NN O O
patients NN O O
switched NN O O
from NN O O
high-flux NN O I-INT
to NN O O
low-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membranes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
dialysis NN O O
with NN O O
polyamide NN O I-INT
membranes NN O I-INT
with NN O O
different NN O O
flux NN O O
characteristics NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
indices NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
seemingly NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
aortic NN O O
stiffness NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
high-flux NN O I-INT
polyamide NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20203546)

Attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
during NN O O
rapid NN O O
sequence NN O O
induction NN O O
: NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
a NN O O
lidocaine-esmolol NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
in NN O O
blunting NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
laryngoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
intubation NN O O
during NN O O
rapid NN O O
sequence NN O O
induction NN O O
using NN O O
thiopental NN O O
and NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
in NN O O
normotensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
R NN O O
received NN O O
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
remifentanil NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
microg/kg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
LE NN O O
received NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. 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
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
minute NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
pressor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
LE NN O O
( NN O O
29.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
116.1 NN O O
, NN O O
121.9 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
92.9 NN O O
, NN O O
98.5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
R NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
LE NN O O
developed NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
0.064 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

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.465 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
for NN O O
attenuating NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
rapid NN O O
sequence NN O O
intubation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20204689)

Promoting NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
development NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
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
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aims NN O O
included NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
gathering NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
8-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
wait NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
teach NN O I-INT
appropriate NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Between NN O O
group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
unblinded NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
highlights NN O O
challenges NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20204691)

Digestive NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
digestive NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
using NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
measurement NN O O
tools NN O O
included NN O O
monthly NN O O
Global NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
therapists NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
monthly NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Rescorla NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
enzyme NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
variety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
therapist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
Development NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
Vocabulary NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Sentence NN O I-OUT
Complexity NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
small NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
enzyme NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
food NN O O
variety NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
enzyme NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
variety NN O I-OUT
warrants NN O O
further NN O O
detailed NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20206437)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
U- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H-type NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TVT NN O I-INT
SECUR NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
No NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
U- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H-type NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TVT NN O I-INT
SECUR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TVT-S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TVT-S NN O I-INT
for NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SUI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
urodynamic NN O I-PAR
SUI NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
12-mo NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
U- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
H-type NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TVT-S. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
evaluations NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
standing NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Sandvik NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Incontinence NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
I-QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Consultation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Incontinence NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-Female NN O I-OUT
Lower NN O I-OUT
Urinary NN O I-OUT
Tract NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICIQ-FLUTS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
' NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
cures NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
no NN O O
leakage NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
responses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Sandvik NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
AND NN O O
LIMITATIONS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
285 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
144 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
U-type NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
141 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
H-type NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
87.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
U-type NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
80.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
H-type NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.091 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
77.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
U-type NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
75.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
H-type NN O O
method NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.786 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
I-QOL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ICIQ-FLUTS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
U-type NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
perforation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
temporary NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
power NN O O
calculation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TVT-S NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
comparable NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
SUI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
U-type NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
The NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
registered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20209171)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brackets NN O I-PAR
bonded NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resin-modified NN O I-PAR
glass-ionomer NN O I-PAR
cement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
shear NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brackets NN O O
bonded NN O O
with NN O O
resin-modified NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
cement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RMGIC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
various NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
enamel NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
premolars NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
roots NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
fixed NN O O
in NN O O
acrylic NN O O
resin NN O O
cylinders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
brackets NN O O
were NN O O
bonded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
's NN O O
crowns NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
material NN O O
combinations NN O O
: NN O O
RMGIC NN O I-INT
only NN O O
; NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
and NN O O
corresponding NN O O
primer NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
RMGIC NN O O
, NN O O
acid NN O I-INT
etching NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Scotchbond NN O I-INT
Multipurpose NN O O
; NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
and NN O O
two-step NN O O
self-etching NN O O
primer NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
RMGIC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one-step NN O O
primer NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
pH NN O O
cycling NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
shear NN O O
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
universal NN O O
test NN O O
machine NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
medians NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
MPa NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
RMGIC NN O I-INT
only NN O O
= NN O O
8.34 NN O O
? NN O O
1.11 NN O O
; NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
and NN O O
corresponding NN O O
primer NN O O
= NN O O
7.05 NN O O
? NN O O
2.24 NN O O
; NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
, NN O O
acid NN O O
etching NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Scotchbond NN O O
Multipurpose NN O O
= NN O O
7.00 NN O O
? NN O O
4.79 NN O O
; NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
and NN O O
two-step NN O O
self-etching NN O O
primer NN O O
= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
? NN O O
0.30 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
and NN O O
one-step NN O O
primer NN O O
= NN O O
10.61 NN O O
? NN O O
4.58 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
value NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
RMGIC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two-step NN O O
self-etching NN O O
primer NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
RMGIC NN O O
is NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
bonding NN O O
orthodontic NN O O
brackets NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
itself NN O O
. NN O O

Different NN O O
enamel NN O O
preparations NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
its NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
worsen NN O O
its NN O O
bonding NN O O
capacity NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two-step NN O O
primer NN O O
system NN O O
clearly NN O O
shows NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20218011)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
digoxin NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
soft NN O O
gelatin NN O O
capsule NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
four-treatment NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
digoxin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
soft NN O I-INT
gelatin NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
0.4-mg NN O O
formulations NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vitro NN O I-INT
burst NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dissolution NN O I-INT
rates NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
2-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
capsules NN O O
with NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
burst NN O O
times NN O O
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
gave NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
capsules NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
burst NN O O
times NN O O
of NN O O
62 NN O O
and NN O O
229 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
produced NN O O
significant NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
digoxin NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vitro-in NN O O
vivo NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
logarithm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
burst NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
measurable NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

05 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
logarithm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
release NN O O
either NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
digoxin NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
absorbed NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
capsule NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
or NN O O
AUC0-infinity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20220293)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
undecanoate NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypogonadal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
undecanoate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
hypogonadal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
testosterone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
320 NN O I-PAR
ng/dl NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
parallel NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
[ NN O O
oral NN O O
TU NN O O
; NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
im NN O O
TU NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
mo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1:3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
capsules NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
at NN O O
breakfast NN O O
and NN O O
dinner NN O O
, NN O O
equalling NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
160 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
; NN O O
no.=10 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
with NN O O
im NN O O
TU NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
P NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3-4 NN O O
g/day NN O O
; NN O O
no.=10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
im NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
; NN O O
no.=32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
im NN O O
TU NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free- NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
Homeostasis NN O I-OUT
Model NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Erectile NN O I-OUT
Function-5 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Aging NN O I-OUT
Males NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
im NN O I-INT
TU NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
further NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free- NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
HOMA-index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
T NN O O
treatment NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
hypogonadal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
reached NN O O
when NN O O
its NN O O
plasmatic NN O O
levels NN O O
approach NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
medium-high NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
normality NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
5 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
subjective NN O O
threshold NN O O
values NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
im NN O O
TU NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
oral NN O O
TU NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
MS NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

TU NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20221773)

The NN O O
limit NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
mind NN O O
over NN O O
muscle NN O O
? NN O O
In NN O O
exercise NN O O
physiology NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
traditionally NN O O
assumed NN O O
that NN O O
high-intensity NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
stops NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
commonly NN O O
called NN O O
exhaustion NN O O
because NN O O
fatigued NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
output NN O O
required NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
despite NN O O
their NN O O
maximal NN O O
voluntary NN O O
effort NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
assumption NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
cycling NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
1,075 NN O O
+/- NN O O
214 NN O O
W NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
731 NN O O
+/- NN O O
206 NN O O
W NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
exhaustive NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O O
242 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
W NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O O
aerobic NN O O
power NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
incremental NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
fit NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exhaustive NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
was NN O O
strongly NN O O
correlated NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.82 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exhaustion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
challenge NN O O
the NN O O
long-standing NN O O
assumption NN O O
that NN O O
muscle NN O O
fatigue NN O O
causes NN O O
exhaustion NN O O
during NN O O
high-intensity NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
exercise NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
highly NN O O
motivated NN O O
subjects NN O O
is NN O O
ultimately NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
effort NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20226548)

Argatroban NN O I-INT
for NN O O
elective NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
ARG-E04 NN O O
multi-center NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
The NN O O
synthetic NN O O
arginine-derived NN O O
direct NN O O
thrombin NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
argatroban NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
anticoagulant NN O O
for NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
offset NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
hepatic NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O

Argatroban NN O I-INT
was NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
PCI NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heparin-induced NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
data NN O O
about NN O O
argatroban NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-HIT NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
argatroban NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
argatroban NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ARG250 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ARG300 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
ARG350 NN O I-INT
with NN O O
250 NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
350 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
bolus NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
25 NN O O
?g/kg/min NN O O
infusion NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O I-INT
unfractionated NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
70-100 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
bolus NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
138 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Argatroban NN O I-INT
dose-dependently NN O I-INT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ACT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
patients NN O O
reaching NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
ACT NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
initial NN O O
bolus NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARG250 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
86.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ARG300 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
89.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
ARG350 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
96.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
45.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
UFH 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 I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
require NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
bolus NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
start NN O O
PCI NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
argatroban NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
in NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p NN O O
? NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
start NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PCI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shortened NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
argatroban NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Composite NN O I-OUT
incidences 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
and NN O I-OUT
urgent NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
30 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARG250 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
2.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ARG300 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
0.0 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ARG350 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
3.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
: NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
ARG350 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
n.s. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Argatroban NN O I-INT
dose-dependently NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
, NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
predictable NN O I-OUT
anticoagulant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-INT
elective NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20228284)

The NN O O
unconscious NN O O
thought NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
example NN O O
in NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
unconscious NN O O
thought NN O O
effect NN O O
refers NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
judgments NN O O
and NN O O
decisions NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
distraction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
unconscious NN O O
thought NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
and NN O O
error-prone NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
: NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
conscious NN O O
versus NN O O
unconscious NN O O
processing NN O O
influenced NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
used NN O O
case NN O O
descriptions NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
DSM-IV NN O O
casebook NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conscious-processing-condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
consciously NN O I-PAR
thinking NN O I-PAR
about NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
information NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
read NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
description NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
half NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
unconscious-processing NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
performing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
unrelated NN O I-PAR
distracter NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
main NN O O
dependent NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
classifications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
conscious NN O O
processing NN O O
, NN O O
unconscious NN O O
processing NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
classifications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
merits NN O O
of NN O O
unconscious NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
making NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20232240)

RCT NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O O
social NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
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
This NN O O
RCT NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFASDs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
included NN O O
instruction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
targeting NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
face-emotion NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
interest NN O I-INT
expansion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interpretation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
non-literal NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
response-cost NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
problem NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
foster NN O O
skills NN O O
acquisition NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seven NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
staff NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
corroborated NN O O
gains NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
staff NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Standardized NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
estimates NN O O
were NN O O
primarily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medium NN O O
and NN O O
large NN O O
ranges NN O O
and NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2023746)

Aminocaproic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
traumatic NN O I-PAR
hyphema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-PAR
hyphema NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
blunt NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacies NN O O
of NN O O
aminocaproic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Amicar NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aminocaproic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
g NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Placebo NN O I-INT
pills NN O O
and NN O O
liquids NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
mask NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedules NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
demographic NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristic NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
hyphema NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Blacks NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
23.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rebleed NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20305865)

Short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
during NN O O
periodontal NN O I-PAR
healing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nonsurgical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
scaling NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
root NN O I-PAR
planing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SRP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subgingival NN O I-PAR
microbiota NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
AP NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
full-mouth NN O I-PAR
SRP NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AP NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AP+AB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
mechanically NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pathogens NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
16S NN O I-OUT
rRNA NN O I-OUT
oligodeoxynucleotide NN O I-OUT
probes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dot-blot NN O I-OUT
hybridization NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
healing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CP NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
scaling NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
planing NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Initially NN O O
, NN O O
AP NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
69.9- NN O O
( NN O O
Porphyromonas NN O O
gingivalis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10.2- NN O O
( NN O O
Aggregatibacter NN O O
actinomycetemcomitans NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5.7- NN O O
( NN O O
Tannerella NN O O
forsythia NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3.3-fold NN O O
( NN O O
Prevotella NN O O
intermedia NN O O
) NN O O
enhanced NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
CP NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O O
SRP NN O O
, NN O O
immediate NN O O
elimination NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
single NN O O
individuals NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
SRP NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AP+AB NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
scores NN O O
dropped NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
AP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
beginning NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
low NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
=or NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O O
benefited NN O O
from NN O O
SRP NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Nonsurgical NN O O
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
suppression NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
taxa NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
significantly NN O O
accelerate NN O O
the NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
periodontal NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
limited NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
elimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
isolates NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20307262)

Improvement NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
related NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
for NN O O
oncologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
trans NN O O
institutional NN O O
modular NN O O
nursing NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pain NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
and NN O O
distressing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
sufficient NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
if NN O O
adequate NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
remains NN O O
often NN O O
undertreated NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
institutional NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professional NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
related NN O O
barriers NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
activities NN O O
and NN O O
attitude NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
SCION-PAIN NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
multi NN O O
modular NN O O
structured NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or= NN O I-PAR
3/10 NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cluster NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
wards NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
wards NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
, NN O O
additionally NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
SCION-PAIN NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
modules NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
pharmacologic NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nonpharmacologic NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
specially NN O O
trained NN O O
oncology NN O O
nurses NN O O
and NN O O
includes NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
regarding NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
beginning NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
admission NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
booster NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3rd NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
follow NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
barriers NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BQII NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
: NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
acquired NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
skills NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
multi NN O O
modular NN O O
structured NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
patient NN O O
related NN O O
barriers NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
self NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials NN O O
NCT00779597 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20329618)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
zengjing NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morphology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oligospermia NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Zengjing NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZJC1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morphology NN O O
and NN O O
motility NN O O
of NN O O
sperm NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oligospermia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
OSM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
randomizing NN O O
digital NN O O
table NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
respectively NN O O
by NN O O
ZJC1 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Wuzi NN O I-INT
Yanzong NN O I-INT
Pill NN O I-INT
( NN O O
WYP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
computerized NN O O
WLJY-9000 NN O O
colour NN O O
semen NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
refined NN O O
Papanicolaou NN O O
's NN O O
stain NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
sperm NN O I-OUT
deformity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
ZJC1 NN O I-INT
can NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
sperm NN O I-OUT
deformity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OSM NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20332358)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
exenatide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Exenatide NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
postprandial NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
excursions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Exenatide NN O I-INT
could NN O O
benefit NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
glucose-lowering NN O I-OUT
adjuvant NN O O
exenatide NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
three-part NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
premeal NN O O
exenatide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
exenatide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prandial NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
and NN O O
hormones NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
300 NN O O
min NN O O
postmeal NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
exenatide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
excursions NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
300 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exenatide NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
suppress NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adjunctive NN O O
exenatide NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
excursion NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
despite NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
exenatide NN O I-INT
has NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20337981)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fecal NN O I-OUT
elastase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
secretin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Enteral NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
gut NN O O
hormone NN O O
secretion NN O O
and NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
exocrine NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
extremely NN O O
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
feedings NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
very NN O I-OUT
low-birthweight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VLBW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Fecal NN O I-OUT
elastase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
secretin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
periods NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
VLBW NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
extremely NN O O
early NN O O
enteral NN O O
feeding NN O O
starting NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
birth NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fecal NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
elastase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
feeding NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Fecal NN O I-OUT
elastase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
feeding NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
secretin NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
feeding NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
secretin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
feeding NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
secretin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Extremely NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
feedings NN O I-INT
may NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
exocrine NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secretin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
VLBW NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20338811)

CD4+FOXP3+ NN O O
regulatory NN O O
T NN O O
cell NN O O
depletion NN O O
by NN O O
low-dose NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-PAR
acuminata NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Condylomata NN O O
acuminata NN O O
( NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
( NN O O
HPV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
sexually NN O O
transmitted NN O O
disease NN O O
with NN O O
half NN O O
a NN O O
million NN O O
new NN O O
cases NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O O
in NN O O
China NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
challenge NN O O
for NN O O
CA NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
FOXP3 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
regulatory NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
Treg NN O O
) NN O O
cells NN O O
mediate NN O O
the NN O O
immunosuppression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
warts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
further NN O O
report NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CY NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
drug NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
CA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Surprisingly NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
9 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
recur NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
re-administration NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
CY NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
completely NN O O
eliminates NN O O
most NN O O
recurred NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O O
CY NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
depletes NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
Treg NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhances NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HPV-specific NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
periphery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
ameliorates NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
milieu NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
elimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remnant NN O I-OUT
viruses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
breakthrough NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20345030)

[ NN O O
Observation NN O O
of NN O O
curative NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
fixed-point NN O O
spin NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
fixed-point NN O O
spin NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulation 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
cervical NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
cervical NN O O
artery NN O O
spasm NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
RI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
atlantoaxial NN O O
displacement NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
ADI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
January NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
respectively NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fixed-point NN O I-INT
spin NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dialectical NN O I-INT
prescription NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
RI NN O O
, NN O O
ADI NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
markedly NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
vertigo NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
( NN O O
2.75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.01 NN O O
) NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
neck-shoulder NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea-vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.30 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ear NN O I-OUT
noises NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.48 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
rotation NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
vertigo NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
( NN O O
5.68 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.02 NN O O
) NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
neck-shoulder NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.82 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea-vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ear NN O I-OUT
noises NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.64 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.61 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
rotation NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cervical NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atlantoaxial NN O I-OUT
displacement NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
, NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
spasm NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
respectively NN O O
0.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
and NN O O
0.52 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
, NN O O
atlantoaxial NN O I-OUT
displacement NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
respectively NN O O
2.92 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.82 NN O O
and NN O O
4.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.32 NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Fixed-point NN O O
spin NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
vertigo NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
accurately NN O O
correct NN O O
single NN O O
or NN O O
multiple NN O O
vertebral NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
displacement NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
restore NN O O
normal NN O O
spinal NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
oppression NN O O
and NN O O
stimulus NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vertebral NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
release NN O O
ischemia NN O O
of NN O O
vestibular NN O O
labyrinth NN O O
, NN O O
eliminate NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
vertigo NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20356395)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Yoga NN O O
Exercise NN O O
Self-care NN O O
( NN O O
YES NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
prevalent NN O O
conditions NN O O
afflicting NN O O
American NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
using NN O O
complementary NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Yoga NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
increasingly NN O O
popular NN O O
mind-body NN O O
CAM NN O O
therapy NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
relieving NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
several NN O O
small NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
found NN O O
yoga NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
self NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
will NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
observed NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
lasting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Seattle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
12 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
comparable NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exertion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
book NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interviewers NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
assess NN O O
outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
back-related NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
bothersomeness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
flexion NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
saliva NN O O
samples NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
specific NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
psychological NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
factors NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
through NN O O
which NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
could NN O O
relieve NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
general NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
- NN O O
GEE NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
is NN O O
found NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
analyses NN O O
will NN O O
explore NN O O
whether NN O O
yoga NN O O
's NN O O
benefits NN O O
are NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
psychological NN O O
and/or NN O O
physiological NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
clearest NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
focus NN O O
future NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
in-depth NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
promising NN O O
potential NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20356587)

Metformin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antiandrogenic NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC/Pr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
ovarian NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PCOS NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
hyperandrogenemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PCOS NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
PCOS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
factors NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
hyperandrogenemic NN O O
ovarian NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20357382)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ranolazine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
A1C NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
hyperglycemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
glycemia NN O O
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
antidiabetic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
A1C NN O O
and NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
( NN O O
FPG NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ranolazine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MERLIN-TIMI-36 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MERLIN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ranolazine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
first-in-class NN O O
drug NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Randomization NN O O
and NN O O
4-month NN O O
glycemic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antidiabetes NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
usage NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
from NN O O
MERLIN NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
Spotfire NN O O
and NN O O
SAS NN O O
version NN O O
9.1 NN O O
software NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
A1C NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=8-10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
171 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranolazine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
of NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-adjusted NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
182 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
ranolazine NN O O
was NN O O
0.59 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.99 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.20 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
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FPG NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
150-400 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranolazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
147 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O O
FPG NN O O
by NN O O
25.7 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-43.3 NN O O
to NN O O
-8.1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
FPG NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
FPG NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
slopes NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
steeper NN O O
for NN O O
ranolazine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
A1C NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
; NN O O
FPG NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FPG NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
ranolazine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O O
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Ranolazine NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
concurrent NN O I-OUT
antidiabetic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ranolazine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
concurrent NN O O
antidiabetes NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
lowers NN O O
FPG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2035777)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
on NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
elective NN O I-OUT
caesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
25 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
route NN O O
would NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
parturients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
Caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
axillary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calf NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O O
epidural NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
shivering NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
thermoregulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20362507)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
disseminated NN O O
tumour NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
bisphosphonates NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
increase NN O O
disease-free NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
disseminated NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DTCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
neoadjuvant 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 I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II-III NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
T2 NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
N1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
using NN O O
allocation NN O O
concealment NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
n=60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
concomitant NN O O
with NN O O
four NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
detectable NN O I-OUT
DTCs NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Final NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
available NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months 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
NCT00242203 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
withdrew NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
signing NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
109 NN O I-PAR
bone-marrow NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
off NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
consented NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgery 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
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
withdrew NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
consented NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
DTCs NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
of NN O O
58 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
56 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
53 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
had NN O O
detectable NN O O
DTCs NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.054 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
grade NN O O
3-4 NN O O
toxicities NN O O
were NN O O
infection NN O O
( NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
59 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
( NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
59 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
one NN O O
documented NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
osteonecrosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
DTCs NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
antimetastatic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
through NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
DTCs NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Novartis NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
and NN O O
Pfizer NN O O
Inc NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2036277)

Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
lornoxicam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pain NN O O
experienced NN O O
after NN O O
third NN O O
molar NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
lornoxicam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
fit NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
lornoxicam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
650 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
monitored NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
being NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Lornoxicam NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
lornoxicam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
all NN O O
showed NN O O
apparent NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
intermediate NN O O
between NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
lornoxicam NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
inadequate NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Lornoxicam NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
definitely NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20367417)

Teriparatide NN O O
improves NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
callus NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
distal NN O I-PAR
radial NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Teriparatide NN O O
( NN O O
parathyreoid NN O O
hormone NN O O
; NN O O
PTH NN O O
1-34 NN O O
) NN O O
increases NN O O
skeletal NN O O
mass NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
and NN O O
improves NN O O
fracture NN O O
healing NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
recent NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nonoperated NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radial NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
shortening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
restoration NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
continuity NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
teriparatide NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

As NN O O
radiographic NN O O
cortical NN O O
continuity NN O O
appears NN O O
late NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
too NN O O
late NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
qualitative NN O O
appearance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
callus NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
fracture NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Link?ping NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
evaluate NN O O
early NN O O
callus NN O O
formation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
made NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
qualitative NN O O
scoring NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
callus NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Callus NN O O
formation NN O O
was NN O O
arbitrarily NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
rich NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O I-OUT
rich NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
none NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
low-dose NN O O
teriparatide NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
high-dose NN O O
teriparatide NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

9 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O I-OUT
intermediate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
low-dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
high-dose NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

9 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O I-OUT
poor NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
low-dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
high-dose 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

INTERPRETATION NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
official NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
must NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
larger NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
radiographic NN O O
quality NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
cortical NN O O
continuity NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
teriparatide NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
callus NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radial NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20369616)

[ NN O I-OUT
Hepatoprotective NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remaxol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
milticentre NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
remaxol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hepatoprotective NN O O
medicine NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
liver NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
) NN O O
included NN O O
494 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
294 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
staying NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
remaxol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
200 NN O O
ones NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
envelope NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
detailed NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diseases NN O O
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
remaxol NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
affected NN O O
liver NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
laboratory NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
remaxol NN O I-INT
action NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
hepatoprotective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antioxidative NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anticholestatic NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20378181)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
Hz NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
global NN O O
impression NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
in-patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=35 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
on NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
or NN O O
sham NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
ten NN O O
sessions NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
10,000 NN O O
stimuli NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
at NN O O
110 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
threshold NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
corresponding NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Global NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Functioning NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
GAF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Positive NN O O
and NN O O
Negative NN O O
Symptom NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
PANSS NN O O
; NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O I-OUT
comparisons NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
subgroup NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pronounced NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
developed NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
GAF-scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Besides NN O O
there NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
favourable NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
subgroup NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
rTMS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
too NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
earlier NN O O
investigations NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
suggest NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
potentially NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
rTMS NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
this NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
pronounced NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
INFORMATION NN O O
ClinicalTrial.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00169689 NN O O
, NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20379614)

Personalized NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
: NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
nicotine NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
dependence NN O O
and NN O O
quit-success NN O O
genotype NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

Improving NN O O
and NN O O
targeting NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
adverse NN O O
health NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
studies NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
precessation NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
support NN O O
important NN O O
roles NN O O
for NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
dependence NN O O
and NN O O
precessation NN O O
smoking NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
successful NN O O
quitting NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
prior NN O O
work NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
precessation NN O O
dose NN O O
or NN O O
means NN O O
for NN O O
personalizing NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Genome-wide NN O O
association NN O O
has NN O O
identified NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
genomic NN O O
markers NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
successful NN O O
quitting NN O O
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
v1.0 NN O O
quit-success NN O O
genotype NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
now NN O O
report NN O O
influences NN O O
of NN O O
v1.0 NN O I-OUT
quit-success NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
precessation NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
examined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
versus NN O O
42 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
precessation NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
or NN O O
42 NN O O
mg NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
initiated NN O O
2 NN O O
wks NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
quit NN O O
dates NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
monitored NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end-expired NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
monoxide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Genotyping NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
Affymetrix NN O I-OUT
arrays NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
Santa NN O I-PAR
Clara NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
10-wk NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
NRT NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nicotine NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
displayed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
interactive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
successful NN O O
quitting NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
CO NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
precessation NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
document NN O O
ways NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
strategies NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
personalized NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nicotine NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
match NN O O
most NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
optimal NN O O
NRT NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
and NN O O
help NN O O
rapidly NN O O
identify NN O O
some NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
treated NN O O
using NN O O
other NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20386431)

Weight-adjusted NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
decreases NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum-mediated NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
invasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
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
role NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
and NN O O
serum-induced NN O O
cell NN O O
invasion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-OUT
pancreatic NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
APC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
APC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
entered 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
ISRCTN NN O O
= NN O O
76464767 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
thromboprevention NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
weight-adjusted NN O I-INT
dalteparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
WAD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
WAD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
20 NN O O
acting NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
circulating-tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
antigen NN O O
using NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

Circulating-tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
from NN O O
324 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
) NN O O
282-347 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
356 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
319-431 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dalteparin-treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
336 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
281-346 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
303 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
274-339 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O O
percentage NN O O
change NN O O
between NN O O
D NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
[ NN O O
-4.0 NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.7 NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Serum-induced NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
invasion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MIA-Paca-2 NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
serum NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Boyden NN O O
chamber NN O O
assay NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
WAD NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
D NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
[ NN O O
+54.9 NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
-21.9 NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
weak NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
BB-tissue NN O O
factor NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
invasion NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
Spearman NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
0.384 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

APC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
WAD NN O O
have NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
invasion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
assays NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
useful NN O O
markers NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
appropriate NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
low-molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
) NN O O
dosing NN O O
schedules NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
anticancer NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
in NN O O
APC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20390261)

Echocardiographic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carvedilol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Echocardiography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purposes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
baseline NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
these NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
changes NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
b-type NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BNP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carvedilol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
available NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
echocardiograms NN O O
from NN O O
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Carvedilol NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
carvedilol NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
161 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
sphericity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
110 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TEI NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
145 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
ventricular NN O O
dP/dt NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PCT NN O O
composite NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
worsened NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
unchanged NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
TEI NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
worsened NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carvedilol NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
B NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
B NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TEI NN O I-OUT
index 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

An NN O O
inverse NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dP/dt NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.45 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
TEI NN O O
index NN O O
predicted NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Carvedilol NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
reversal NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
remodeling NN O O
and NN O O
global NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20394631)

The NN O O
pulsed-dye NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Acne NN O O
vulgaris NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
skin NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
pose NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
phototherapeutic NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
notably NN O O
pulsed-dye NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
published NN O O
results NN O O
- NN O O
albeit NN O O
promising NN O O
- NN O O
are NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
PDL NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
proven NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
[ NN O O
fixed-combination NN O O
clindamycin NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
-benzoyl NN O O
peroxide NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrating NN O O
gel NN O O
( NN O O
C/BPO NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
19.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
2 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
C/BPO NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
PDL NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
wavelength NN O O
585 NN O O
nm NN O O
, NN O O
energy NN O O
fluence NN O O
3 NN O O
J NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O O
duration NN O O
0.35 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
spot NN O O
size NN O O
7 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Investigator NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Static NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ISGA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lesion NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Dermatology NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DLQI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
observation NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
ISGA NN O O
27.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
C/BPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
C/BPO NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
36.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
36.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
DLQI NN O O
54.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
42.5 NN O O
% 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
or NN O O
otherwise NN O O
appreciable NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
concerned NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
findings NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
either NN O O
therapy NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
PDL NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
acne NN O O
vulgaris NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20413513)

The NN O O
11-beta-hydroxysteroid NN O O
dehydrogenase NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
INCB13739 NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
11-Beta-hydroxysteroid NN O O
dehydrogenase NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O O
) NN O O
converts NN O O
inactive NN O O
cortisone NN O O
into NN O O
active NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
amplifying NN O O
intracellular NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
11betaHSD1 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
INCB13739 NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
ongoing NN O O
metformin NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
exhibiting NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
A1C NN O I-PAR
7-11 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
paralleled NN O O
study NN O O
randomized NN O O
302 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
A1C NN O I-PAR
8.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
g/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
INCB13739 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
A1C NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Other NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
INCB13739 NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
A1C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-24 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment-insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HOMA-IR NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
-24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
hyperlipidemic NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
after NN O O
INCB13739 NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
reversible NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
adrenocorticotrophic NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
generally NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
by NN O O
INCB13739 NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
INCB13739 NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
ongoing NN O O
metformin NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
11BetaHSD1 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
potential NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20415897)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
belatacept-based NN O I-INT
immunosuppression NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
BENEFIT NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Belatacept NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
costimulation NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
preserve NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
calcineurin NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
kidney NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Belatacept NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Nephroprotection NN O O
and NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
First-line NN O O
Immunosuppression NN O O
Trial NN O O
) NN O O
assessed NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
intensive NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
intensive NN O O
( NN O O
LI NN O O
) NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
belatacept NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
deceased NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
co-primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
patient/graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
percent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
measured NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
mGFR NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
60 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Month NN O O
12 NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mGFR NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=10 NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
Month NN O O
3-Month NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
Month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
belatacept NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
patient/graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
cyclosporine NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
: NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
LI NN O O
: NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
93 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
MI NN O O
: NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
LI NN O O
: NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
78 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
MI NN O O
or NN O O
LI NN O O
versus NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
mGFR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
65 NN O O
, NN O O
63 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
for NN O O
MI NN O O
, NN O O
LI NN O O
and NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
MI NN O O
or NN O O
LI NN O O
versus NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Belatacept NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
MI NN O O
: NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
LI NN O O
: NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
posttransplant NN O I-OUT
lymphoproliferative NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
belatacept NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Belatacept NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
superior NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
similar NN O O
patient/graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
posttransplant NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20431290)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
on NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
subclinical NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Subclinical NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
subsequent NN O O
stroke NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
decline NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
SBI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Regression NN O O
of NN O O
Cerebral NN O O
Artery NN O O
Stenosis NN O O
( NN O O
ROCAS NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
ROCAS NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
upon NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
middle NN O O
cerebral NN O O
artery NN O O
stenosis NN O O
among NN O O
stroke-free NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
227 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
114 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
113 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
MRI NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study 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
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
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

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
227 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
SBI NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
new NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
subclinical NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
infarcts NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
while NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
5 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
subclinical NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
putative NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
SBIs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
6.27 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.4-16.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.01-0.82 NN O O
) NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
brain NN O O
infarcts NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
statins NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20434046)

Beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronically NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O O
fractures NN O O
is NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
chronically NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
homes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
immobilization-induced NN O O
hypercalcemia NN O O
and NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O O
D NN O O
deficiency NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
resorption NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
fractures NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hemiparesis NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 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
40 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
deoxypyridinoline NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

BMD NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hemiplegic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etidronate NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
sustained NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
etidronate NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronically NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20439105)

Small NN O O
but NN O O
important NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
calculation NN O O
by NN O O
practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
play NN O O
an NN O O
increasingly NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
but NN O O
we NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
evidence NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
their NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
assessments NN O O
during NN O O
real NN O O
practice NN O O
consultations NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
how NN O O
nurses NN O I-PAR
perform NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
absolute NN O O
10-year NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
actual NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
nested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
IMPALA NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clustered NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10-year NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
421 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
10-year NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
nurses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
assessor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
agreement NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
categories NN O I-OUT
assigned NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nurses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
assigned NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
assessor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-one NN O O
( NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calculated NN O O
risk NN O O
percentages NN O O
differed NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
our NN O O
preset NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
being NN O O
underestimations NN O O
. NN O O

Elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.0-1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
OR NN O O
3.1 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.2-7.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
non-smoking NN O I-PAR
OR NN O O
3.8 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.7-8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
their NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
miscalculated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ten NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
should NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
category NN O I-PAR
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
calculation NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
missed NN O O
as NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
nurses NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
by NN O O
trained NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
actual NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
misclassified NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
missed NN O O
opportunities NN O O
for NN O O
risk-reducing NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
assessments NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
done NN O O
by NN O O
nurses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
further NN O O
specific NN O O
training NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
undertreatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20440639)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
focus NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1-year NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O I-INT
nonintensive NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
care-as-usual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
care-as-usual NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
described NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Drew NN O I-INT
et NN O I-INT
al NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Eur NN O O
Child NN O O
Adolesc NN O O
Psychiatr NN O O
11:266-272 NN O O
, NN O O
2002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
toddlers 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
65 NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
PDD-NOS NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
34.4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
final NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
lost NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mediating NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
precursors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suggesting NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
the NN O O
'Focus NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
' NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
value NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
general NN O O
care-as-usual NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20447037)

Catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-PAR
temporary NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Temporary NN O O
vascular NN O O
access NN O O
catheters NN O O
( NN O O
VACs NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
devices NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
blood NN O O
purification NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
catheterization NN O I-INT
duration NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nosocomial NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
lumen NN O I-PAR
VACs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
chosen NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
1- NN O O
or NN O O
2-week NN O O
catheterizations NN O I-INT
from NN O O
operators NN O O
experienced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
catheters NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
sites NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
jugular NN O O
, NN O O
subclavian NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VACs NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
sites NN O O
, NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lengths NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
14.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
26.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.1371 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
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
bloodstream NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.5967 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two-week NN O O
indwelling NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1-week NN O O
indwelling NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20447774)

Acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
hypofractionated NN O I-INT
three-dimensional NN O I-INT
conformal NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O O
between NN O O
hypofractionation NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
fractionation NN O I-INT
schedules NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
hypofractionated NN O I-INT
( NN O O
62 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
fractions NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
fractions/wk NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
conventionally NN O I-INT
fractionated NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
fractions NN O O
within NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
three-dimensional NN O I-INT
conformal NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
and NN O O
seminal NN O O
vesicles NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
9-month NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
starting NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
androgen NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
32 NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypofractionation NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
fractionation NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
acute NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
fractionation NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
genitourinary NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
genitourinary NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedules NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-year NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
Grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hypofractionation NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
fractionation NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
fractionation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
hypofractionation NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
, NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
tolerable NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temporary NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
fractionation NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
complications NN O O
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20452382)

Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
familiar NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
newly NN O I-INT
familiar NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
ERPs NN O O
is NN O O
intact NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
have NN O O
pervasive NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
include NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
processing NN O O
and NN O O
remembering NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
posterior NN O O
ERP NN O O
components NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
identity NN O O
processing NN O O
( NN O O
P2 NN O O
, NN O O
N250 NN O O
and NN O O
face-N400 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
components NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
early-stage NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
( NN O O
P1 NN O O
and NN O O
N170 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
atypical NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
collected NN O O
ERP NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
familiar NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Familiar NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Other NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Novels NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
P2 NN O O
and NN O O
N250 NN O O
were NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
repetition NN O O
( NN O O
Other NN O O
vs. NN O O
Novels NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
personal NN O O
familiarity NN O O
( NN O O
Familiar NN O O
vs. NN O O
Other NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
face-N400 NN O O
was NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
repetition NN O O
. NN O O

Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significantly NN O O
atypical NN O O
processing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
familiarity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repetition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
ERP NN O O
paradigm NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
showing NN O O
significantly NN O O
poorer NN O O
performance NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
early-stage NN O O
facial NN O O
identity NN O O
processing NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
recognition NN O O
deficit NN O O
in NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20456192)

Capsaicin NN O I-INT
jelly NN O I-INT
against NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
extracranial NN O O
perivascular NN O O
afferents NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
migraineurs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Perivascular NN O O
afferent NN O O
fibres NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
superficial NN O O
temporal NN O O
artery NN O O
contain NN O O
peptides NN O O
, NN O O
like NN O O
calcitonin NN O O
gene-related NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
CGRP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
substance NN O O
P NN O O
( NN O O
SP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CGRP NN O O
and NN O O
SP NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
relevant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
genesis NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Capsaicin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
agonist NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transient NN O O
receptor NN O O
potential NN O O
vanilloid NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
causes NN O O
membrane NN O O
depolarisation NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O O
neurons NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
release NN O O
CGRP NN O O
, NN O O
SP NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
pain NN O O
peptides NN O O
; NN O O
excitation NN O O
is NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
refractory NN O O
state NN O O
, NN O O
causing NN O O
inactivation NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
whether NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
periarterial NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
could NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
On NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
migraineurs NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
scalp NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
administered NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vaseline NN O I-INT
jelly NN O I-INT
on NN O O
painful NN O O
arteries NN O O
in NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
attack NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
having NN O O
pain NN O O
reduction NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
made NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
comparison NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
migraine NN O O
attack NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Topical NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
attack NN O O
in NN O O
17/23 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
with NN O O
vaseline NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
attacks NN O O
of NN O O
mild- NN O O
to NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O O
, NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
11/17 NN O O
with NN O O
capsaicin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
vaseline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
referring NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
capsaicin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
relieve NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
migraine NN O O
attack NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
scalp NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
tenderness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
More NN O O
active NN O O
capsacinoids NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
tried NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
migraine NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20460711)

Vinegar NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
enhances NN O O
flow-mediated NN O I-PAR
vasodilatation NN O I-PAR
via NN O O
upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
endothelial NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
synthase NN O O
( NN O O
eNOS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
umbilical NN O O
vein NN O O
endothelial NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
HUVECs NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
immunoblotting NN O O
assay NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
acetic NN O O
acid NN O O
to NN O O
upregulate NN O O
flow-mediated NN O I-PAR
vasodilatation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
HUVECs NN O O
, NN O O
acetate NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
biphasic NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phosphorylated NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
eNOS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
phosphorylated NN O O
eNOS NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
mumol/l NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
of NN O O
cAMP-dependent NN O O
protein NN O O
kinase NN O O
( NN O O
PKA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
AMP-activated NN O O
protein NN O O
kinase NN O O
( NN O O
AMPK NN O O
) NN O O
blocked NN O O
acetate-induced NN O O
eNOS NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
phase NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
shear NN O O
stress NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vinegar NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
acetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
acetic NN O O
acid-induced NN O O
eNOS NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
flow-mediated NN O O
vasodilatation NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20472253)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
adolescent NN O O
growth NN O O
spurt NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
13-15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
percentage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
+/-9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
consume NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
providing NN O O
1.5 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
n-3 NN O O
long-chain NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oils NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
bread NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
content NN O O
of NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FO NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
+/-0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.8+/-1.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
DBP NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
2.6+/-1.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FO NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
triacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FO NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01-.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
directly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normotensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normolipidemic NN O I-PAR
slightly NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20484550)

Biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
fibroadenomas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fibroadenomas NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
benign NN O O
breast NN O O
condition NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
breast NN O O
biopsies NN O O
being NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
benign NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
fibroadenomas NN O O
utilize NN O O
substantial NN O O
resources NN O O
for NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
rule NN O O
out NN O O
potential NN O O
malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
may NN O O
influence NN O O
benign NN O O
fibrocystic NN O O
breast NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
fibroadenomas NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
possible NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
circulating NN O O
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
fibroadenomas NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-INT
self-examination NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Shanghai NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fibroadenomas NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
258 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1035 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Conditional NN O I-OUT
logistic NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Isoflavone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibroadenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adjusted NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quartile NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration NN O O
were NN O O
0.36 NN O O
( NN O O
0.16-0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
P-trend NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
daidzein NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.39 NN O O
( NN O O
0.19-0.84 NN O O
; NN O O
P-trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
genistein NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
inverse NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
higher NN O O
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n-3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
[ NN O O
0.38 NN O O
( NN O O
0.19-0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P-trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
docosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
0.32 NN O O
( NN O O
0.15-0.70 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P-trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fibroadenoma NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Circulating NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
carotenoids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fibroadenoma NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inverse NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
isoflavone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fibroadenoma NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O O
intakes NN O O
of NN O O
soy NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
may NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibroadenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20486273)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
routine NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ADVANCE NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Action NN O O
in NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
and NN O O
Vascular NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
preterAx NN O O
and NN O O
diamicroN-MR NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
routine NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
major NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eleven NN O I-PAR
thousand NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
66+/-6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
perindopril-indapamide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
in NN O O
subgroups NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
65-74 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
4.3-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
1799 NN O O
( NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Active NN O O
treatment NN O O
produced NN O O
similar NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
macrovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
> NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
one NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
71 NN O O
and NN O O
118 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
65-74 NN O O
and NN O O
below NN O O
65 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
randomized NN O O
allocations NN O O
across NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
> NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
Routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril-indapamide NN O I-INT
lowers NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
safely NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
major NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
greater NN O O
absolute NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
not NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20486905)

Early NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
calcineurin NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
preserves NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
initiation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Evr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
superior NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
CsA-based NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
Evr NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
either NN O O
continued NN O O
on NN O O
Evr NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Evr NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
maintained NN O O
on NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
with/without NN O I-INT
mycophenolate NN O I-INT
mofetil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CKD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
Evr NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
; NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Evr NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
69.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
modification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDRD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Evr NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
87.7 NN O O
? NN O O
26.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
59.9 NN O O
? NN O O
12.6 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CKD NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
< NN O O
60 NN O O
mL/min NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
52.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Evr NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
LT NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
rejection NN O O
and NN O O
major NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20488452)

Learning NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
equal NN O O
sign NN O O
: NN O O
does NN O O
comparing NN O O
with NN O O
inequality NN O O
symbols NN O O
help NN O O
? NN O O
This NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
investigated NN O I-INT
whether NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
involves NN O I-INT
comparing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
relational NN O I-INT
symbols NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
imparting NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
relational NN O I-OUT
interpretation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
equal NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Third- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fourth-grade NN O I-INT
students NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comparing NN O I-INT
symbols NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
learned NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
greater NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
signs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
opportunity NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
compare NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
inequality NN O I-INT
symbols NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Students NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
learned NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
students NN O I-INT
served NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
knowledge NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
lesson NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
conceptual NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
equal NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
equation NN O I-OUT
encoding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
problem NN O I-OUT
solving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Students NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparing NN O O
symbols NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
conceptual NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pretest NN O O
to NN O O
posttest NN O O
than NN O O
students NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
students NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparing NN O O
symbols NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
scored NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
posttest NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
inequality NN O I-OUT
symbols NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inequality NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
solving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
learned NN O O
about NN O O
three NN O O
symbols NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
students NN O O
learned NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
equal NN O O
sign NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
instructional NN O O
approach NN O O
involving NN O O
comparison NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
learning NN O O
about NN O O
concepts NN O O
in NN O O
mathematics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20491838)

Influence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bony NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
implant NN O O
stability NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O O
mechanical NN O O
stability NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
types/sizes NN O O
of NN O O
bony NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
both NN O O
Periotest NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Osstell NN O I-INT
devices NN O O
as NN O O
objective NN O O
tools NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
defects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
marginal NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
peri-apical NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
defect NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
constant NN O I-PAR
width NN O I-PAR
dehiscence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
constant NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
dehiscences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Periotest/Osstell NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
staged NN O O
bone NN O O
removal NN O O
( NN O O
to NN O O
enlarge NN O O
defect NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
marginal NN O O
bone NN O O
removal NN O O
( NN O O
Osstell/Periotest NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
peri-apical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
after NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Osstell NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
8 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Periotest NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
6-mm-long NN O O
dehiscence NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
removal NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
180 NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
perimeter NN O O
( NN O O
Osstell/Periotest NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
3-mm-wide NN O O
dehiscence NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
Osstell NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
6 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
Periotest NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Periotest NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Osstell NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
not NN O O
very NN O O
sensitive NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
peri-implant NN O O
bone NN O O
destruction NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
marginal NN O O
bone NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20494434)

Parent-mediated NN O I-INT
communication-focused NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
PACT NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
trials NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
therefore NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
such NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
one-to-one NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
communication-focused NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Preschool NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
at NN O O
three NN O O
specialist NN O O
centres NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PACT NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
given NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
usual NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
minimisation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
probability NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
marginal NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
/=42 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
Observation NN O I-PAR
Schedule-Generic NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
ADOS-G NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
algorithm NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
12-17 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
18-24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
algorithm NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
ADOS-G NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
indicating NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
13 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complementary NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
International NN O O
Standard NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN58133827 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
152 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
PACT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=26 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Manchester NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=26 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Newcastle NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=25 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=26 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Manchester NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=26 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Newcastle NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n=23 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
13-month NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
3.9 NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
4.7 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ADOS-G NN O O
algorithm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PACT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.9 NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
usual NN O O
, NN O O
representing NN O O
a NN O O
between-group NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
-0.24 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.59 NN O O
to NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
verbal NN O O
and NN O O
non-verbal NN O O
abilities NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
synchronous NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
child NN O O
( NN O O
1.22 NN O O
, NN O O
0.85 NN O O
to NN O O
1.59 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
child NN O O
initiations NN O O
with NN O O
parent NN O O
( NN O O
0.41 NN O O
, NN O O
0.08 NN O O
to NN O O
0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
parent-child NN O O
shared NN O O
attention NN O O
( NN O O
0.33 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.02 NN O O
to NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
on NN O O
directly NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
school NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PACT NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
usual NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
symptoms NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
parent-child NN O I-OUT
dyadic NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FUNDING NN O O
UK NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
UK NN O O
Department NN O O
for NN O O
Children NN O O
, NN O O
Schools NN O O
and NN O O
Families NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20496000)

Chumnguh NN O O
thleum NN O O
: NN O O
understanding NN O O
liver NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
Cambodian NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cambodian NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
over NN O O
25 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
infection NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
US NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Carriers NN O O
of NN O O
HBV NN O O
are NN O O
over NN O O
100 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
liver NN O O
cancer NN O O
than NN O O
non-carriers NN O O
. NN O O

Liver NN O O
cancer NN O O
incidence NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
leading NN O O
cancer NN O O
for NN O O
Cambodian NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sixth NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Cambodian NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
underserved NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
received NN O O
very NN O O
little NN O O
attention NN O O
from NN O O
health NN O O
disparities NN O O
researchers NN O O
. NN O O

Culturally NN O O
and NN O O
linguistically NN O O
appropriate NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serologic NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
vaccination NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
Cambodian NN O O
Americans NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
were NN O O
held NN O O
with NN O O
Cambodian NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Focus NN O O
group NN O O
discussion NN O O
revealed NN O O
unanticipated NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
sociocultural NN O I-OUT
influences NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
participants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
informed NN O O
by NN O O
humoral NN O O
theories NN O O
underlying NN O O
Khmer NN O O
medicine NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
biomedicine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
migration NN O O
experiences NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
reveal NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
qualitative NN O O
exploration NN O O
to NN O O
providing NN O O
cultural NN O O
context NN O O
to NN O O
biomedical NN O O
information NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
formula NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
and NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20500784)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
leisure NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Even NN O O
though NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
research NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
leisure NN O O
participation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
constructs NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
current NN O O
conceptualisation NN O O
of NN O O
leisure NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
accurate NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of 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
at NN O O
increasingly NN O O
earlier NN O O
ages NN O O
and NN O O
proliferation NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
research NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
leisure NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
leisure NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
intended NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
interaction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
engagement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
playing NN O I-INT
games NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doing NN O I-INT
crafts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
attending NN O I-INT
events NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
participating NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
recreation NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
on NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
stress NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
17-39 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
31.49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
24-38 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS 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
overall NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
participants NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
independence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
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
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
to NN O O
leisure NN O O
services NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
contention NN O O
that NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
recreation NN O O
activities NN O O
positively NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20504165)

Improving NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pneumococcal NN O O
conjugate NN O O
vaccine NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
toll-like NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
agonist NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Persons NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
often NN O O
hyporesponsive NN O O
to NN O O
immunization NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
pneumococcal NN O O
vaccines NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
adding NN O O
CPG NN O O
7909 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
toll-like NN O O
receptor NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
TLR9 NN O O
) NN O O
agonist NN O O
and NN O O
vaccine NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
7-valent NN O O
pneumococcal NN O O
conjugate NN O O
vaccine NN O O
( NN O O
7vPnC NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
increase NN O O
its NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We 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
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1b/2a NN O O
trial NN O O
randomizing NN O O
HIV-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
double NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
7vPnC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Prevnar NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
23-valent NN O I-INT
pneumococcal NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPV-23 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Pneumo NN O I-INT
Novum NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
experimental NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
CPG NN O I-INT
7909 NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
3 NN O O
vaccine NN O O
doses NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
phosphate-buffered NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
added NN O O
instead NN O O
. NN O O

Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
2-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IgG NN O O
levels NN O O
to NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
microg/mL NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
7vPnC NN O O
serotypes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in 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
48 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
among NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
49 NN O O
; NN O O
48.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
proportions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
51.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
39.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
77.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
56.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
87.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
51.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
7vPnC NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CPG NN O O
7909 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
non-7vPnC NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PPV-23 NN O I-INT
immunization NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
TLR9 NN O I-INT
agonist NN O O
to NN O O
7vPnC NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
responders NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00562939 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20506785)

[ NN O I-INT
Pleural NN O I-INT
tent NN O I-INT
after NN O O
upper NN O I-PAR
lobectomy NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
of NN O O
it NN O O
's NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pleural NN O I-OUT
tent NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
air NN O O
leak NN O O
after NN O O
upper NN O O
lobectomy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
lobectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
creation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pleural NN O I-INT
tent NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preoperative NN O O
, NN O O
operative NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O O
air NN O O
leaks NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
subsequently NN O O
compared NN O O
during NN O O
successive NN O O
postoperative NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Demographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tented NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
4.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.79 NN O O
vs NN O O
8.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.14 NN O O
vs NN O O
12.46 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.86 NN O O
vs NN O O
13.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
leva NN O O
, NN O O
3840 NN O O
+/- NN O O
298 NN O O
vs NN O O
5160 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3890 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
having NN O O
creation NN O O
a NN O O
pleural NN O I-INT
tent NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
before NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
pleural NN O O
tent NN O O
procedure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
air NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pleural NN O O
tent NN O O
creation NN O O
after NN O O
upper NN O O
lobectomy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
procedure NN O O
is NN O O
achieved NN O O
before NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20508979)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CBT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
focuses NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
independence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-help NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
( NN O O
Wood NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
J NN O O
Child NN O O
Psychol NN O O
Psychiatry NN O O
50:224-234 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
related NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
intrusiveness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregiver NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
immediate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
23 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
WL NN O O
, NN O O
IT NN O O
parents NN O O
reported NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
involvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
private NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
routines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reductions NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
anxiety NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
CBT NN O O
may NN O O
yield NN O O
increased NN O O
independence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20513659)

Magnocellular NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
evoked NN O O
potential NN O O
delay NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
quotient NN O I-PAR
yields NN O O
a NN O O
neural NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
altered NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Everyone NN O O
has NN O O
autistic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
or NN O O
lesser NN O O
degree NN O O
, NN O O
encapsulated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Spectrum NN O I-OUT
Quotient NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
that NN O O
measures NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
an NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
intelligence NN O I-PAR
displays NN O O
traits NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
psychophysical NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
superior NN O O
local NN O O
processing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
or NN O O
ignored NN O O
global NN O O
and NN O O
contextual NN O O
processing 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
whether NN O O
low- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
high-scoring NN O I-INT
individuals NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
Spectrum NN O I-INT
Quotient NN O I-INT
differ NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
pathway NN O I-INT
integrity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifteen NN O I-PAR
low-scoring NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
high-scoring NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
derived NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
afferents NN O O
is NN O O
weaker NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
contrast NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
autistic NN O O
tendency NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
second-order NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
high NN O O
versus NN O O
low NN O O
scorers NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
parvocellular NN O O
pathway NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
contrast NN O O
stimulus NN O O
. NN O O

High-scoring NN O O
individuals NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
identifying NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
locally NN O O
salient NN O O
hierarchical NN O O
Navon NN O O
figures NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
cross-validated NN O O
discriminant NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
four NN O O
physiologically NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
psychophysically NN O O
derived NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
correctly NN O O
classified NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
scored NN O O
either NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
low NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Quotient NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
scoring NN O O
high NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Quotient NN O I-PAR
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
delay NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
visual/prestriate NN O O
cortical NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
input NN O O
diminishes NN O O
the NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
early NN O O
arrival NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
visual NN O O
cortex NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
predicting NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
accuracy NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
tendencies NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
perceptual NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
of NN O O
horizontal NN O O
connections NN O O
within NN O O
early NN O O
visual NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
presumably NN O O
parvocellular NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
form NN O O
processing NN O O
aberrations NN O O
is NN O O
much NN O O
later NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
visual NN O O
processing NN O O
measured NN O O
directly NN O O
here NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
processing NN O O
delay NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
perceptually NN O O
from NN O O
feedback NN O O
normally NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
magnocellular NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20519346)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
thyrotropin-stimulated NN O I-INT
radioiodine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
nodular NN O O
goiter NN O O
allows NN O O
major NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radiation NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
retained NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONTEXT NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Stimulation NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
TSH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhTSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O O
radioiodine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
131I NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
augments NN O O
goiter NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Observations NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
rhTSH NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
preconditioning NN O O
effect NN O O
beyond NN O O
increasing NN O O
thyroid NN O O
( NN O O
131 NN O O
) NN O O
I NN O O
uptake NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
GVR NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
absorbed NN O O
thyroid NN O O
dose NN O O
well NN O O
below NN O O
what NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
previously NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
setup NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22-83 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nontoxic NN O I-PAR
nodular NN O I-PAR
goiter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25-379 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
rhTSH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=60 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
thyroid NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
100 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
GVR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
rhTSH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
identical NN O O
( NN O O
35+/-3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
administered NN O O
131I-activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
170 NN O O
MBq NN O O
( NN O O
45-1269 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhTSH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
559 NN O O
MBq NN O O
( NN O O
245-3530 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
official NN O O
radiation NN O O
regulation NN O O
, NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rhTSH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
goiter-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
effectively NN O O
relieved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
myxedema NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
rhTSH NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
thyroid NN O I-OUT
131I NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
potentiates NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
131I-therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
131I-activity NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
attractive NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
minimizing NN O O
posttherapeutic NN O I-OUT
restrictions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
malignancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20522464)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
to NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
montelukast NN O I-INT
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Setting NN O O
Emergency NN O I-PAR
room/outpatient NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5-15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
montelukast NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
Modified NN O I-OUT
Pulmonary NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPIS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=9 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Children NN O O
received NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5-12 NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
> NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

MPIS NN O I-OUT
and 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
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
administering NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MPIS NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
9 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
montelukast NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MPIS NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
9 NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
33 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
( NN O O
63.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MPIS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noticed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Single NN O O
dose NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
montelukast NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inhaled NN O I-INT
bronchodilators NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
number NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
site NN O O
( NN O O
trial NN O O
ID NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00565955 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20526599)

Alvimopan NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ileus NN O O
after NN O O
bowel NN O O
resection NN O O
: NN O O
characterization NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
by NN O O
pooled NN O O
responder NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
pooled NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
responder NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
alvimopan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
peripherally NN O O
acting NN O O
mu-opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
PAM-OR NN O O
) NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ileus NN O O
after NN O O
bowel NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
laparotomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
opioid-based NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
alvimopan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
preoperatively NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
responders NN O O
and NN O O
numbers NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
( NN O O
NNT NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
POD NN O O
) NN O O
3-8 NN O O
for NN O O
GI-2 NN O O
recovery NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
bowel NN O O
movement NN O O
, NN O O
toleration NN O O
of NN O O
solid NN O O
food NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
order NN O O
( NN O O
DCO NN O O
) NN O O
written NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Alvimopan NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
GI-2 NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DCO NN O I-OUT
written NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
POD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
alvimopan NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
GI-2 NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
POD NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
alvimopan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
DCO NN O O
written NN O O
before NN O O
POD NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
alvimopan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
corresponding NN O O
NNTs NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
On NN O O
each NN O O
POD NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
alvimopan NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
GI-2 NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
DCO NN O O
written NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
NNTs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
analyses NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
characterization NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
alvimopan NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20530107)

Ventilator-delivered NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
manikin NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
bag NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
standard NN O O
methods NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
ventilator-delivered NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VDMV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
variations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
a NN O O
3-min NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
mask NN O O
ventilation NN O O
comparing NN O O
VDMV NN O I-INT
with NN O O
three NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
hand-delivered NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bag NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Laerdal NN O I-INT
self-inflating NN O I-INT
bag NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SIB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
anaesthetic NN O I-INT
bag NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
T-piece NN O I-INT
Neopuff NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
modified NN O I-PAR
resuscitation NN O I-PAR
manikin NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
3-min NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
gave NN O O
positive NN O O
pressure NN O O
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
acceptable NN O O
chest NN O O
wall NN O O
movement NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
inflations/min NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
pressures NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
targeted NN O O
or NN O O
set NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PIP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
18 NN O O
cm NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
end-expiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5 NN O O
cm NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
mode NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
sequenced NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
136 NN O O
inflations NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

VDMV NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
PIP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
PEEP NN O I-OUT
closest NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
targeted NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
measured NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
PIP NN O O
. NN O O

SIB NN O O
delivered NN O O
TV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
MV NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
twice NN O O
that NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
VDMV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Neopuff NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
During NN O O
3-min NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
mask NN O O
ventilation NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
manikin NN O O
, NN O O
VDMV NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
delivered NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SIB NN O O
produced NN O O
wide NN O O
variation NN O O
and NN O O
unacceptably NN O O
high NN O O
TV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
MV NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
experienced NN O O
hands NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20530957)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
inguinal NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
scrotal NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
subinguinal NN O I-INT
antegrade NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
varicocele NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
simple NN O O
varicocelectomy NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
whether NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
would NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Ivanissevich NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Tauber NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subinguinal NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Selection NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
subnormal NN O I-PAR
semen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sonographic NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
regurge NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
s. 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
groups NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
sperm NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
motility NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
13.73 NN O O
and NN O O
12.24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with 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

Hydrocele NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
which NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
Ivanissevich NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tauber NN O O
's NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
simple NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
disadvantage NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O I-OUT
branching NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
veins NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20535539)

Melatonin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo 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
conditions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
amenable NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
behaviour NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
strategies NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-two 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
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
behaviour NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
strategies NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
dysomnias NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg. NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Melatonin NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
night NN O O
wakenings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20536364)

Standard NN O O
versus NN O O
newer NN O O
antibacterial NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
largely NN O O
accepted NN O O
, NN O O
controversy NN O O
remains NN O O
regarding NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
has NN O O
any NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim 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
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
trimethoprim NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
included NN O O
170 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enrolled NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
85 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
85 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibiotics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exacerbation-free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
15.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
-9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
12.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.832 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hospital NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-9.7 NN O O
to NN O O
7.3 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-5.4 NN O O
to NN O O
10.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.549 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
exacerbation-free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25 NN O O
vs NN O O
79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-15 NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay 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
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS 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
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
ciprofloxacin NN O O
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
. NN O O

ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00791505 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20537413)

Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
peer NN O I-INT
mentoring NN O I-INT
and NN O O
student NN O I-INT
mentoring NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
35-week NN O O
fitness NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
applicability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
peer-mentored NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
mentors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
young NN O I-INT
qualified NN O I-INT
student NN O I-INT
mentors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
as NN O O
peer NN O O
mentors NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
30-week NN O O
preparation NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Later NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
68.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited 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
PM NN O O
or NN O O
SM NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O O
35-week NN O O
fitness NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
, NN O O
midterm- NN O O
and NN O O
post-training NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
completed NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
documented NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
retention NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
SM NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
post-test NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fitness NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
peer NN O O
mentor NN O O
model NN O O
is NN O O
applicable NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
mentored NN O O
by NN O O
young NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20538165)

A NN O O
first-in-man NN O O
, NN O O
randomized 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
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
delipidated NN O I-INT
high-density NN O I-INT
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
serial NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
high-density NN O I-INT
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
delipidated NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
are NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Low NN O O
HDL NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with 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

Plasma NN O O
selective NN O O
delipidation NN O O
converts NN O O
alphaHDL NN O O
to NN O O
prebeta-like NN O O
HDL NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
HDL NN O O
for NN O O
lipid NN O O
removal NN O O
from NN O O
arterial NN O O
plaques NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
ACS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=1 NN O I-PAR
nonobstructive NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
atheroma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
7 NN O O
weekly NN O O
HDL NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
delipidated NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
apheresis/reinfusions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
intravascular NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IVUS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
vessel NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
catheterization NN O O
for NN O O
ACS NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
apheresis/reinfusion NN O I-INT
session NN O O
. NN O O

2-D NN O O
gel NN O O
electrophoresis NN O O
of NN O O
delipidated NN O O
plasmas NN O O
established NN O O
successful NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
alphaHDL NN O O
to NN O O
prebeta-like NN O O
HDL NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O O
with NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
reinfusion NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
well NN O O
by NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prebeta-like NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alphaHDL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
delipidated NN O O
plasma NN O O
converted NN O O
from NN O O
5.6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
79.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
20.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IVUS NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
numeric NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
regression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
-12.18 NN O O
+/- NN O O
36.75 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delipidated NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
atheroma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2.80 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21.25 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 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
0.268 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
serial NN O O
autologous NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
HDL NN O I-INT
delipidated NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
are NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
adjunct NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
its NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20548043)

Cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
psychogenic NN O I-PAR
nonepileptic NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare 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
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
psychogenic NN O I-PAR
nonepileptic NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PNES NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Our 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
compared NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
with NN O O
SMC NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
PNES NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
plus NN O O
SMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
SMC NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
scheduled NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

PNES NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
by NN O O
video-EEG NN O I-PAR
telemetry NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
PNES/month NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
seizure NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
seizure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
CBT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
at NN O O
treatment NN O O
end NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
x NN O O
time NN O O
interaction NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
large NN O O
to NN O O
medium NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
seizure NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
3.125 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.086 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Adjustment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
standard NN O O
medical NN O O
care NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
seizure NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
PNES NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLASSIFICATION NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
Class NN O O
III NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
SMC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
SMC NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O O
seizure NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PNES NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O O
monthly NN O O
seizure NN O O
frequency NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
CBT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
; NN O O
SMC NN O O
alone NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20560900)

Dose-response NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sertindole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pharmacopsychometric NN O I-PAR
triangle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Renewed NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
dose-related NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sertindole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
sought NN O O
by NN O O
re-analysing NN O O
published NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
wellbeing NN O O
- NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
pharmacopsychometric NN O O
triangle NN O O
domains NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Selected NN O I-PAR
Positive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Negative NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PANSS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subscales NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Simpson-Angus NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
validity NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
[ NN O O
last NN O O
observation NN O O
carried NN O O
forward NN O O
( NN O O
LOCF NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
at NN O O
endpoint NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
valid NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PANSS NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
psychotic NN O O
subscale NN O O
showed NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
sertindole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evident NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
absent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
sertindole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
PANSS NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
depression NN O O
subscale NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
proxy NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
sertindole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
re-analysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
sertindole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
profile NN O O
for NN O O
bipolar NN O O
states NN O O
emerged NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20562617)

Hematologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
psychosocial NN O I-PAR
experiences NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
implanted NN O I-INT
long-term NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
self-management NN O O
versus NN O O
professionally NN O O
controlled NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
catheter-related NN O O
infections NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
earlier NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheter NN O O
( NN O O
CVC NN O O
) NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
hematologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
article NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
experiences NN O O
with NN O O
CVC NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
professionally NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
CVC NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tunneled NN O I-PAR
CVCs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
trained NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
CVC NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
CVC NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
nurses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighteen NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
semistructured NN O O
interviews NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
experiences NN O O
with NN O O
CVCs NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Methods NN O O
of NN O O
CVC NN O O
care NN O O
have NN O O
different NN O O
influences NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
or NN O O
outpatients NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
was NN O O
viewed NN O O
as NN O O
important NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
port NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
cure NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
patients NN O O
constantly NN O O
fear NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
self-care NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
independence NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
health NN O O
professionals NN O O
and NN O O
supported NN O O
perceived NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheters NN O O
cause NN O O
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
including NN O O
altered NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
stigmatized NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
experience NN O O
increased NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
self-control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independence NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
individually NN O O
supervised NN O O
and NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
CVC NN O I-INT
self-management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assuming NN O O
ownership NN O O
of NN O O
CVC NN O O
care NN O O
can NN O O
encourage NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
feel NN O O
less NN O O
inhibited NN O O
about NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
socialization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
FOR NN O O
PRACTICE NN O O
Placement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tunneled NN O O
CVC NN O O
should NN O O
engage NN O O
nurses NN O O
to NN O O
organize NN O O
individualized NN O O
structured NN O O
and NN O O
supervised NN O O
patient NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

Stigma NN O O
originating NN O O
from NN O O
CVCs NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
carefully NN O O
considered NN O O
by NN O O
health NN O O
professionals NN O O
when NN O O
maintaining NN O O
CVC NN O O
insertion NN O O
for NN O O
longer NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheters NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
removed NN O O
whenever NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
risks NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
catheter NN O O
's NN O O
functional NN O O
necessity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20569725)

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
vernakalant NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vernakalant NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
atrial-selective NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
converting NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
lasting NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=45 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

NCT00281554 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
conversion NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
SR NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
10-minute NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vernakalant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
If NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
15-minute NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
present NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
10-minute NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
vernakalant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
recent-onset NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-INT
lasting NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
=7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
converted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
start NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Safety NN O I-INT
evaluations NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
telemetry NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Holter NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
12-lead NN O I-OUT
electrocardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
236 NN O I-PAR
hemodynamically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
intravenous NN O O
vernakalant NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
them NN O O
, NN O O
167 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
recent-onset NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Vernakalant NN O O
rapidly NN O O
converted NN O O
recent-onset NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
SR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
50.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
minutes NN O O
among NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
dysgeusia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sneezing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
paresthesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
vernakalant NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
transient NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
resolved NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
discontinued NN O O
vernakalant NN O O
treatment NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
AEs NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
torsades NN O I-OUT
de NN O I-OUT
pointes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vernakalant NN O O
rapidly NN O O
converted NN O O
recent-onset NN O O
AF NN O O
to NN O O
SR NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
alternative NN O O
for NN O O
reestablishing NN O O
SR NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent-onset NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20569998)

Losartan NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
oncologic NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Elderly NN O I-PAR
neoplastic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O O
may NN O O
show NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperuricemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
which NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
with NN O O
uricosuric NN O I-INT
properties NN O O
vs. NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
neoplastic NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
30-day NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BUN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
vs. NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h. NN O O
Thirty NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
azotemia NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.0 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.8 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
serum NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.49 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
urinary NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.0 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
GFR NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
-8 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SBP NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
3.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
losartan NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperuricemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
chemotherapeutic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20576092)

Early NN O O
combination NN O O
disease-modifying NN O O
antirheumatic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tight NN O O
disease NN O O
control NN O O
improve NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
radiologic NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
11-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Finnish NN O O
Rheumatoid NN O O
Arthritis NN O O
Combination NN O O
Therapy NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Early NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
retard NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
radiologic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O O
that NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-INT
disease-modifying NN O I-INT
antirheumatic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMARDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-INT
DMARD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
199 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
initially NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydroxychloroquine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FIN-RACo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
DMARD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
initially NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SINGLE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
drug-treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
became NN O O
unrestricted NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
still NN O O
targeted NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
radiographs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hands NN O O
and NN O O
feet NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Larsen NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
radiographs NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
joints NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty-five NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FIN-RACo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
65 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SINGLE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
radiographs NN O O
of NN O O
hands NN O O
and NN O O
feet NN O O
available NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
Larsen NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FIN-RACo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
to NN O O
33 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SINGLE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
to NN O O
94 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
to NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FIN-RACo NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
SINGLE NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
erosive NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
large NN O O
joints NN O O
at NN O O
11 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Targeting NN O O
to NN O O
remission NN O O
with NN O O
tight NN O O
clinical NN O O
controls NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O O
radiologic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
initially NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
DMARDs NN O I-INT
have NN O O
less NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
radiologic NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
do NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
initially NN O O
with NN O O
DMARD NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN18445519 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20584070)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
renoprotection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Blocking NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
or NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
protects NN O O
against NN O O
renal NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
proteinuria NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
liver-type NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid-binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
L-FABP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
endothelin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
130/85 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
L-FABP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
L-FABP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
telmisartan NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
does NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
occurs NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mechanism NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
distinct NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
when NN O O
other NN O O
dosages NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20590478)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
St. NN O O
John NN O O
's NN O O
wort NN O O
for NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
St. NN O O
John NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
wort NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SJW NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
herbal NN O O
supplement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predominant NN O O
mechanism NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
accounting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
SJW NN O I-INT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
are NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
SJW NN O I-INT
for NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
three-arm NN O O
, NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
SJW NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Self-reported NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
biochemically NN O O
confirmed NN O O
with NN O O
expired NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
monoxide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
37.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.6 NN O I-PAR
cigarettes NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
12.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
dropout NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
By NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis 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
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
between NN O O
SJW NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

SJW NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
attenuate NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
abstinent NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
by NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
among NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
took NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
side-effects NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
with NN O O
SJW NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
SJW NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
smoking NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
SJW NN O O
has NN O O
little NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20592840)

Field NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
inactivated NN O I-OUT
bivalent NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
multi-site NN O I-PAR
swine NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
outbreak NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
porcine NN O I-PAR
circovirus NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Swine NN O O
influenza NN O O
( NN O O
SI NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
disease NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
swine NN O O
industry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vaccination NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
SI NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
under NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
field NN O O
efficacy NN O O
is NN O O
scarce 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O I-INT
inactivated NN O I-INT
bivalent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H1N1/H3N2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
natural NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
field NN O I-INT
SI NN O I-INT
variant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
accomplish NN O O
our NN O O
goal NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
finisher NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-site NN O I-PAR
swine NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
Ontario NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
herd NN O O
experienced NN O O
an NN O O
outbreak NN O O
of NN O O
porcine NN O O
circovirus NN O O
associated NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
PCVAD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serological NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
SI NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
pig NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
pigs NN O O
in NN O O
Cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
numerically NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
pigs NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
pigs NN O O
in NN O O
Cohort NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Vaccination NN O I-INT
against NN O O
swine NN O O
influenza NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
herd NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
outbreak NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PCVAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
questionable NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20594308)

Non-pharmacological NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Non-pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
NPT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
generalized NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GOA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
currently NN O O
existing NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
programs NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
on NN O O
daily NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GOA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
aim NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
include NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GOA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
intervention NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-INT
self-management NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
multi-disciplinary NN O I-INT
team NN O I-INT
( NN O O
occupational NN O O
therapist NN O O
, NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
, NN O O
dietician NN O O
and NN O O
specialized NN O O
nurse NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
active NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
specialized NN O O
nurse NN O O
and NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
therapies NN O O
last NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
study NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Illness NN O I-OUT
cognitions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
responder NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
assessments NN O O
are NN O O
performed NN O O
directly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
different NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GOA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR2137 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20598044)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
and NN O O
antagonists NN O I-INT
in NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproduction NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Gonadotropin-releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
( NN O O
GnRH NN O O
) NN O O
antagonists NN O O
have NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
ovarian NN O O
hyper NN O O
stimulation NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
OHSS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
OHSS NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
hyperstimulation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
for NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproduction NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cetrorelix NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
buserelin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protocols NN O O
during NN O O
COH NN O O
of NN O O
112 NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
assisted NN O I-PAR
reproduction NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Basal NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
stimulation NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OHSS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OHSS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Regarding NN O O
chemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retrieved NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
OHSS NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antagonist NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Follicle NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, 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
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mature NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gonadotropin NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
chorionic NN O I-OUT
gonadotropin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HCG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abortion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
GnRH NN O O
antagonists NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
agonists NN O O
for NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproduction NN O O
cycles NN O O
in NN O O
PCOS NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

GnRH NN O O
antagonists NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
OHSS NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20603436)

Comorbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cetuximab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
NCIC NN O O
CTG NN O O
CO.17 NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cetuximab NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
best NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
the NN O O
interplay NN O O
between NN O O
comorbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
ACRC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
cetuximab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACRC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Charlson NN O I-OUT
Comorbidity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
comorbidity NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
conditions NN O O
weighted NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

CCI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
comorbidities NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
MVA NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
covariates NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
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 I-OUT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
in NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MVA NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.92 NN O O
for NN O O
PS NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
versus NN O O
PS NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.005 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
comorbidity NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
non-neutropenic NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
restricting NN O I-INT
cetuximab NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
justified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20605942)

Types NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
that NN O O
predict NN O O
language NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
short-term NN O O
predictive NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
5 NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
and NN O O
later NN O O
spoken NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
for NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Parent NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
utterances NN O I-INT
were NN O O
coded NN O O
from NN O O
videotapes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
parent-child NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
using NN O O
interval NN O I-INT
and NN O O
event-based NN O I-INT
coding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
MacArthur NN O O
Communicative NN O O
Development NN O O
Inventories NN O O
( NN O O
L. NN O O
Fenson NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
spoken NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Parent NN O O
follow-in NN O O
comments NN O O
and NN O O
follow-in NN O O
directives NN O O
predicted NN O O
spoken NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
engagement NN O O
. NN O O

Parent NN O I-OUT
expansions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
spoken NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
talkativeness NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
entered NN O O
together NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
metrics NN O O
that NN O O
represented NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
focus NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
responding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
acts NN O O
both NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
unique NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
spoken NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Time NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
Time NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Parent NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
utterances NN O I-INT
that NN O O
follow NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
current NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
or NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
child NN O O
verbal NN O O
communication NN O O
acts NN O O
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
vocabulary NN O O
acquisition NN O O
by NN O O
mitigating NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
use NN O O
attention-following NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
word-learning NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20615885)

Human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
genotypes NN O O
in NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
large NN O O
case NN O O
series NN O O
describing NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
papillomavirus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
rigorously NN O O
reviewed NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
intraepithelial NN O I-PAR
neoplasia NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIN3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
precancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Atypical NN O O
Squamous NN O O
Cells NN O O
of NN O O
Undetermined NN O O
Significance NN O O
( NN O O
ASCUS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Low-Grade NN O O
Squamous NN O O
Intraepithelial NN O O
Lesion NN O O
( NN O O
LSIL NN O O
) NN O O
Triage NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
ALTS NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
management NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
equivocal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASCUS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LSIL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Pap NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
608 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
histopathologic NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CIN3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PCR-based NN O I-INT
HPV NN O I-INT
genotyping NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
genotyping NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
ranked NN O O
hierarchically NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
: NN O O
HPV16 NN O O
> NN O O
other NN O O
carcinogenic NN O O
HPV NN O O
> NN O O
noncarcinogenic NN O O
HPV NN O O
> NN O O
PCR NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
608 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CIN3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
601 NN O O
( NN O O
98.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
HPV NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
95.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
carcinogenic NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HPV16 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
59.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
HPV31 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
HPV52 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
HPV51 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HPV18 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
HPV NN O O
genotypes NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

Younger NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consensus NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
confirmation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiparity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
testing NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
HPV16-positive NN O I-OUT
CIN3 NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
than NN O O
CIN3 NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
other NN O O
carcinogenic NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
23.5 NN O O
years NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
, NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
HPV16-positive NN O I-OUT
CIN3 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
older NN O O
women NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
consensus NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
some NN O O
disagreement NN O O
between NN O O
reviewers NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
versus NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
commonly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
multiparous NN O O
women NN O O
compared NN O O
CIN3 NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
other NN O O
carcinogenic NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
genotypes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPACT NN O O
In NN O O
populations NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
against NN O O
HPV16 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HPV18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
CIN3 NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
ASCUS NN O O
and NN O O
LSIL NN O O
cytology NN O O
should NN O O
shift NN O O
to NN O O
older NN O O
ages NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
permitting NN O O
later NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20616786)

Physician-pharmacist NN O I-INT
cooperation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
cooperation NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
promoting NN O O
better NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
appropriate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
beneficial NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40-79 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
140-179 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
90-99 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Equal NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
physician-pharmacist NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
SBP/DBP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
2.9/3.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
for NN O O
SBP NN O O
and NN O O
DBP NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
decline NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
-5.5 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
was NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
47 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
0.40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
dosage NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stop NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
cooperation NN O O
between NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
promoting NN O O
better NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
appropriate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medications NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
beneficial NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20620365)

Translucency NN O O
of NN O O
zirconia NN O I-PAR
copings NN O I-PAR
made NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
CAD/CAM NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

STATEMENT NN O O
OF NN O O
PROBLEM NN O O
Zirconia NN O I-PAR
cores NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
translucent NN O O
than NN O O
glass NN O O
, NN O O
lithium NN O O
disilicate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
alumina NN O O
cores NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
could NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
esthetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
choices NN O O
made NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
zirconia-based NN O O
restorations NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
translucency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zirconia NN O I-INT
copings NN O I-INT
for NN O O
single NN O I-PAR
crowns NN O I-PAR
fabricated NN O O
using NN O O
different NN O O
CAD/CAM NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
disilicate NN O I-INT
glass NN O I-INT
ceramic NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
impressions NN O O
made NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
stainless NN O O
steel NN O O
complete-crown NN O O
master NN O O
die NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
stone NN O I-PAR
cast NN O I-PAR
replicas NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fabricated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
numbered NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
distributed NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
ceramic NN O I-PAR
ZrO NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
CAD/CAM NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Lava NN O I-PAR
Frame NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IPS NN O I-PAR
e.max NN O I-PAR
ZirCAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
VITA NN O I-PAR
YZ NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Procera NN O I-PAR
AllZircon NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Digizon NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
DC NN O I-PAR
Zircon NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Cercon NN O I-PAR
Base NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lithium NN O I-PAR
disilicate NN O I-PAR
glass-ceramic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IPS NN O I-PAR
e.max NN O I-PAR
Press NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
simple NN O I-PAR
computer-generated NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
each NN O O
die NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
manufacturer NN O O
's NN O O
authorized NN O O
milling NN O O
centers NN O O
supplied NN O O
5 NN O O
copings NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
without NN O O
applying NN O O
any NN O O
dying NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ceramic NN O O
base NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
copings NN O O
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
40-mum NN O O
cement NN O O
layer NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
thicknesses NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
system NN O O
specifications NN O O
. NN O O

Translucency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
transmission NN O O
method NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
digital NN O O
photoradiometer NN O O
mounted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dark NN O O
chamber NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
light NN O O
source NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
150-W NN O O
halogen NN O O
lamp NN O O
beam NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
specimen NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
obtained NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
1-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Bonferroni NN O O
multiple NN O O
comparison NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
alpha=.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
ZrO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
copings NN O O
, NN O O
Lava NN O O
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
thick NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
translucency NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
as NN O O
light NN O O
flow NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
3.572 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
018 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
lx NN O O
and NN O O
3.181 NN O O
+ NN O O
or NN O O
- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
lx NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
values NN O O
represent NN O O
71.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
63.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glass-ceramic NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
4.98 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
lx NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
All NN O O
ZrO NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
copings NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
different NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
light NN O O
transmission NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
Lava NN O O
specimens NN O O
showing NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Translucency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zirconia NN O I-PAR
copings NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lithium NN O O
disilicate NN O O
glass-ceramic NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20624257)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
iron-deficient NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin-? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHuEPO-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
bilateral NN O O
total NN O O
knee NN O O
replacement NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
( NN O O
TKRA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
iron-deficient NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
iron-deficient NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
IE NN O O
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
hr NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rHuEPO-? NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
[ NN O O
Hb NN O O
] NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
70-80 NN O O
g/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
were NN O O
transfused NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
postoperative NN O O
Hb NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
between NN O O
60 NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
g/L NN O O
or NN O O
betweeen NN O O
50 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
g/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Perioperative NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RBCs NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidences NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
documented NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postoperation NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
IE NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
IE NN O O
( NN O O
20.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
53.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
markedly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
IE NN O O
( NN O O
0.2?0.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.8?0.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.005 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
IE NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
rHuEPO-? NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
TKRA NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
iron-deficient NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20630604)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
explicit NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Japanese NN O I-INT
Verbal NN O I-INT
Learning NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
explicit NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Japanese NN O I-INT
Verbal NN O I-INT
Learning NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
reveal NN O O
that NN O O
explicit NN O O
instruction NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
more NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
semantic NN O O
clustering NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
explicit NN O O
and NN O O
direct NN O O
teaching NN O O
facilitates NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
learning NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20633669)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
advertisement NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Oslo NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
109 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PE+SE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PRIMARY NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
16-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
PE+SE NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
SF-36 NN O O
subscales NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
-0.26 NN O O
( NN O O
0.11 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
-0.35 NN O O
( NN O O
0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-0.30 NN O O
( NN O O
0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
-0.29 NN O O
( NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
-0.48 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-0.47 NN O O
( NN O O
-0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.93 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
both NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
attended NN O O
the NN O O
three-session NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
performed NN O O
?16 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
12-week NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O O
between NN O I-INT
PE+SE NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adding NN O I-INT
SE NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
possible NN O O
benefit NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
were NN O O
wide NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
NCT00319423 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20635521)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
developmental NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
on NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
no-training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
verbal NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
3-day NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
music NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
watched NN O O
a NN O O
music NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
songs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
those NN O O
in NN O O
speech NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
watched NN O O
a NN O O
speech NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
stories NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pictures NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
' NN O O
verbal NN O O
production NN O O
including NN O O
semantics NN O O
, NN O O
phonology NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prosody NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
experimenter NN O O
designed NN O O
verbal NN O O
production NN O O
evaluation NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
music NN O I-INT
and NN O O
speech NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
pre NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
posttest NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
functioning NN O O
participants NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
music NN O O
or NN O O
speech NN O O
training NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
functioning NN O O
participants NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
music NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O O
speech NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
perceive NN O O
important NN O O
linguistic NN O O
information NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
music NN O O
stimuli NN O O
organized NN O O
by NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
pattern NN O O
perception NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
produce NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
speech NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20636866)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
on NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reflectance NN O O
spectrophotometry NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Radiotherapy NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
severe NN O O
skin NN O O
changes NN O O
that NN O O
significantly NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
skin NN O O
care NN O O
instructions NN O O
and NN O O
various NN O O
topical NN O O
agents NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O O
skin NN O O
reactions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
treatments NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
irradiated NN O O
skin NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
used NN O O
as NN O O
supportive NN O O
care NN O O
to NN O O
minimise NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
an NN O O
instrumental NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
breast-conserving NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
non-treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
and NN O O
monitored NN O O
over NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
by NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
instrumental NN O O
reflectance NN O O
spectrophotometry NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

KEY NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
spectrophotometric NN O O
reflectance NN O O
method NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-treated NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
alterations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
and NN O O
sixth NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
From NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
radio-induced NN O O
skin NN O O
disease NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
extent NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
non-treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20637249)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
topiramate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
that NN O O
forms NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
spectrum NN O O
of NN O O
related NN O O
disorders NN O O
referred NN O O
to NN O O
as NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialty NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
presented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
chief NN O O
complaint NN O O
of NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
topiramate+risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo+risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
between NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
weighting NN O O
above NN O O
40 NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Measure NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
protocols NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity/noncompliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
risperidone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20638818)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
s-NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
anticancer NN O O
drugs NN O O
can NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
proliferative NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
gastrectomy NN O O
in NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
classed NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
F NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cis-diamminedichloroplatinum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
FC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
5-FU+CDDP NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
reviewed NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
biopsy NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
tissue NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
operation NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TUNEL NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
anti-MIB-1 NN O O
antibody NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proliferative NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
apoptotic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
MIB-1 NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
biopsy NN O O
tissue NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AI NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Group NN O O
FC 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
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MI NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Group NN O I-OUT
FC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
s-NAC NN O I-INT
operation NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
proliferative NN O I-OUT
potency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Group NN O O
FC NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
proliferative NN O I-OUT
potency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cells NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2064495)

Niacin NN O I-INT
revisited NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
wax-matrix NN O I-INT
sustained-release NN O I-INT
niacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
low-density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
75th NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
95th NN O I-PAR
percentiles NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Enduracin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
employs NN O O
a NN O O
wax-matrix NN O O
vehicle NN O O
for NN O O
sustained NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
2000 NN O O
, NN O O
1500 NN O O
, NN O O
1250 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diet-treated NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
to NN O O
determine NN O O
side-effect NN O O
profile NN O O
and NN O O
optimal NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
given NN O O
2000 NN O O
and NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-26 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-19.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol-high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-20.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
-19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
diet- NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Smaller NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O O
chemistry NN O O
monitoring NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
strongly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
enzymes NN O O
for NN O O
niacin-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improved NN O O
side-effect NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
wax-matrix NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
niacin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
particularly NN O O
notable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
medication NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20646286)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
stable NN O I-INT
return-to-work NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-acute NN O O
, NN O O
non-specific NN O O
spinal NN O O
pain NN O O
: NN O O
low NN O O
total NN O O
prior NN O O
sick-listing NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
self NN O O
prediction NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
two-year NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Non-specific NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
comprising NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
disorders NN O O
in NN O O
long-term NN O O
sick-listing NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
2000-2004 NN O O
, NN O O
125 NN O I-PAR
Swedish NN O I-PAR
primary-care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-acute NN O I-PAR
NSP NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
full-time NN O I-PAR
sick-listed NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks-2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
re-assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
which NN O O
baseline NN O O
variables NN O O
predict NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
: NN O O
objective NN O O
variables NN O O
from NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
, NN O O
subjective NN O O
and/or NN O O
treatment NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Stable NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Stable NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
above-mentioned NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
variables NN O O
in NN O O
multiple-logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
per NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
factors NN O O
from NN O O
univariate NN O O
analyzes NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
p-value NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
most NN O O
.10 NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
non-significant NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
stepwise NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
models NN O O
comprising NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
factors NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
comparatively NN O O
few NN O O
cases NN O O
made NN O O
it NN O O
risky NN O O
to NN O O
associate NN O O
certain NN O O
predictors NN O O
with NN O O
certain NN O O
time-points NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
finally NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
represented NN O O
in NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
OR 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

RESULTS NN O O
Three NN O O
variables NN O O
qualified NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
represented NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
: NN O O
Low NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
sick-listing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
diagnoses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O I-OUT
predictor NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
2 NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
4.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.9-12.3 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.6-8.7 NN O O
] NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
High NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
own NN O O
belief NN O O
in NN O O
return-to-work NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
5.2 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.5-17.5 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
Young NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
max NN O O
44 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
strongest NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
3.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.3-9.1 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
primary-care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-acute NN O I-PAR
NSP NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
strong NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
stable NN O I-INT
return-to-work NN O I-INT
were NN O O
2 NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
Low NN O O
total NN O O
prior NN O O
sick-listing NN O O
and NN O O
Young NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
subjective NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
High NN O O
self-prediction NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O O
variables NN O O
from NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
non-predictors NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
Young NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
insufficiently NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
should NN O O
widen NN O O
knowledge NN O O
within NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20647483)

Letter NN O O
by NN O O
Begg NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
regarding NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20657150)

Tensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lithium-disilicate NN O I-INT
pressed NN O I-INT
glass NN O I-INT
ceramic NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
different NN O O
surface NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
desensitizer NN O O
, NN O O
disinfectant NN O O
, NN O O
saliva NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hydrogen NN O O
peroxide NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
tensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
adhesive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ceramic NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
between NN O O
adhesive NN O O
and NN O O
dentin NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
7x3 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
pressed NN O I-PAR
ceramic NN O I-PAR
discs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
IPS NN O I-PAR
e.max NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fabricated NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
dentin NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
desensitizer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
disinfectant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
saliva NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Representative NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
fractured NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
SEM NN O O
( NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
electron NN O I-INT
microscopy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
saliva NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hydrogen NN O O
peroxide 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

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
dentin NN O O
surface NN O O
treatment 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

Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
saliva NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hydrogen NN O O
peroxide NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
tensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
dentin NN O O
and NN O O
ceramic NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20673485)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
for NN O O
limited-stage NN O O
small NN O O
cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
report NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Controversies NN O O
exists NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
volumes NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
thoracic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
concerned NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multimodality NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
limited-stage NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
toxicity NN O O
profiles NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
different NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
volumes NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
LSCLC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
2 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
TRT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
post- NN O O
or NN O O
pre-chemotherapy NN O O
tumor NN O O
extent NN O O
( NN O O
GTV-T NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
study NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
CTV-N NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
nodal NN O O
drainage NN O O
area NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
Gy/30 NN O I-INT
Fx/19 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
TRT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
concurrently NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
EP NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
3 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
EP NN O I-INT
consolidation NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
32.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
28.2 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
isolated NN O O
nodal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
were NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
2.6 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
INF NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O O
supraclavicular NN O O
fossa NN O O
. NN O O

Medastinal NN O I-OUT
N3 NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
INF NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
14.13 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.47-136.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
56.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
0-I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
II-III NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
97.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
22.1 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
26.9 NN O O
months NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
3-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
77.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
44.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
37.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
56.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
irradiant NN O O
the NN O O
post-chemotherapy NN O O
tumor NN O O
extent NN O O
( NN O O
GTV-T NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
nodal NN O O
drainage NN O O
area NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
while NN O O
radiation NN O O
toxicity NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
met NN O O
designed NN O O
requirements NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
before NN O O
final NN O O
conclusions NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20673857)

Clinical NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
Proprioceptive NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O I-INT
Facilitation NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
in NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
latent NN O I-PAR
myofascial NN O I-PAR
trigger NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
Proprioceptive NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O I-INT
Facilitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PNF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
Myofascial NN O I-INT
Trigger NN O I-INT
Point NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTrP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
PNF NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
assessor-blind NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
mixed-model NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
physically NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tight NN O I-PAR
hamstrings NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
latent NN O I-PAR
MTrP NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
muscles NN O I-PAR
innervated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lumbosacral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sciatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
tibial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
peroneal NN O I-PAR
nerves NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Knee NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stretch NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
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
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
occurred NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
II NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
in NN O O
ROM NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
all NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
= NN O O
0.9-1.0 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
stretching NN O O
groups 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
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
immediate NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
MTrP NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
PNF NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physically NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
latent NN O O
MTrPs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20674829)

Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
azelastine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
delivery NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
proof-of-concept NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
commercial NN O O
azelastine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
and NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
an NN O O
azelastine-fluticasone NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-delivery NN O O
device NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
azelastine NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
and NN O O
fluticasone NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
14-day NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
Texas NN O O
mountain NN O O
cedar NN O O
season NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
5-day NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
lead-in NN O O
, NN O O
610 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
azelastine NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
azelastine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluticasone NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
nostril NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
runny NN O I-OUT
nose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
itchy NN O I-OUT
nose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sneezing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
3 NN O O
active NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TNSS NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
by NN O O
28.4 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
azelastine-fluticasone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20.4 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16.4 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
azelastine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
azelastine-fluticasone NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
provided NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TNSS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
additive NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00660517 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2067508)

Tracheal NN O O
soiling NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O O
during NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
of NN O O
two NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
tubes NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
Classes NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Mallinckrodt NN O I-INT
Hi-Lo-Evac NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Portex NN O I-INT
blue NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
soiling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
airways NN O O
during NN O O
intranasal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Hi-Lo-Evac NN O O
tube NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
pack NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
Portex NN O O
tube NN O O
with NN O O
pharyngeal NN O O
pack NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
Hi-Lo-Evac NN O O
tube NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
pack NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
airways NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
Hi-Lo-Evac NN O O
tube NN O O
is NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
facility NN O O
of NN O O
subglottic NN O O
aspiration NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Hi-Lo-Evac NN O O
tube NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
intranasal NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pharyngeal NN O O
pack NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20680681)

Anti-angiogenic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF-A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
VEGFR2 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
key NN O O
factors NN O O
mediating NN O O
neo-vascularization NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
coexpressed NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Sex NN O O
steroids NN O O
may NN O O
stimulate NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
ER NN O O
) NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
VEGF NN O O
and NN O O
VEGFR2 NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
VEGF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VEGFR2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
tissue NN O O
microarray NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
191 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2-4 NN O I-PAR
N0-1 NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
epirubicin NN O O
versus NN O O
epirubicin NN O O
plus NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Epirubicin NN O O
alone NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
VEGF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
prognostic NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
epirubicin NN O O
alone NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
epirubicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
interaction NN O O
test NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

VEGFR2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
at NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
histology NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Decrease NN O O
in NN O O
VEGFR2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate 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

The NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
key NN O I-OUT
angiogenic NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
synergism NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20683712)

Sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
vitamin NN O I-PAR
D-deficient NN O I-PAR
non-western NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
deficiency NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
non-western NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
800 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
or NN O O
100,000 NN O O
IU/3 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
advised NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
advised NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
in NN O O
improving NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
lowering NN O O
parathyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
deficiency NN O O
( NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O O
D NN O O
[ NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
] NN O O
< NN O O
25 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
non-western NN O O
immigrants NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O I-INT
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
100,000 NN O I-INT
IU/3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
similar NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
serum NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
and NN O O
parathyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
( NN O O
PTH NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Non-western NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
232 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
nmol/l NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
IU NN O O
or NN O O
100,000 NN O O
IU/3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
March-September NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
multilevel NN O O
regression NN O O
modelling NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
211 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
22.5 NN O O
? NN O O
11.1 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
53 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
with NN O O
800 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
50.5 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
with NN O O
100,000 NN O O
IU/3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
29.1 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
with NN O O
advised NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
sunshine NN O I-INT
p NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
advised NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
advised NN O I-INT
sunlight NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
treating NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
deficiency NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
non-western NN O I-PAR
immigrants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2068469)

Aztreonam NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
short-term NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
biliary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Short-term NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
aztreonam NN O I-INT
or NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
gentamicin NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
samples NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
abdominal NN O O
cavity NN O O
for NN O O
bacteriologic NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
culture NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
aztreonam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
gentamicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Staphylococcus NN O I-OUT
epidermidis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Enterobacter NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
aztreonam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
Escherichia NN O O
coli NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
isolates NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Pseudomonas NN O O
aeruginosa NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
isolates NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Enterobacter NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Klebsiella NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Enterococcus NN O I-OUT
faecalis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Aeromonas NN O I-OUT
hydrophila NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
aztreonam NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
infections NN O O
following NN O O
biliary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20694273)

Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
multinational NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
edoxaban NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
factor NN O I-INT
Xa NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
edoxaban NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-valvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multinational NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1,146 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
risk 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
edoxaban NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
or NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
dose-adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
international NN O O
normalised NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
2.0-3.0 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
double-blind NN O O
to NN O O
edoxaban NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
open-label NN O O
to NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
non-major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
64.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
warfarin-na?ve NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Whereas NN O O
major NN O O
plus NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O I-OUT
non-major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
edoxaban NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
( NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.029 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
edoxaban NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
edoxaban NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30-mg NN O O
bid NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
60-mg NN O O
qd NN O O
group 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 I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O I-INT
edoxaban NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
edoxaban NN O I-INT
bid NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
three-month NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
edoxaban NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
or NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
are NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20694508)

Anxiety NN O O
disorders NN O O
in NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
youth NN O O
: NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
symptoms NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
( NN O O
Social NN O O
Responsiveness NN O O
Scale-Parent NN O O
( NN O O
SRS-P NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
coded NN O O
in-session NN O O
behavior NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
typically-developing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
anxiety-disordered NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
symptomology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
per NN O O
SRS-P NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
from NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FCBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICBT NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
OR NN O I-INT
= NN O O
8.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Coded NN O O
behavior NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
components NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptom NN O O
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At-home NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
FCBT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O O
involvement NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Though NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FCBT NN O I-OUT
outperformed NN O I-INT
ICBT NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
children NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
potentially NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
at-home NN O O
exposures NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
child NN O O
involvement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
FCBT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20697791)

Promoting NN O O
imitation 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 I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
reciprocal NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
video NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
imitate NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
salient NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
imitation NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
prerequisite NN O O
skill NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
multiple NN O O
baseline NN O O
design NN O O
across NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
reciprocal NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
were NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
promoting NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
all NN O O
six NN O O
participants NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
imitation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
varying NN O O
degrees NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
imitation NN O O
maintained NN O O
and NN O O
generalized NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20712132)

Glycerol NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
abacterial NN O I-OUT
otitis NN O I-OUT
externa NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Inflammations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
external NN O O
auditory NN O O
canal NN O O
number NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
occurring NN O O
ear-nose-throat NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
local NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
substances NN O O
from NN O O
various NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
ingredients NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
combinations NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
single-agent NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

antibiotics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
or NN O O
analgesics NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
otitis NN O O
externa NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
measures NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
described NN O O
here NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
abacterial NN O I-OUT
otitis NN O I-OUT
externa NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CAS NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
56-81-5 NN O O
, NN O O
lidocaine-HCl NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
73-78-9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
three-arm NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
105 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
abacterial NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
externa NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glycerol NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
glycerol NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
typical NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
earache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
otorrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hearing NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clogged NN O I-OUT
ear NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
Visit NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
Day NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
examination NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
therapy NN O O
groups NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
exhibited NN O O
definite NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
improvement NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
glycerol NN O O
eardrops NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline-adjusted NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
yielded NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
10.95 NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
27.4 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
survey NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
eardrops NN O O
containing NN O O
only NN O O
glycerol NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
eardrops NN O O
containing NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O O
15.71 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
23.16 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
investigators NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
glycerol NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
widely NN O O
spread NN O O
clinical NN O O
picture NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
abacterial NN O O
otitis NN O O
externa NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
advantage NN O O
regarding NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
glycerol NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
adequately NN O O
powered NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20726255)

[ NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
poliomyelitis NN O I-INT
attenuated NN O I-INT
live NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
human NN O O
diploid NN O O
cell NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Poliomyelitis NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Human NN O O
Diploid NN O O
Cell NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=2 NN O I-PAR
month-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
random NN O O
, NN O O
blind NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
1200 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2-5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Jiangsu NN O I-PAR
province NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
OPV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
antibody NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
by NN O O
neutralization NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OPV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
vaccination NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OPV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
98.28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
99.45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
95.71 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
GMTs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
susceptible NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
1:1243.72 NN O O
, NN O O
1:234.38 NN O O
and NN O O
1:273.10 NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
OPV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
=2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20726258)

[ NN O I-OUT
Effect NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
non-and-low NN O O
response NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
revaccinated NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
booster NN O I-OUT
immunization NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
non-and-low NN O O
response NN O O
children NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
HepB NN O O
immunization NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Non-and-low NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HepB NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Guangzhou NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Beijing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Zhejiang NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
boosted NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HepB NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
GMC NN O O
of NN O O
non-and-low NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
booster NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
booster NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
dose NN O O
booster NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
18.66 NN O O
mIUml NN O O
, NN O O
88.82 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
178.24 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
non-responders NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
20.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
103 NN O I-PAR
non-and-low NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
were NN O O
61.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
statistical NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
= NN O O
14.13 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
GMC NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
revaccination NN O I-INT
with NN O O
four NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
HepB NN O O
, NN O O
included NN O O
5 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-Y NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-Y NN O I-INT
, NN O O
l0 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-CHO NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-HY NN O I-INT
were NN O O
168.8 NN O O
mJU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
174.7 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
184.9 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
182.9 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
kinds NN O O
HepB NN O O
were NN O O
79.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
88.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84.6 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
chi2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
of NN O O
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
received NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
dose NN O O
booster 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
high NN O O
titer NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
dose NN O O
booster NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
four NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
HepB NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
5 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-Y,10 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-Y NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-CHO NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
microg NN O O
HepB-HY NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
immunization NN O O
effect NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
revaccination NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
non-and-low NN O O
response NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2073645)

Alinidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
alinidine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
diastolic NN O O
duration NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
effort NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
received NN O O
alinidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Alinidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
upright NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
thermistor NN O I-OUT
plethysmography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Diastolic NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
subtracting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
systole NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
R-R NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressed NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Alinidine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
both NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
246.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
120.7 NN O O
to NN O O
346.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
114.1 NN O O
s 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
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
0.1-mV NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
98.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
53 NN O O
to NN O O
187.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
105 NN O O
s 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

Similarly NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

% NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
alinidine NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
direct NN O O
linear NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
R-R NN O O
and NN O O
% NN O O
D NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
alinidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
either NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
slopes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intercepts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
R-R NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
alinidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
due NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bradycardic NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2074057)

[ NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
alpha-interferon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
correct NN O O
title NN O O
supplied NN O O
from NN O O
Table NN O O
of NN O O
Contents NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20796074)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
thermal NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
restricted NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
and NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
stresses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
thermal NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
reproductive NN O O
hormone NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Malpura NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
semi-arid NN O I-PAR
tropical NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
thermal NN O O
, NN O O
nutritional NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
stresses NN O O
( NN O O
thermal NN O O
and NN O O
nutritional NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
growth NN O O
, NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
and NN O O
progesterone NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
oestrus NN O O
cycles NN O O
in NN O O
Malpura NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
Malpura NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ewes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
viz. NN O O
, NN O O
GI NN O O
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
GII NN O O
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
; NN O O
thermal NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
GIII NN O O
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
; NN O O
restricted NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GIV NN O O
( NN O O
n=7 NN O O
; NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stall NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
roughage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
GI NN O O
and NN O O
GII NN O O
ewes NN O O
were NN O O
provided NN O O
with NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
feeding NN O O
while NN O O
GIII NN O O
and NN O O
GIV NN O O
ewes NN O O
were NN O O
provided NN O O
with NN O O
restricted NN O O
feed NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
GI NN O O
and NN O O
GII NN O O
ewes NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
nutritional NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
. NN O O

GII NN O O
and NN O O
GIV NN O O
ewes NN O O
were NN O O
kept NN O O
in NN O O
climatic NN O O
chamber NN O O
at NN O O
40?C NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
RH NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
between NN O O
10:00 NN O O
and NN O O
16:00 NN O O
hours NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
thermal NN O O
stress NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
oestrous NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Parameters NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
incidences NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
17-? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
conception NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gestation NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lambs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
combined NN O O
stress NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lambs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
17-? NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
reveal NN O O
that NN O O
on NN O O
comparative NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
ewes NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
adapt NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reproduction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
restricted NN O O
feeding NN O O
than NN O O
thermal NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
restricted NN O O
feeding NN O O
was NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
thermal NN O O
stress NN O O
it NN O O
had 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
influence NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
17-? NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
combined NN O O
stress NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
detrimental NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
reproductive NN O O
hormones NN O O
in NN O O
Malpura NN O O
ewes NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
hot NN O O
semi-arid NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20806998)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
electro-acupuncture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SEA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
EA NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O O
for NN O O
selected NN O O
acupoints NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
SEA NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
sham NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O O
acupoints NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
EA NN O O
and NN O O
SEA NN O O
sessions NN O O
over NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
included 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 I-OUT
WeeFIM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Pediatric NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Leiter NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Performance NN O I-OUT
Scale-Revised NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Leiter-R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O 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
RFRLS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Reynell NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RDLS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
WeeFIM NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
assistant NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PEDI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.028 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EA NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SEA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
parental NN O O
report NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
EA NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.006 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.034 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0.07 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
span NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
70 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
adapted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
acupuncture NN O I-OUT
easily NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
eight NN O O
percent NN O O
had NN O O
poor NN O I-OUT
acupuncture NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mild NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
acupuncture NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
short NN O O
, NN O O
four-week NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
) NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
electro-acupuncture NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
specific NN O O
functions NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
language NN O O
comprehension NN O O
and NN O O
self-care NN O O
ability NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20813580)

Aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
with NN O O
sleep NN O O
hygiene NN O O
education NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
insomnia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or=55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
61.6 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD?4.3 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
non-physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eligibility NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
habitual NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
6.5h NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Pittsburgh NN O I-PAR
Sleep NN O I-PAR
Quality NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSQI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSQI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Epworth NN O I-OUT
Sleepiness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ESS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Short-form NN O I-OUT
36 NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Center NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Epidemiological NN O I-OUT
Studies NN O I-OUT
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 I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
PSQI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.049 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.036 NN O O
) NN O O
PSQI NN O O
sub-scores 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

The NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.044 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=.017 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Aerobic NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
sleep NN O O
hygiene NN O O
education NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20815045)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three-year NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
sirolimus-versus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Three-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MACE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
190 NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
prospectively NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
SES NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar 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
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PES NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.374 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
definite NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PES NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.368 NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
three-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
independent NN O I-OUT
predictor NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
MACE NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
8.60 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
3.25-22.76 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
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
9.50 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3.07-29.44 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
three-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MACEs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
three-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
Groups NN O O
. NN O O

Insulin NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
MACEs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TVR NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
three-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
SES NN O I-INT
or NN O O
PES NN O I-INT
implantation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20817247)

Oral NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
procedural NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
newborn NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Many NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O O
repeated NN O O
invasive NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
procedural NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
pain NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O O
sucrose NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
reduces NN O O
pain-specific NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
noxious NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
newborn NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
newborn NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
College NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
UK 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
0?5 NN O O
mL NN O O
24 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
or NN O O
0?5 NN O O
mL NN O O
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
min NN O O
before NN O O
undergoing NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
required NN O O
heel NN O O
lance NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomisation NN O O
code NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
researchers NN O O
, NN O O
clinicians NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
identity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
pain-specific NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
one NN O O
time-locked NN O O
heel NN O O
lance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
electroencephalography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
identified NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
principal NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
observational NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PIPP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
nociceptive NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
analysed 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
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN78390996 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
29 NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
to NN O O
sterilised NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
infants NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nociceptive NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
noxious NN O I-OUT
heel NN O I-OUT
lance NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
0?10 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?04-0?16 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
0?08 NN O O
, NN O O
0?04-0?12 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
or NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
nociceptive NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
biceps NN O O
femoris NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stimulated NN O O
leg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PIPP NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
given NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mean NN O I-INT
5?8 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3?7-7?8 NN O O
vs NN O O
8?5 NN O O
, NN O O
7?3-9?8 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
facial NN O O
expression NN O O
after NN O O
sucrose NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
[ NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
sucrose NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
neonatal NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
circuits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
might NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesic NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
observational NN O O
scores NN O O
after NN O O
noxious NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
newborn NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
as NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20822543)

A NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
among NN O O
3-5 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
recommended NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
exhibit NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
sedentary NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O

Childcare NN O O
services NN O O
provide NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
prolonged NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
interventions NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multi-component NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
childcare NN O O
service NN O O
staff NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
employ NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Hunter NN O I-PAR
Region NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
invited NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O O
long NN O O
day NN O O
care NN O O
services NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
ten NN O O
services NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
wait NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
consist NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
fundamental NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
opportunities NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
role NN O I-INT
modelling NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
promoting NN O I-INT
indoor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
outdoor NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
limiting NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
small NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
recreation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sedentary NN O I-INT
behaviours NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
via NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
seeks NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
staff NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
address NN O O
current NN O O
gaps NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
and NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
interventions NN O O
promoting NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
long NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Australian NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O I-PAR
Registry NN O I-PAR
ACTRN12610000087055 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20830241)

Anti-angiogenic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
epigallocatechin-3-gallate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
human NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

Epigallocatechin-3-gallate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EGCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
polyphenol NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
green NN O O
tea NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
compound NN O O
exhibits NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunomodulatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
photoprotective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anti-angiogenic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
split NN O O
face NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
cream NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
w/w NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
EGCG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
erythema NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
telangiectasia NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
face NN O I-PAR
applied NN O O
EGCG NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
to NN O O
one NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
biopsies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
EGCG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Immunohistochemistry NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
VEGF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HIF-1 NN O I-OUT
?. NN O I-OUT
HIF-1 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
EGCG NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
sites NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
28.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epidermis NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vehicle NN O O
treated NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
EGCG NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
sites NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
VEGF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
EGCG NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
in NN O O
vehicle-treated NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O I-INT
0.005 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EGCG NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
influence NN O I-OUT
HIF-1 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
telangiectasias NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20831671)

Green NN O I-INT
banana-supplemented NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUMMARY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
green NN O I-INT
banana NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
community NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
2968 NN O I-PAR
Bangladeshi NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
6-36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Wards NN O O
( NN O O
villages NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
banana NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
where NN O I-INT
mothers NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
add NN O I-INT
cooked NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
banana NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O O
diets NN O O
of NN O O
diarrhoeal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Through NN O O
a NN O O
village-based NN O O
surveillance NN O O
system NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhoeal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
analysing NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional NN O I-OUT
hazards NN O I-OUT
models NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
GB NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.63 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.56-0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.26-0.59 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
GB NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
: NN O O
79.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

53.3 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.47 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.41-0.55 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
and NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
: NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

89.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
; NN O O
0.22-0.46 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

Children NN O O
with NN O O
prolonged NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
banana NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
10 NN O O
: NN O O
79.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

51.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
; NN O O
0.23-0.73 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
and NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
: NN O O
93.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

67.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.22 NN O O
; NN O O
0.08-0.54 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
green NN O I-INT
banana-supplemented NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-OUT
hastened NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
home NN O O
in NN O O
rural NN O O
Bangladesh NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20837163)

A NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
activation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
hypertension NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
web NN O O
hypertension NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
known NN O O
health NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
still NN O O
have NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
inertia NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
tendency NN O O
of NN O O
physicians NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
intensify NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
barrier NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
chronic NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
activating NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
ask NN O O
providers NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
care NN O O
through NN O O
tailored NN O O
feedback NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Diagnosed NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
RCT NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
hypertension NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
self-report NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
variables NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
previous NN O I-INT
BP NN O I-INT
measurements NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ask NN O I-INT
questions NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
next NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
hypertension NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
self-report NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
e.g. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
pap NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ask NN O I-INT
questions NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
next NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
include NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
57.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
77.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O O
37.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32.4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
21.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
By NN O O
activating NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
believe NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
improve NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
receive NN O O
web-based NN O O
preventive NN O O
messages NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20839989)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
appeasing NN O I-INT
pheromone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O O
, NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
, NN O O
immune NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
perioperative NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dog-appeasing NN O I-INT
pheromone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sDAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
, NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
, NN O O
immune NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
perioperative NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
orchiectomy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ovariohysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

ANIMALS NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
housed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
animal NN O I-PAR
shelters NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
orchiectomy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ovariohysterectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PROCEDURES NN O O
Intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
cages NN O O
were NN O O
sprayed NN O O
with NN O O
sDAP NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
carrier NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dogs NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sDAP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
cages NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Indicators NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neuroendocrine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acute-phase NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
perioperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haptoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
sDAP NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Dogs NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
sDAP NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
exploration NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
dogs NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Decreases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
perioperative NN O O
stress NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
sDAP NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
examined NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O O
axis NN O O
, NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
sDAP NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuroendocrine NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
lactotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
sDAP NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
welfare NN O O
of NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20843746)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
follicular NN O O
dynamics NN O O
of NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
during NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
stimulation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
can NN O O
replace NN O O
seven NN O O
daily NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
gonadotrophin-releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
antagonist NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
intracytoplasmic NN O O
sperm NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
150?g NN O I-INT
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
200IU NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
1509 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparative NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growing NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inhibin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
stimulation NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
corifollitropin NN O O
alfa NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
chorionic NN O O
gonadotrophin NN O O
( NN O O
HCG NN O O
) NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
?11mm NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O I-INT
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
daily NN O O
rFSH NN O O
at NN O O
stimulation NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.5-1.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
HCG NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
2.1 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.4-2.8 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
rise NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inhibin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
quite NN O O
different NN O O
their NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
profiles NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dosages NN O O
used NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
replace NN O O
seven NN O O
daily NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O O
gonadotrophin-releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
antagonist NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
IVF NN O O
or NN O O
intracytoplasmic NN O O
sperm NN O O
injection 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
compare NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
total NN O O
of NN O O
1509 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
150?g NN O I-INT
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O O
daily NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
200IU NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O O
first NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
analysed NN O O
( NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
growing NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
inhibin NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ovarian NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
FSH NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
stimulation NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
for NN O O
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
but NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
onwards NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
started NN O O
rFSH NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
chorionic NN O O
gonadotrophin NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
reached NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
though NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
slightly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recruited NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O O
rFSH NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
corifollitropin NN O I-INT
alfa NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
quite NN O O
different NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
dosages NN O O
used NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20844187)

Maternal NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
healthy NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Food NN O O
preferences NN O O
are NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
childhood NN O O
and NN O O
track NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
healthy NN O O
feeding NN O O
practices NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
500 NN O I-PAR
mother-child NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
S?o NN O I-PAR
Leopoldo NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Rio NN O I-PAR
Grande NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
Sul NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Brazil NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
impact NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nutritional NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-PAR
quality NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4-y-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mother-child NN O O
pairs NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
and NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
was NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
mothers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
10 NN O O
home NN O O
visits 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
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
visits NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
by NN O O
fieldworkers NN O O
who NN O I-INT
counseled NN O I-INT
the NN O O
mothers NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
Ten NN O O
Steps NN O O
for NN O O
Healthy NN O O
Feeding NN O O
from NN O O
Birth NN O O
to NN O O
Two NN O O
Years NN O O
of NN O O
Age NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
WHO NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
3-4 NN O O
y NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
345 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
two NN O O
24-h NN O O
food NN O O
recalls NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Healthy NN O O
Eating NN O O
Index NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
poor NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
lower 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
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.30 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.13-0.71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
75th NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.95 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.31-2.89 NN O O
and NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.49 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.07-2.07 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
data NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mothers NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20851499)

Early NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cold NN O O
sores NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O O
ME-609 NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
patient-initiated NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Prior NN O O
pilot NN O O
studies NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antiviral NN O O
medications NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
for NN O O
herpes NN O I-PAR
simplex NN O I-PAR
labialis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HSL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ME-609 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Xerese NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Xerclear NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HSL NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
HSL NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
2437 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
HSL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
self-initiate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ME-609 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
acyclovir NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
ME-609 NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ME-609 NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
earliest NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
sore NN O I-INT
recurrence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cream NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
times/d NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1443 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
initiated NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ME-609 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
601 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
610 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
232 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ME-609 NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
develop NN O O
an NN O O
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
ME-609 NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.014 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ME-609 NN O O
and NN O O
acyclovir NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
lesions NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ME-609 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
herpes NN O O
simplex NN O O
virus NN O O
cultures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
side-effect NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
contain NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
ME-609 NN O O
prevented NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
sores NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ulcerative NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
acyclovir NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

ME-609 NN O O
treatment NN O O
offers NN O O
additional NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
benefit NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O O
acyclovir NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2085344)

Acamprosate NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
weaned NN O I-PAR
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty-nine NN O I-PAR
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Acamprosate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
acetylhomotaurinate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.3 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
relapse NN O O
after NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
175 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
three-month NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
major NN O O
efficacy NN O O
criterion NN O O
was NN O O
plasma NN O O
gamma-glutamyl NN O O
transpeptidase NN O O
( NN O O
GGT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
recent NN O O
alcohol NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
criteria NN O O
concordance NN O O
analysis NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
initially NN O O
. 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
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.56 NN O O
versus NN O O
2.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.19 NN O O
times NN O O
normal NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
significant NN O O
differences 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
or NN O O
trends NN O O
( NN O O
0.10 NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
major NN O O
side-effect NN O O
of NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
CA NN O O
patients NN O O
versus NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CA NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
ingestion NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
large-scale NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
alcoholism NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
involving NN O O
an NN O O
antabuse NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
conditioning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20854436)

Tomato NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lycopene NN O I-INT
protects NN O O
against NN O O
cutaneous NN O I-OUT
photodamage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
vivo NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
, NN O O
animal NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
data NN O O
report NN O O
that NN O O
lycopene NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
against NN O O
ultraviolet NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
tomato NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lycopene NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
-- NN O O
can NN O O
protect NN O O
human NN O O
skin NN O O
against NN O O
UVR-induced NN O O
effects NN O O
partially NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

erythema NN O O
, NN O O
matrix NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
DNA NN O O
( NN O O
mtDNA NN O O
) NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
21-47 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
phototype NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
ingested NN O O
55 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
tomato NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
lycopene NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postsupplementation NN O O
, NN O O
UVR NN O O
erythemal NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
visually NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
minimal NN O O
erythema NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
MED NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
quantified NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reflectance NN O O
instrument NN O O
. NN O O

Biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
unexposed NN O O
and NN O O
UVR-exposed NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
MED NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
earlier NN O O
) NN O O
buttock NN O O
skin NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postsupplementation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
analysed NN O O
immunohistochemically NN O O
for NN O O
procollagen NN O O
( NN O O
pC NN O O
) NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
fibrillin-1 NN O O
and NN O O
matrix NN O O
metalloproteinase NN O O
( NN O O
MMP NN O O
) NN O O
-1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
quantitative NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
for NN O O
mtDNA NN O O
3895-bp NN O O
deletion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
erythemal NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
following NN O O
tomato NN O O
paste NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
26?5 NN O O
? NN O O
7?5 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
? NN O O
6?6 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
tomato NN O O
paste NN O O
, NN O O
36?6 NN O O
? NN O O
14?7 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
MED NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
35?1 NN O O
? NN O O
9?9 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
32?6 NN O O
? NN O O
9?6 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
tomato NN O O
paste NN O O
, NN O O
42?2 NN O O
? NN O O
11?3 NN O O
mJ NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Presupplementation NN O O
, NN O O
UVR NN O O
induced NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
MMP-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fibrillin-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0?03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postsupplementation NN O O
, NN O O
UVR-induced NN O I-OUT
MMP-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tomato NN O O
paste NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
UVR-induced NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
fibrillin-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O I-OUT
abrogated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
pCI NN O O
deposition NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
following NN O O
tomato NN O O
paste NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
mtDNA NN O I-OUT
3895-bp NN O I-OUT
deletion NN O O
following NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
MED NN O O
UVR NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
postsupplementation NN O O
with NN O O
tomato NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
0?01 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Tomato NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
lycopene NN O O
provides NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potentially NN O I-OUT
longer-term NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
photodamage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20863389)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
weekly NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
weekly 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
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
weekly NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
as NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
locally NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS/METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB2-IVA NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
basis NN O O
either NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m? NN O I-INT
Cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/m? NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
concurrently NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Median NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
point NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
74 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
66-92 NN O O
Gy NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
66 NN O O
Gy NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
40-98 NN O O
Gy NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
46 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
87 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
receiving NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4 NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
developed NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
Survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
reached NN O O
for NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
53 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
surviving NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
small NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
weekly NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
provide NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
advanced NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20865676)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
citrulline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
citrulline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
photoplethysmography NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Instituto NN O I-PAR
Nacional NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
Ciencias NN O I-PAR
M?dicas NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
Nutrici?n NN O I-PAR
Salvador NN O I-PAR
Zubir?n NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
photoplethysmography NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hyperemia NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
finger NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
ischemia NN O O
every NN O O
30 NN O O
s NN O O
by NN O O
maximum NN O O
amplitude NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
MAT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
TT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
MAT/TT NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
= NN O O
normal NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
citrulline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
optimal NN O I-INT
pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
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
two NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MAT/TT NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
patients NN O O
normalized NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
evaluation NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
= NN O O
38.75 NN O O
? NN O O
11.52 NN O O
, NN O O
final NN O O
23.32 NN O O
? NN O O
6.08 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
citrulline NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
= NN O O
41.4 NN O O
? NN O O
13.47 NN O O
, NN O O
final NN O O
23.65 NN O O
? NN O O
6.74 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
at NN O O
60-90 NN O O
s. NN O O
Post-ischemia NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
36.60 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
11.51 NN O O
, NN O O
final NN O O
18.81 NN O O
? NN O O
15.13 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
citrulline NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
49.51 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
15.17 NN O O
, NN O O
final NN O O
27.13 NN O O
? NN O O
7.87 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
citrulline NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
shown NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
normalized NN O O
MAT/TT NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
probably NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
could NN O I-OUT
help NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20865678)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
leptin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
55.6 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
60-80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
maximal NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
Ex NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O O
stress NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
waist-to-hip NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
WHR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
waist NN O O
circumference NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
leptin NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
measured 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
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
Ex NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
workload NN O O
in NN O O
METs NN O O
from NN O O
7.7 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
8.2 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 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
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
initial NN O O
and NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
BMI NN O O
, NN O O
WHR NN O O
or NN O O
waist NN O O
circumference NN O O
. NN O O

Although 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 I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
Ex NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
? NN O O
3.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.9 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
increase NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
8.0 NN O O
? NN O O
4.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
9.3 NN O O
? NN O O
5.2 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
short NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
CAD NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
influence NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WHR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Exercise NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-INT
prevented NN O I-INT
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
leptin NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20875504)

Action NN O O
observation NN O O
treatment NN O O
improves NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
top-down NN O O
effect NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
action NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
also NN O O
improve NN O O
motor NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
postorthopedic 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
either NN O O
a NN O O
case NN O O
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Mini-Mental NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
Examination NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
ambulating NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
vision NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
All NN O O
participants NN O O
underwent NN O O
conventional NN O I-PAR
physiotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
showing NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
actions NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
imitate NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
afterward NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
execute NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
actions NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
afterward NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
scored NN O O
on NN O O
functional NN O O
scales NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FIM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Tinetti NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
aids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
group NN O O
scored NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
FIM NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
; NN O O
FIM NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
subscore NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
; NN O O
Tinetti NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
crutch NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
AOT NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
results NN O O
strongly NN O O
support NN O O
top-down NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O O
recovery NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
nonneurologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20881754)

Multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
prokinetic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nizatidine-controlled NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
unique NN O O
bimodal NN O O
pulsatile-controlled NN O O
release NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
accelerates NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Combined NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
on NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
DGE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
prokinetic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
single-blind NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
nizatidine NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
apart NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
egg-beater NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
labeled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Tc99m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Gamma NN O I-OUT
camera NN O I-OUT
images NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
completion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4-hour NN O I-INT
postmeal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DGE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
retention NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
6.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
39 NN O O
patients NN O O
identified NN O O
with NN O O
DGE NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
baseline NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
CFB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4-hour NN O O
postmeal NN O O
with NN O O
nizatidine NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
each NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DGE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
CFB NN O O
with NN O O
nizatidine NN O O
CR NN O O
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was 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
at NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
4-hour NN O O
postmeal NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nizatidine NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
meal NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DGE NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2089829)

Tetracaine/adrenaline/cocaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
local NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20920086)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fractured NN O I-PAR
limbs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20924261)

Anatomical NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
predominantly NN O I-PAR
classic NN O I-PAR
neovascular NN O I-PAR
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
anchor NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
lesion NN O O
anatomical NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
verteporfin NN O I-INT
photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ANCHOR NN O O
( NN O O
Anti-VEGF NN O O
Antibody NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Predominantly NN O I-PAR
Classic NN O I-PAR
Choroidal NN O I-PAR
Neovascularization NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
CNV NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Age-Related NN O I-PAR
Macular NN O I-PAR
Degeneration NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
2-year NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
423 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.3 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
monthly NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
sham NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-PAR
sham NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
Day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
quarterly NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
central NN O O
reading NN O O
center NN O O
assessed NN O O
fundus NN O O
photography NN O O
and NN O O
fluorescein NN O O
angiography NN O O
images NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
subset NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
61 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
Months NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
for NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
classic NN O O
CNV NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
leakage NN O O
from NN O O
CNV NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
Months NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CNV NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
CNV NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Month NN O O
12 NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomographies NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
center NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ranibizumab NN O I-INT
benefits NN O O
over NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evident NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
fluorescein NN O O
angiography NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
PDT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
in NN O O
lesion NN O O
anatomical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
sustained NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
favored NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20932687)

Late NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
toxicity NN O O
after NN O O
preoperative NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nonresectable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CRT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
important NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
CRT NN O O
or NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
207 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonresectable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5-fluorouracil/leucovorin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Extended NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
often NN O O
required NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Self-reported NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
scored NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
LENT NN O I-OUT
SOMA NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
structured NN O I-OUT
telephone NN O I-OUT
interview NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
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
( NN O I-OUT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Erectile NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IIEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
function-vaginal NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
105 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
alive NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
stoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
73 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
stoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
incontinence NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
liquid NN O I-OUT
stools NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
stoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
anal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CRT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One-quarter NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Few NN O O
women NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
previous NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
concerns NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
sex NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Fecal NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O O
after NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
problems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
after NN O O
CRT NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20934759)

The NN O O
maximal NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
can NN O O
evaluate NN O O
more NN O O
adequately NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
single NN O O
step NN O O
length NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximal NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MDSL NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
length NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MSL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O O
balance NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
falls NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
this NN O O
test NN O O
can NN O O
evaluate NN O O
their NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
using NN O O
movements NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MSL NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clarified NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
adequately NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
( NN O O
ADL NN O O
) NN O O
abilities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
decrease NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
MSL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MDSL NN O I-INT
on NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
ADL NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-PAR
independently NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
74.8?5.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MSL NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MDSL NN O I-INT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
twice NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
an NN O O
ADL NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Intra-class NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
coefficients NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
high NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O I-INT
MSL NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
ICC=0.95 NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O I-INT
MDSL NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
ICC=0.81-0.82 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
and NN O O
ADL NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
MDSL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
age NN O O
: NN O O
r=-0.32-0.41 NN O O
, NN O O
ADL NN O O
: NN O O
r=0.28-0.48 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
MSL NN O O
( NN O O
age NN O O
: NN O O
r=-0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
ADL NN O O
: NN O O
r=0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MDSL NN O I-INT
has NN O O
high NN O O
reliability NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
relates NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
ADL NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
ADL NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
independent NN O O
living NN O O
and NN O O
prevent NN O O
falls NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O I-INT
MSL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (20936417)

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
peripheral NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Chemotherapy-induced NN O O
peripheral NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
( NN O O
CIPN NN O O
) NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pursuant NN O O
to NN O O
promising NN O O
appearing NN O O
pilot NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
CIPN NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurotoxic NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
utilizing NN O O
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2+ NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTCAE NN O I-OUT
v NN O I-OUT
3.0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
chi-square NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Planned NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
provide NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
2+ NN O I-OUT
SN NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two-hundred NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
producing NN O I-PAR
189 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cytotoxic NN O O
agents NN O O
included NN O O
taxanes NN O O
( NN O O
109 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cisplatin NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
carboplatin NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
combination NN O O
( NN O O
20 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
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
2+ NN O I-OUT
SN NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O I-INT
34 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
-vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
-placebo NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.43 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
for NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
dose NN O O
reductions NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
symptom NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
neurotoxic NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20937044)

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
once-daily NN O O
mesalamine NN O I-INT
granules NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
- NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
( NN O O
UC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
relapsing NN O O
and NN O O
remitting NN O O
idiopathic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
bowel NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
once-daily NN O O
mesalamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mesalazine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
granules NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
UC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=209 NN O I-PAR
MG NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=96 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-OUT
revised NN O I-OUT
Sutherland NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-PAR
bleeding=0 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mucosal NN O I-PAR
appearance NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
MG NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
remained NN O O
relapse-free NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
6/end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Relapse NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
SDAI NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
score NN O O
?1 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
mucosal NN O O
appearance NN O O
score NN O O
?2 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
UC NN O O
flare NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
a NN O O
UC NN O O
flare NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
6/end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
higher NN O O
with NN O O
MG NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
78.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
58.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
favouring NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
observed NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
including NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
6/end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
classified NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
success NN O O
and NN O O
relapse-free NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Once-daily NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mesalazine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-INT
in NN O O
maintaining NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
UC NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20940688)

Patients NN O O
appreciation NN O O
for NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
anxiolysis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dentistry NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
research NN O O
regards NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Every NN O O
patient NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred-fifty NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
appreciated NN O O
information NN O O
received NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
visit NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anxiolytic NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Afterwards NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
information NN O O
quality NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
a NN O O
phone NN O O
interview NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
their NN O O
appreciation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anxiolytic NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
perception NN O O
during NN O O
loco-regional NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
edema NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
most NN O O
appreciated NN O O
details NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complicances NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
operative NN O O
competence NN O O
; NN O O
less NN O O
appreciated NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
loco-regional NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
anxiolytic NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
hospital NN O O
reception NN O O
and NN O O
permanence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-eight NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
adequately NN O O
informed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
context NN O O
judged NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
extraordinary NN O O
( NN O O
99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
indicated NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
as NN O O
necessary NN O O
, NN O O
98.6 NN O O
% NN O O
appreciated NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
( NN O O
99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
the NN O O
anxiolytic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
interview NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
expressed NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experienced NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
tranquillity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
91.3 NN O O
% NN O O
complained NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
having NN O O
received NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
preoperative NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
wished NN O O
a NN O O
diffused NN O I-OUT
application NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
loco-regional NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
to NN O O
psychological NN O O
detachment NN O O
in NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anxiolytic NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
loco-regional NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
distress NN O O
was NN O O
enthusiastically NN O O
accepted NN O O
and NN O O
albeit NN O O
initially NN O O
induced NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
astonishment NN O O
resulted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
appreciated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
preferred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20946966)

Clofarabine NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
fludarabine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

busulfan NN O I-INT
as NN O O
pretransplant NN O O
conditioning NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
MDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
busulfan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Bu NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fludarabine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Flu NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
reduced-toxicity NN O O
conditioning NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
myelogenous NN O O
leukemia/myelodysplastic NN O O
syndromes NN O O
( NN O O
AML/MDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
recurrent NN O O
leukemia NN O O
posttransplantation NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
conditioning NN O O
regimen NN O O
's NN O O
antileukemic NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
decided NN O O
to NN O O
supplant NN O I-INT
Flu NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
clofarabine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Clo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
assayed NN O O
the NN O O
interactions NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
analogs NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
Bu NN O O
in NN O O
Bu-resistant NN O O
human NN O O
cell NN O O
lines NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
pronounced NN O O
synergy NN O O
between NN O O
each NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
alkylator NN O O
but NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
enhanced NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
synergy NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
analogs NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
exposing NN O O
the NN O O
cells NN O O
to NN O O
Bu NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
then NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
4-arm NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
allo-SCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
adaptively NN O O
randomized NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
Arm NN O O
I-Clo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Flu NN O I-INT
10:30 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Arm NN O O
II-20:20 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Arm NN O O
III-30:10 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Arm NN O O
IV-single-agent NN O I-INT
Clo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
analog NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
were/was NN O O
infused NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
by NN O O
Bu NN O O
, NN O O
infused NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacokinetically NN O O
targeted NN O O
daily NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
6000 NN O O
?Mol-min NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
follow-up NN O O
exceeding NN O O
100 NN O O
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
6-59 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BC NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
AP NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tyrosine-kinase NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
failures NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-refractory NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
platelet NN O I-PAR
recovery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRp NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
CR1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Finally NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
CRp NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Graft-versus-host NN O I-PAR
disease NN O O
( NN O O
GVHD NN O O
) NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
was NN O O
tacrolimus NN O O
and NN O O
mini-methorexate NN O O
( NN O O
MTX NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
unrelated NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
antigen-mismatched NN O O
donor NN O O
received NN O O
low-dose NN O O
rabbit-ATG NN O O
( NN O O
Thymoglobulin? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
engrafted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
42 NN O O
AML NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
CML NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
alive NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
projected NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
23 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Marrow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
chimerism NN O I-OUT
studies NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
+100 NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower-dose NN O O
Clo NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
groups NN O O
1+2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
higher-dose NN O O
Clo NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
groups NN O O
3+4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
donor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-derived NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
has NN O I-OUT
been NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
100 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Clo NN O O
? NN O O
Flu NN O O
with NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

Bu NN O O
as NN O O
pretransplant NN O I-OUT
conditioning NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
high-risk NN O I-OUT
myeloid NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
clofarabine NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
sufficiently NN O I-OUT
immunosuppressive NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
allo-SCT NN O O
in NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
OS NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
high-risk NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
is NN O O
encouraging NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
antileukemic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Clo NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-INT
Flu NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bu NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
pretransplant NN O I-OUT
conditioning NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
warranted NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20952020)

Cardiovascular NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
degarelix NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
degarelix NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
report NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
safety NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
completed NN O O
1-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
degarelix NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcomes NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
analyses NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
QT NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
selected NN O O
baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
Fridericia NN O O
's NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
QT NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Markedly NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
Fridericia NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
QT NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
degarelix NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Supraventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
, NN O O
affecting NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
degarelix NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
cardiac NN O O
disorder NN O O
was NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
degarelix NN O I-INT
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
estimates NN O O
for NN O O
selected NN O O
baseline NN O O
covariates NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0459 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
systolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0061 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
degarelix NN O I-INT
and NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
have NN O O
similar NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
safety NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
agents NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
hypogonadism NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
drug NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20957631)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
clinician-collected NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
self-collected NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
after NN O O
screen-and-treat NN O O
. NN O O

Screen-and-treat NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
programs NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
high-risk NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
( NN O O
HPV NN O O
) NN O O
testing NN O O
and NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
resource-limited NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
failures NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
performances NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O O
HPV NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
Hybrid NN O O
Capture NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
self-collected NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clinician-collected NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
cervical NN O I-INT
cytology NN O I-INT
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
cervical NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
grades NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
invasive NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
CIN2+ NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=812 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=1858 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
cryotherapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
screen-and-treat NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
enrolment NN O O
( NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
if NN O O
performed NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
using NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
screening NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
underwent NN O O
colposcopy/biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
predefined NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
n=1,455 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
extended NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
colposcopy/biopsy NN O I-INT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
and NN O O
91 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
CIN2+ NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
among NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
clinician-collected NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cervical NN O O
cytology NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

HPV NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
clinician-collected NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
detected NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
CIN2+ NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
both NN O O
treated NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cytology NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
cutoff NN O O
of NN O O
atypical NN O O
squamous NN O O
cells NN O O
of NN O O
undetermined NN O O
significance NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
) NN O O
detected NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
among NN O O
both NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
self-collected NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
among NN O O
treated NN O O
versus NN O O
untreated NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HPV NN O O
testing NN O O
using NN O O
self-collected NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
specimens NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
screening NN O O
but NN O O
performs NN O O
poorly NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20957980)

Ipilimumab NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
HLA NN O O
subtype NN O O
from NN O O
four NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Ipilimumab NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
fully NN O O
human NN O O
, NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
that NN O O
blocks NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O O
antigen-4 NN O O
to NN O O
potentiate NN O O
an NN O O
antitumor NN O O
T-cell NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
agent NN O O
improved NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Because NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
for NN O O
ipilimumab NN O I-INT
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
HLA NN O O
independent NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
trials NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
regard NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
HLA NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
enrollment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
class-I NN O I-PAR
HLA-A*0201-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
arms NN O O
contained NN O O
an NN O O
HLA-A*0201-restricted NN O I-INT
gp100 NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HLA NN O O
typing NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
prospectively NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
93.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
pooled NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
presented NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
HLA-A*0201 NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
from NN O O
pretreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
ipilimumab NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
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
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
187 NN O O
HLA-A*0201-positive NN O O
[ NN O O
9.3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
7.4-11.5 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
266 NN O O
HLA-A*0201-negative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
[ NN O O
11.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
9.3-15.1 NN O O
] NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ipilimumab NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
137 NN O I-PAR
HLA-A*0201-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ipilimumab NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
[ NN O O
10.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
8.0-13.8 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Ipilimumab-induced NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
frequencies NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
HLA-A*0201 NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
ipilimumab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
advanced NN O O
melanoma NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O O
outcomes NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
HLA-A*0201 NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20965956)

Complement NN O O
activation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
surface NN O O
of NN O O
cell-derived NN O O
microparticles NN O O
during NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
- NN O O
is NN O O
retransfusion NN O O
of NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
harmful NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
cell-derived NN O O
microparticles NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
complement NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
whether NN O O
microparticles NN O O
in NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
upon NN O O
retransfusion NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Pericardial NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
retransfused NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
discarded NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Microparticles NN O O
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
systemic NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
CPB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
microparticles NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
for NN O O
bound NN O O
complement NN O O
components NN O O
C1q NN O O
, NN O O
C4 NN O O
and NN O O
C3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bound NN O O
complement NN O O
activator NN O O
molecules NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
amyloid NN O O
P-component NN O O
( NN O O
SAP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
( NN O O
Ig NN O O
) NN O O
M NN O O
and NN O O
IgG NN O O
. NN O O

Fluid-phase NN O O
complement NN O O
activation NN O O
products NN O O
( NN O O
C4b/c NN O O
, NN O O
C3b/c NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
activator NN O O
molecules NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
systemic NN O O
T1 NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
contained NN O O
increased NN O O
C4b/c NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C3b/c NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microparticles NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
bound NN O O
complement NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
systemic NN O O
T1 NN O O
samples NN O O
, NN O O
microparticle-bound NN O O
CRP NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
microparticle-bound NN O O
SAP NN O O
and NN O O
IgM NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
complement NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
CPB NN O I-INT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
C3b/c NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
C4b/c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O O
T2 NN O O
blood NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
T1 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
microparticles NN O O
binding NN O O
complement NN O O
components NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
binding NN O O
complement NN O O
activator NN O O
molecules NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fluid-phase NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microparticles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
retransfused NN O O
with NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-INT
, NN O O
microparticles NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
via NN O O
bound NN O O
SAP NN O O
and NN O O
IgM NN O O
. NN O O

Retransfusion NN O O
of NN O O
pericardial NN O O
blood NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
complement NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (20966820)

Five-year NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
headaches NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
deactivation NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
trigger NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-five NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
neurologist NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ensure NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
36-Item NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Migraine-Specific NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Migraine NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12- NN O O
and NN O O
60-month NN O O
postoperative NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
botulinum NN O I-INT
toxin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
trigger NN O O
sites NN O O
; NN O O
controls NN O O
received NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treated NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
deactivation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
trigger NN O O
site NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-nine NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
deactivation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
additional NN O O
( NN O O
different NN O O
) NN O O
trigger NN O O
sites NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
not 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

The NN O O
final NN O O
outcome NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-one NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
69 NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
noticed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
eight NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
measured NN O O
variables NN O O
at NN O O
60 NN O O
months NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
strong NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
surgical NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
migraine NN O O
trigger NN O O
sites NN O O
can NN O O
successfully NN O O
eliminate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
lasting NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20973459)

High-calcium NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
overweight NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
among NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Sixth NN O O
National NN O O
Nutrition NN O O
Survey NN O O
2003 NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
overweight NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
among NN O O
Filipino NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Obesity NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
calcium NN O O
intake NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
contributing NN O O
factor NN O O
to NN O O
overweight NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high-calcium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fortified NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-fat NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
drink NN O I-INT
with NN O O
added NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O O
low-calcium NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
drink NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anthropometric NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Potential NN O O
participants NN O O
underwent NN O O
three NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
: NN O O
initial NN O O
interview NN O O
, NN O O
dual-energy NN O O
x-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
biochemical NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

Anthropometric NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and 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

Sixty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
qualified NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
received NN O O
400 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high-calcium NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
drink NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
high-calcium NN O I-INT
fortified NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
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

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.008 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 O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.018 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
circumferences NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
drink NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
measure NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
overweight NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
among NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (20973712)

Line-item NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
irritability NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
discrete NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
symptoms NN O O
captured NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
( NN O O
ABC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
8-week NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
dosed NN O I-INT
flexibly NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2-15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
n=47 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
fixed NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
166 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
flexibly NN O O
dosed NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
; NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
58 NN O O
ABC NN O O
items NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ABC-Irritability NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
ABC-Irritability NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
quickly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cries/screams NN O I-OUT
inappropriately NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stamps NN O I-OUT
feet/bangs NN O I-OUT
objects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Several NN O O
additional NN O O
items NN O O
measuring NN O O
tantrum-like NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flexibly NN O O
dosed NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
numerical NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
ABC NN O I-OUT
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
of NN O O
items NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
hyperkinesis NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability 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
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
tantrum NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (20976617)

Theory NN O O
of NN O O
Mind NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participate NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
or NN O O
Theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Mind NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ToM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
ToM NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
8-13 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
IQs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
conceptual NN O I-OUT
ToM NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
elementary NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
empathic NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
improve NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
conceptual NN O O
understanding NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
indicate NN O O
strong NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
ToM NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
life NN O I-OUT
mindreading NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21030056)

Gene NN O I-INT
expression NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
endothelin-1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
receptors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
broiler NN O I-PAR
chickens NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-induced NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-induced NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
hypertension NN O O
on NN O O
endothelin NN O O
( NN O O
ET NN O O
) NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
genes NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rearing NN O O
, NN O O
semiquantitative NN O I-INT
RT-PCR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
immunometric NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
ventricles NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricles NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-treated NN O O
broilers NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
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
reductions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
amounts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
ventricles NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricle NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mRNAs NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-treated NN O O
broilers NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
amounts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricles NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-treated NN O O
broilers NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
age 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
ET NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
-treated NN O O
chickens NN O O
at NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
ET-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
normally NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
ventricles NN O O
of NN O O
broilers NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ET NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
ET-1/ET NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ventricles NN O O
are NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
of NN O O
broiler NN O I-PAR
chickens NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21034619)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
certain NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
mechanism NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
very NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
is NN O O
complication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
hepatorenal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
explore NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone 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
severe NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
43 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
42 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Basic NN O I-OUT
autohemotherapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
milliliter NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
mixed NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
?g/ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
was NN O O
returned NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
the NN O I-INT
basic NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PRA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
PRA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
1.31 NN O O
? NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
ng?ml???h?? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
111.25 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
17.35 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
251.31 NN O O
? NN O O
22.60 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2.23 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
ng?ml???h?? NN O O
, NN O O
AII NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
155.18 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
19.13 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
405.31 NN O O
? NN O O
29.88 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
4.67 NN O O
- NN O O
14.23 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2.02 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
ng?ml???h?? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
162.21 NN O O
? NN O I-OUT
15.32 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pg/ml NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
401.20 NN O O
? NN O O
35.02 NN O O
) NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
4.97 NN O O
- NN O O
15.61 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
175.15 NN O O
? NN O O
28.20 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
125.68 NN O O
? NN O O
21.25 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
128.59 NN O O
? NN O O
23.15 NN O O
) NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
4.78 NN O O
, NN O O
4.61 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Renal NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
ozone NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
?? NN O O
= NN O O
5.295 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-three NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
16 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-OUT
survived NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?? NN O O
= NN O O
12.993 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 I-INT
Basic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
decrease NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AII NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ALD NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prevent NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
certain NN O O
extent NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21035047)

Stepwise NN O O
assessment NN O O
tool NN O O
of NN O O
operative NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SATOS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
validity NN O O
testing NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
porcine NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
of NN O O
open NN O O
gastrectomy 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
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
operative NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
technical NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
trainees NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
structured NN O O
stepwise NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
operative NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SATOS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
previously NN O O
validated NN O O
for NN O O
open NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
events NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
porcine NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Earlier NN O O
instruction NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
operative NN O O
steps NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
instruction NN O O
when NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
postgraduate NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGY NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
23-step NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
structured NN O I-OUT
tool NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
11 NN O O
PGY-3 NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
PGY-4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
PGY-5 NN O O
residents NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
performance NN O O
significantly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
PGY NN O O
grades NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
PGY NN O O
classes NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
significantly NN O O
differentiable NN O O
by NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Comparing NN O O
performances NN O O
, NN O O
residents NN O O
improved NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
training NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
SATOS NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
relevant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accurate NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
trainees NN O O
' NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
open NN O O
gastrectomy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
porcine NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
tool NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
standardize NN O O
instruction NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
expose NN O O
weaknesses NN O O
of NN O O
trainees NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
minimal NN O O
technical NN O O
standards NN O O
in NN O O
residency NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21036891)

PDE5 NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
with NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
diastolic NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
geometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-year NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
defective NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
signaling NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
diastolic NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
and NN O O
remodeling NN O O
. NN O O

PDE5 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
blocking NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
second-messenger NN O O
cyclic NN O O
guanosine NN O O
monophosphate NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
systolic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
PDE5 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
LV NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
diastolic NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
geometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II-III NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sildenafil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
geometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
sildenafil NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
4.62 NN O O
to NN O O
5.20 NN O O
and NN O O
5.19 NN O O
m/s NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
septal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
4.71 NN O O
to NN O O
5.23 NN O O
and NN O O
5.24 NN O O
m/s NN O O
) NN O O
annuli NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
transmitral NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
E NN O O
' NN O O
lateral NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
13.1 NN O O
to NN O O
9.8 NN O O
to NN O O
9.4 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
were NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
reverse NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
32.0 NN O O
to NN O O
29.0 NN O O
and NN O O
29.1 NN O O
mL/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
148.0 NN O O
to NN O O
130.0 NN O O
and NN O O
128.0 NN O O
g/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
Vo NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
slope NN O I-OUT
) 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
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Minor NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
: NN O O
flushing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
2 NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Findings NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
, NN O O
sildenafil NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
human NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
geometry NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
additional NN O O
targets NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O O
PDE5 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21038654)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-nephrotic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
Shenyanning NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
curative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Shenyanning NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SYN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
non-nephrotic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
IgA NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IgAN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
IgAN NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
equally NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
orally NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SYN NN O I-INT
Decoction NN O I-INT
( NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Losartan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Chinese NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
end-point NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
related NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
obviously NN O O
higher 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
77.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
54.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment 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
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
red-cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
changed NN O O
insignificantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Beside NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
end-point NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower 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
though NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
curative NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
SYN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
IgAN NN O O
was NN O O
obviously NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
simple NN O O
Western NN O O
medicine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21040167)

Pre-transplant NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profiling NN O O
and NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
post-transplant NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
achieving NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
whole-blood NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
?10 NN O I-PAR
ng/mL NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
post-transplantation NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2-hour NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
T2 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
first NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O O
either NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

if NN O O
the NN O O
pre-transplant NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
?20 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

if NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
21-59 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
or NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

if NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
?60 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
dosing NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
trough NN O I-INT
level NN O O
monitoring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
mycophenolate NN O I-PAR
mofetil NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
steroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Ninety NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
n=43 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
T2 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
n=41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. 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 I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
?10 NN O I-OUT
ng/mL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
82.9 NN O O
% NN O O
Control NN O O
vs NN O O
93.0 NN O O
% NN O O
T2 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
41.5 NN O O
% NN O O
Control NN O O
vs NN O O
41.9 NN O O
% NN O O
T2 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
post NN O O
transplant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
T2 NN O O
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
?10 NN O I-OUT
ng/mL NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
achievement NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
Control NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Performing NN O O
a NN O O
pre-transplant NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
ng/mL NN O I-OUT
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
routine NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
pre-transplant NN O I-INT
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
lead NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
whole-blood NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
?10 NN O I-OUT
ng/mL NN O I-OUT
sooner NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21042763)

An NN O O
explorative NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
serial NN O O
serum NN O O
tumour NN O O
marker NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
tumour NN O O
marker NN O O
changes NN O O
during NN O O
palliative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UGIA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
UGIA NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
45 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5-FU/leucovorin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
every NN O O
2nd NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
crossed NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
before NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
2nd NN O O
week NN O O
during NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
CEA NN O O
, NN O O
TPA NN O O
, NN O O
TPS NN O O
, NN O O
CA72-4 NN O O
, NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
and NN O O
CA242 NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
stable NN O O
disease NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
SD4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
baseline NN O O
marker NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
CA72-4 NN O O
, NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
except NN O I-PAR
CA72-4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
clinical NN O O
responses NN O O
( NN O O
PR+SD4 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Tumour NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
early NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
provided NN O O
modest NN O O
predictive NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
tumour NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
model NN O O
combining NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
gave NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
insignificantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
baseline NN O O
level NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
markers NN O O
except NN O O
CA242 NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
provide NN O O
prognostic NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
UGIA NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
palliative NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Early NN O O
changes NN O O
generally NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
accurate NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
tumour NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21042930)

Intensive NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
prison NN O O
release NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
comprehensive NN O I-INT
pre-release NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
in NN O O
linking NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
prisoners NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
care NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Imprisonment NN O O
provides NN O O
opportunities NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
successful NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
lost NN O O
following NN O O
release NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
access NN O O
and NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
have NN O O
advocated NN O O
for NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
case-management NN O O
interventions NN O O
spanning NN O O
incarceration NN O O
and NN O O
release NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
treatment NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
re-entry NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
releasees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
Strengths NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
bridging NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
beginning NN O O
approximately NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
release NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
prison-administered NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SOC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
prison NN O I-PAR
inmates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
post-release NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
inmates NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
post-release NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
65.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
BCM NN O O
and NN O O
54.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
SOC NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
attended NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
appointment NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
release NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
post-release NN O O
, NN O O
88.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
BCM NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
78.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SOC NN O O
arm NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
attended NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
appointment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
24-90.7 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
BCM NN O O
and NN O O
89.1 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
SOC NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
participant NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O O
medical NN O O
visit NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
attended NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
appointment NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post NN O O
release NN O O
was NN O O
5.23 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
3.14 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
BCM NN O O
and NN O O
4.07 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
3.20 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
SOC NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
re-incarceration NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
case NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
bridging NN O I-INT
incarceration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
release NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
intensive NN O O
pre-release NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
supporting NN O I-INT
health NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
service NN O O
utilization NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
released NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
prison NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21044518)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
computer-assisted NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
on NN O O
reading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spelling NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
computer-assisted NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
reading NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spelling NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
three NN O O
practice NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
reading NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
with NN O O
spelling NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
computer-based NN O I-INT
reading NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spelling NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
has NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
reading NN O O
and NN O O
spelling NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
selected NN O O
of NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
M=111.02 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD=9.6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
spelling NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants 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
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Copy NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
word NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=22 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Memorize NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
word NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
write NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=21 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Word NN O I-INT
reading NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=21 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
untrained NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
administered NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
pseudoword NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phonological NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phonological NN O I-OUT
word NN O I-OUT
decoding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orthographical NN O I-OUT
word NN O I-OUT
decoding NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
classified NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complexity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
syllable NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
reading NN O O
training NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
spelling NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
copy NN O O
training NN O O
condition NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O O
spelling NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21047588)

Detection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
PIN NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atypical NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
suspicious NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
THE NN O O
AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
THE NN O O
STUDY NN O O
This NN O O
article NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
isolated NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
prostatic NN O O
intraepithelial NN O O
neoplasia NN O O
( NN O O
PIN NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
atypical NN O O
lesions NN O O
suspicious NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
LSPC NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
subsequent NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
rounds NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
centres NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
countries NN O O
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ERSPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
PIN NN O O
and NN O O
LSPC NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
subsequent NN O O
biopsy NN O I-INT
following NN O O
these NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Study NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
56,653 NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-INT
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ERSPC NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
rounds NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
2-4 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ERSPC NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
database NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
PIN NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LSPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
gathered NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
ERSPC NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Detection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
re-biopsy NN O O
after NN O O
these NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
completed NN O O
rounds NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
centres NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
PIN NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
round NN O O
to NN O O
5.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
round NN O O
, NN O O
varying NN O O
among NN O O
centres NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
round NN O O
between NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
re-biopsy NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
PIN NN O O
was NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LSPC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
2.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
fourth NN O O
round NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
re-biopsy NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
LSPC NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
33.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cancer NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
rounds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
wide NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
PIN NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
ERSPC NN O O
centres NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
inter-observer NN O O
variation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O O
comparatively NN O O
low NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
isolated NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
PIN NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
screening NN O O
round NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
screening-related NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
its NN O O
consistent NN O O
increase NN O O
during NN O O
three NN O O
screening NN O O
rounds NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
a.o NN O O
. NN O O

previous NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
ageing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observed NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
isolated NN O O
high NN O O
grade NN O O
PIN NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
screening NN O O
setting NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
recommendation NN O O
to NN O O
abstain NN O O
from NN O O
early NN O O
repeat NN O O
biopsies NN O O
after NN O O
this NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
LSPC NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
re-biopsies NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
repeat NN O O
biopsies NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
low NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
LSPC NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
) NN O O
throughout NN O O
all NN O O
rounds NN O O
is NN O O
reassuring NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
limits NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O O
burden NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21047593)

Lead-time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
European NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Screening NN O O
for NN O O
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Lead-time NN O O
is NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
screening NN O O
advances NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
long NN O O
lead-time NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
cancer NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
while NN O O
still NN O O
curable NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
very NN O O
short NN O O
lead-time NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
poor NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
long NN O O
lead-time NN O O
suggests NN O O
overdiagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
screening NN O O
round NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
56,294 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
55-74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Randomised NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ERSPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
overall NN O I-PAR
detection NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
prevalence NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1972 NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
92,142 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lead-time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
accumulate NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
cumulative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

from NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
detection NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
screen-detected NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
expected NN O O
incidence NN O O
( NN O O
cumulative NN O O
risk NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
a NN O O
serum NN O O
PSA NN O O
cut-off NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
lead-time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
as NN O O
6.8 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
7.9-8.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
The NN O O
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
6 NN O O
in NN O O
Sweden NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
Italy NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
Belgium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
lead-time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
6-7 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
ages NN O O
50-64 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
close NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
aged NN O O
65-74 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lower NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
cut-off NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
Sweden NN O O
and NN O O
The NN O O
Netherlands NN O O
prolonged NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
lead-time NN O O
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Lead-time NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
shorter NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
5.3 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
4.6-6.0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lead-time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
round NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
5.4-6.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
detection NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
incidence NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
lead-time NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
ERSPC NN O O
substantially NN O O
exceeded NN O O
that NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
, NN O O
cervical NN O O
and NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
round NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
can NN O O
advance NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
by NN O O
4-8 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Overdiagnosis NN O O
or NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
non-progressive NN O O
tumours NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
substantially NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lead-time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21048041)

Pharmacogenetic NN O O
interaction NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Pharmacogenetic NN O O
markers NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
could NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
select NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Genetic NN O O
interaction NN O O
analysis NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
rational NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
polygenic NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
polymorphisms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
genes NN O I-PAR
encoding NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
targets NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pathway NN O I-OUT
molecules NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
detoxification NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
279 NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
capecitabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAPOX-B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Multifactor NN O O
dimensionality NN O O
reduction NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
a NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.9 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
9.4-12.4 NN O O
] NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TYMS NN O O
enhancer NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
VEGF NN O O
+405G NN O O
> NN O O
C NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
PFS NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11.4-15.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
9.7 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7.6-11.8 NN O O
) NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
and NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
hazards NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1.58 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.14-2.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
were NN O O
individually NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
PFS NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
TYMS NN O O
enhancer NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
VEGF NN O O
+405G NN O O
> NN O O
C NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
CAPOX-B NN O O
in NN O O
mCRC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2105256)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severely NN O I-OUT
malnourished NN O I-OUT
cirrhotics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
malnourished NN O I-PAR
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
enteral-tube NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sole NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isonitrogenous NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-sodium NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
homogeneous NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nutritional NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
enteral NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
dense NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
Na/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
branched-chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
medium- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
long-chain NN O I-INT
triglycerides NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maltodextrin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O I-INT
supplied NN O I-INT
2115 NN O I-INT
kcal/day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamins NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
trace NN O I-INT
elements NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
limit NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recommended NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
allowances NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
encouraged NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
eat NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
served NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Total NN O I-OUT
enteral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
major NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enterally NN O O
fed NN O O
patients NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
enteral NN O O
feeding NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
total NN O O
enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
malnourished NN O I-PAR
cirrhotics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21054362)

Antimigraine NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
telcagepant NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
historical NN O I-PAR
triptan NN O I-INT
response NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
or NN O O
different NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
triptans NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
telcagepant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Telcagepant NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
calcitonin NN O I-INT
gene-related NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
antimigraine NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
triptans NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
migraine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
adequately NN O I-PAR
helped NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
triptans NN O I-INT
might NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
telcagepant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
telcagepant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
moderate/severe NN O O
migraine NN O O
. NN O O

Responder NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
self-reported NN O I-OUT
historical NN O I-OUT
triptan NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HTR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
HTR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
660 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
75-100 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
HTR NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
248 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
25-74 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
HTR/no NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
407 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
triptans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
limitation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
mainly NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
triptans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
whether NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
triptan-na?ve NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-INT
triptans NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
stopped NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O I-INT
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2-hour NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
good NN O O
HTR NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
116/162 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intermediate NN O O
( NN O O
29/62 NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
poor/no NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
44/111 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
HTR NN O O
subgroups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
2-hour NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
HTR NN O O
subgroups NN O O
for NN O I-INT
telcagepant NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
48-58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
52-58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
26-31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
poor/no NN O O
use NN O O
HTR NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
telcagepant NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
56/98 NN O O
, NN O O
57.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
2-hour NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
44/111 NN O O
, NN O O
39.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
2.11 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.20,3.71 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
for NN O I-INT
telcagepant NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
57/119 NN O O
, NN O O
47.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O I-INT
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
1.41 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.82 NN O O
, NN O O
2.40 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.211 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
different NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O I-INT
triptans NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
telcagepant NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Caution NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
exercised NN O O
in NN O O
interpreting NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registry NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00442936 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21055113)

[ NN O O
Management NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perineal NN O O
wounds NN O O
after NN O O
abdominoperineal NN O O
resection NN O O
: NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
only NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
presacral NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
perineal NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
abdominoperineal NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
October NN O O
2004 NN O O
to NN O O
August NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
stromal NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
APR NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
proctocolectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
simple NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
only NN O O
to NN O O
presacral NN O O
space NN O O
; NN O O
while NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
simple NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O

Perineal NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O O
complication NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
perineal NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
should NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
reopened NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Minor NN O O
complication NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
seroma NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
37 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
12 NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
cases NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
preoperative NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
major NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
incurred NN O O
with NN O O
minor NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
32 NN O O
patients NN O O
got NN O O
primary NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
perineal NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
suffered NN O O
major NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
incurred NN O O
with NN O O
minor NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
patients NN O O
got NN O O
primary NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perineal NN O O
wounds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs.21.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
preoperative NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
surgery NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
18.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Simple NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presacral NN O I-INT
space NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
abdominoperineal NN O O
resection NN O O
or NN O O
proctocolectomy NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
complication NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
wound NN O O
healing NN O O
for NN O O
perineal NN O O
wound NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
simple NN O O
drainage NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Preoperative NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
tends NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
minor NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21060033)

Denosumab NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
metastases NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
denosumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
fully NN O O
human NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
receptor NN O O
activator NN O O
of NN O O
nuclear NN O O
factor NN O O
? NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
RANK NN O O
) NN O O
ligand NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
delaying NN O O
or NN O O
preventing NN O O
skeletal-related NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
SREs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
denosumab NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,026 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
adjusted NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
creatinine NN O I-INT
clearance NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,020 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
strongly NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplements NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
on-study NN O I-OUT
SRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
compression NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
Denosumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O I-OUT
delaying NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
on-study NN O I-OUT
SRE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.82 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.71 NN O O
to NN O O
0.95 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
superiority NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on-study NN O I-OUT
SREs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.66 NN O O
to NN O O
0.89 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
denosumab NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of 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
and NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acute-phase NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
zoledronic NN O O
acid NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
hypocalcemia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O I-INT
denosumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Osteonecrosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
jaw NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
infrequently NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
denosumab NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Denosumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O I-INT
zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
delaying NN O O
or NN O O
preventing NN O O
SREs NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
convenience NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injection NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
renal NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
denosumab NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21067912)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
oxaliplatin-based NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Peripheral NN O O
sensory NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
debilitating NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Calcium NN O O
and NN O O
magnesium NN O O
( NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
) NN O O
infusions NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
concerns NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
infusions NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
raised NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
infusions NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
CAIRO2 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
ACC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cetuximab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Ca/Mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
Ca/Mg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Ca/Mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Seven NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
551 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
181 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.22 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
10.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
10.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
OS NN O O
was NN O O
19.8 NN O O
versus NN O O
20.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
43.1 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
largest NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
Ca/Mg NN O O
infusions NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
all NN O O
grade NN O O
oxaliplatin-related NN O O
neurotoxicity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ca/Mg NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2107116)

Endoscopic NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
operative NN O I-INT
gastrostomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
final NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
operative NN O I-INT
gastrostomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
surgeons NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
gastrostomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
one NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
. NN O O

PEG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sachs-Vine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
OG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Stamm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
equally NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
underlying NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
OG NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
attempted NN O I-PAR
PEG NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
OG NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
PEG NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tube NN O O
feeding NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
) NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastrostomy NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

OG NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
$ NN O O
1675 NN O O
and NN O O
PEG NN O O
$ NN O O
979 NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O O
PEG NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
required NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
raised NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
$ NN O O
1574 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
OG NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PEG NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
technique NN O O
does NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21072224)

Trachoma NN O O
prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
gambia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Tanzania NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Blinding NN O O
trachoma NN O O
, NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
ocular NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
Chlamydia NN O O
trachomatis NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
targeted NN O O
for NN O O
global NN O O
elimination NN O O
by NN O O
2020 NN O O
. NN O O

Knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
target NN O O
control NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
active NN O O
trachoma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
C. NN O I-OUT
trachomatis NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
0-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
Gambian NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
Tanzanian NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
examined NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
simplified NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-OUT
swab NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
processed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
polymerase NN O I-OUT
chain NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
C. NN O I-INT
trachomatis NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
trachoma NN O O
was NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
335/5033 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Gambia NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
32.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1008/3122 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Tanzania NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
countries NN O O
' NN O O
corresponding NN O O
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
prevalences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
21.9 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
follicular NN O O
trachoma NN O O
( NN O O
TF NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
countries NN O O
were NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
household NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
being NN O O
aged NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
Tanzania NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-OUT
flies NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
crowding NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
per NN O O
household NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
being NN O I-OUT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Tanzania NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
TF NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
flies NN O O
and NN O O
crowding NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Gambia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
being NN O I-OUT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
trachoma NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positives NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
very NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
active NN O O
trachoma NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
but NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
being NN O I-OUT
Amplicor NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
being NN O O
Amplicor NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
TF NN O O
in NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Gambia NN O I-PAR
highlights NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
poor NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
trachoma NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
C. NN O I-OUT
trachomatis NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
C. NN O O
trachomatis NN O O
DNA NN O O
in NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Gambia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
low NN O O
endemicity NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT00792922 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21083385)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
VX-770 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
G551D-CFTR NN O I-PAR
mutation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
new NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cystic NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
involves NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
mutant NN O O
cystic NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
transmembrane NN O O
conductance NN O O
regulator NN O O
( NN O O
CFTR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

VX-770 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
CFTR NN O O
potentiator NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
wild-type NN O O
and NN O O
defective NN O O
cell-surface NN O O
CFTR NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
G551D-CFTR NN O I-PAR
allele NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
VX-770 NN O I-INT
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
VX-770 NN O I-INT
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
or NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
VX-770 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chloride-free NN O O
isoproterenol NN O O
solution NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
-3.5 NN O O
mV NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
-8.3 NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
within-subject NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.13 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sweat NN O I-OUT
chloride NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-59.5 NN O O
mmol NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
-66.0 NN O O
to NN O O
-19.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
within-subject NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
predicted NN O O
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1 NN O O
second NN O O
was NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
2.3 NN O O
to NN O O
31.3 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.008 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
within-subject NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.56 NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
diffuse NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
incidents NN O O
of NN O O
elevated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
subject NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

All NN O O
severe NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
resolved NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
VX-770 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse-event NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
VX-770 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
VX-770 NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
within-subject NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
CFTR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
potentiation NN O O
of NN O O
CFTR NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
Vertex NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
; NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00457821 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21084429)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
planned NN O O
crossover NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternate NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in 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
where NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
alternate NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GD?C NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CD?G NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
predetermined NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
3-week NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 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
plus NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-14 NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Upon NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-INT
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TtP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O I-OUT
end NN O O
points NN O O
evaluated NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O I-PAR
over-accrual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
475 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
matured NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
324 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
385 NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
TtP NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
discontinuations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Human NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
2 NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
captured NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
discontinued NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
AEs NN O O
than NN O O
GD NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
18.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TtP NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
1.101 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.885-1.370 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.387 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.031 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.830-1.280 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.785 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
comparing NN O I-INT
GD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ORR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.239 NN O O
) NN O O
comparing NN O O
GD NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
of NN O O
207 NN O O
, NN O O
34.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CD NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
of NN O O
191 NN O O
, NN O O
40.8 NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TtP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
comparing NN O O
crossover NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
GD NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
CD NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
more NN O O
hand-foot NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
GD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21087288)

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
undecanoate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
injectable NN O I-INT
norethisterone NN O I-INT
enanthate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
biochemical NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Testosterone NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
progestogens NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O O
contraception NN O O
induces NN O O
reversible NN O O
oligo-azoospermia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analysed NN O I-PAR
anthropometric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
testosterone NN O I-INT
undecanoate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TU NN O O
: NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
norethisterone NN O I-INT
enanthate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NETE NN O O
: NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
every NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
NETE-8 NN O O
; NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
NETE-12 NN O O
; NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
NETE-6/12 NN O O
; NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
TU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
every NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
: NN O O
NETE-6/12/0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NETE-0/0 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks 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
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
any NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
NETE-8 NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 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
. NN O O

Lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAMC NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
AMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
hormonal NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
NETE-6/12 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
, NN O O
NETE-8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and 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
in NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
any NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
NETE NN O O
and NN O O
TU NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
NETE NN O O
plus NN O O
TU NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21090563)

Blockade NN O O
of NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O O
antigen-4 NN O O
by NN O O
ipilimumab NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
immunity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blockade NN O O
of NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
T-lymphocyte NN O O
antigen-4 NN O O
( NN O O
CTLA-4 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
ipilimumab NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
immune-mediated NN O O
tumor NN O O
regression NN O O
and NN O O
immune-related NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
irAEs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
and NN O O
colitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
an NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
potential NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
help NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
ipilimumab-induced NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
irAEs NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment-na?ve NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III/IV NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
ipilimumab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
blinded NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gradual NN O I-INT
taper NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcome NN O I-INT
measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
biopsies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serologic NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IBD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
calprotectin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
polymorphisms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
immune-related NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ipilimumab NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
mucosal NN O O
immunity NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
altered NN O O
antibody NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
enteric NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
fecal NN O I-OUT
calprotectin NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
ipilimumab-induced NN O O
antibody NN O O
titers NN O O
to NN O O
microbial NN O O
flora NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
histologic NN O O
features NN O O
and NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inflammation NN O O
were NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
classic NN O O
IBD NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
budesonide NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
prevent NN O I-OUT
ipilimumab-induced NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
observed NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
colonic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
could NN O O
reliably NN O O
predict NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
classic NN O O
IBD NN O O
and NN O O
ipilimumab-related NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
immune NN O O
mediated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
suggests NN O O
ipilimumab-related NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
distinct NN O O
clinicopathologic NN O O
entity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21097567)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Tele-Airway NN O I-INT
Management NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
hospital NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
remote NN O O
guidance NN O O
of NN O O
emergency NN O O
airway NN O O
management NN O O
called NN O O
the NN O O
Tele-Airway NN O I-INT
Management NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TAMS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TAMS NN O I-INT
for NN O O
intubations NN O O
of NN O O
actual NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
TAMS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
on-scene NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OSD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
intubated NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
the NN O O
TAMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
TAMS NN O I-INT
62 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
OSD NN O I-INT
56 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
oesophageal NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
TAMS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OSD NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
disconnection NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TAMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TAMS NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
OSD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
non-superiority NN O O
or NN O O
equivalence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21098003)

Plasma NN O O
pH NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
maximal NN O I-PAR
whole NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exercise NN O O
lowers NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O O
metabolic NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
O2 NN O O
to NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
( NN O O
glucose+1/2 NN O O
lactate NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
acidosis NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
pH NN O O
on NN O O
cerebral NN O O
lactate NN O O
uptake NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O O
metabolic NN O O
ratio NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Bicarb NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
350-500 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
constant NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
'2000 NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
row NN O I-INT
in NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
oarsmen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
23?2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean?S.D. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
Sal NN O O
trial NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
7.41?0.01 NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
to NN O O
7.02?0.02 NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
7.36?0.02 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
Bicarb NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Arterial NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
21.4?0.8 NN O O
and NN O O
32.7?2.3 NN O O
mM NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
Sal NN O O
and NN O O
Bicarb NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
arterial-jugular NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from-0.03?0.01 NN O O
mM NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
to NN O O
3.2?0.9 NN O O
mM NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3.4?1.4 NN O O
mM NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
Sal NN O O
and NN O O
Bicarb NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
equally NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
Sal NN O O
and NN O O
Bicarb NN O O
trials NN O O
: NN O O
from NN O O
5.8?0.6 NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
to NN O O
1.7?0.1 NN O O
and NN O O
1.8?0.2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
enlarged NN O I-OUT
blood-buffering NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Bicarb NN O I-INT
eliminated NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
acidosis NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O O
exercise NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21106341)

The NN O O
Toronto NN O O
prehospital NN O O
hypertonic NN O O
resuscitation NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O O
and NN O O
multiorgan NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study 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

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prehospital NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dextran NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HSD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
blunt NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
air NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
land NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
serving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
million NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injured NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blunt NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Glasgow NN O I-PAR
Coma NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
250 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HSD NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
NS NN O I-INT
given NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
accident NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
specific NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
protocol-related NN O I-OUT
logistical NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
randomization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HSD NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
follow NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurocognitive NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
estimates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
132 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
missed NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
[ NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
paramedic NN O O
discretion NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
[ NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
paramedic NN O O
forgot NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
[ NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
paramedic NN O O
refused NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
[ NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
compliance NN O O
was NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
109/113 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
randomized NN O O
cases NN O O
met NN O O
exclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
: NN O O
penetrating NN O O
trauma NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fall NN O O
from NN O O
standing NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
: NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
solution NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
interstitial NN O O
intravenous NN O O
line NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
lost NN O O
randomization NN O O
identification NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
NS NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
32.7 NN O O
for NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
32.6 NN O O
for NN O O
NS 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
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Sequential NN O I-OUT
Organ NN O I-OUT
Failure NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Multiple NN O I-OUT
Organ NN O I-OUT
Dysfunction NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
Multiple NN O I-OUT
Organ NN O I-OUT
Dysfunction NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Apache NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initial NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
scored NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
by NN O O
Marshall NN O O
classification NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
NS NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Zero NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Alive NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
NS NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
35/50 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42/56 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
was NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
34/50 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
41/56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
49.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
37/77 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
surviving NN O O
patients NN O O
consented NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
33/37 NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Disability NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
NS NN O O
. NN O O

Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
for NN O O
HSD NN O O
( NN O O
12/12 NN O O
[ NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
NS NN O O
( NN O O
15/21 NN O O
[ NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O I-OUT
Independence NN O I-OUT
Measure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
HSD NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
NS NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
prehospital NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
HSD NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
blunt NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
consent NN O O
for NN O O
neurofunctional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
is NN O O
problematic NN O O
and NN O O
threatens NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
definitive NN O O
trials NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
potentially NN O O
meaningful NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21115906)

Inhibin NN O O
A NN O O
is NN O O
down-regulated NN O O
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Inhibins NN O O
are NN O O
dimeric NN O O
glycoproteins NN O O
, NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
alpha-subunit NN O O
( NN O O
INH-? NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
possible NN O O
beta-subunits NN O O
( NN O O
?A NN O O
or NN O O
?B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
substantial NN O O
roles NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
reproduction NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
endocrine-responsive NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O

Aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
serological NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
inhibin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?-?A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
standardised NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O I-INT
chemotherapeutic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O O
serological NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
inhibin NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
rank NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
paired NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
assumed NN O O
at NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inhibin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
between NN O O
data NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
0.005 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
and NN O O
two-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inhibin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
four-week NN O O
and NN O O
two-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.744 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O I-INT
Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
inhibin NN O O
A NN O O
concentration NN O O
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
might NN O O
reflect NN O O
a NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
amenorrhoea NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
inhibin NN O O
A NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
tumour NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
a NN O O
sudden NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
concentration NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21118369)

Removal NN O O
of NN O O
humoral NN O O
mediators NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
with NN O O
neutral NN O O
microporous NN O O
resin NN O O
column NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
neutral NN O I-INT
microporous NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
critical NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=24 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
undergoing NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O O
treatment NN O O
received NN O O
HA330 NN O I-INT
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
every NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
: NN O O
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hematology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SOFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
28-day NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
while NN O O
in 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
HA NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fast NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vasoactive NN O I-OUT
agents NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
organ NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
SOFA NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
28-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
HA NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hemoperfusion NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
HA NN O O
type NN O O
cartridge NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
organ NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shorten NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O O
significant NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
circulation NN O O
by NN O O
hemoperfusion NN O I-INT
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
improving NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
ICU NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21120480)

A NN O O
two-part NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
cediranib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
on NN O O
single-dose NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Cediranib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RECENTIN? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
an NN O O
oral NN O O
, NN O O
highly NN O O
potent NN O I-INT
VEGF NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
cediranib NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
continual NN O I-INT
cediranib NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
two NN O O
dosing NN O O
strategies NN O O
using NN O O
this NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
platform NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
imaging NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
two NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
cediranib NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
fed/fasted NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fasted/fed NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Part NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
continual NN O O
dosage NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
Part NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
or NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Exploratory NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
using NN O I-INT
DCE-MRI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
enhancing NN O I-INT
fraction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EnF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
part NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cediranib NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
AUC NN O O
, NN O O
12-34 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
20-43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
food NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
cediranib NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
part NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
cediranib NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
sustainable NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
dosing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Continuous NN O I-INT
cediranib NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
antivascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
DCE-MRI NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
EnF NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
cediranib NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antitumour NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
sustained NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
upon NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2112233)

[ NN O O
GISSI-2 NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
for NN O O
tissue NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
activator NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21126245)

Intervention NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
socially NN O O
synchronous NN O O
engagement NN O O
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Social NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
impairments NN O O
are NN O O
core NN O O
deficits NN O O
and NN O O
prognostic NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
supplementing NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
curriculum NN O O
targeting NN O O
socially NN O O
synchronous NN O O
behavior NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
six-month NN O O
interventions NN O O
: NN O O
Interpersonal NN O I-INT
Synchrony NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Non-Interpersonal NN O I-INT
Synchrony NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
interventions NN O O
provided NN O O
identical NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
hours NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
classroom NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
student-to-teacher NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
home-based NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
per NN O O
month NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
instructional NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
the NN O O
Interpersonal NN O O
Synchrony NN O O
condition NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
supplementary NN O O
curriculum NN O O
targeting NN O O
socially NN O O
engaged NN O O
imitation NN O O
, NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
affect NN O O
sharing NN O O
; NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
maintenance NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Random NN O O
effects NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
examined NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
socially NN O O
engaged NN O O
imitation NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
doubling NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
imitated NN O O
acts NN O O
paired NN O O
with NN O O
eye NN O O
contact NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Interpersonal NN O O
Synchrony NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
skill NN O O
was NN O O
generalized NN O O
to NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
contexts NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
through NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shared NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
time NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
greatest NN O O
change NN O O
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Interpersonal NN O O
Synchrony NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
ASD NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
identify NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
ingredient NN O O
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
socially NN O O
engaged NN O O
imitation NN O O
. NN O O

Adding NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
targets NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
improves NN O O
short-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
at NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
cost NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
social NN O O
, NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
participants NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
plasticity NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
developmental NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00106210 NN O O
? NN O O
term NN O O
= NN O O
landa NN O O
& NN O O
rank NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21131142)

Human NN O O
psychopharmacology NN O O
and NN O O
dose-effects NN O O
of NN O O
salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
kappa NN O O
opioid NN O O
agonist NN O O
hallucinogen NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plant NN O O
Salvia NN O O
divinorum NN O O
. NN O O

Salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
, NN O O
selective NN O O
nonnitrogenous NN O O
kappa NN O O
opioid NN O O
agonist NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
known NN O O
psychoactive NN O O
constituent NN O O
of NN O O
Salvia NN O O
divinorum NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
member NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mint NN O O
family NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
centuries NN O O
by NN O O
Mazatec NN O O
shamans NN O O
of NN O O
Mexico NN O O
for NN O O
divination NN O O
and NN O O
spiritual NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

S. NN O O
divinorum NN O O
has NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
several NN O O
years NN O O
gained NN O O
increased NN O O
popularity NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
recreational NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
in NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
psychologically NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physically NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
hallucinogen-using NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Across NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
inhaled NN O O
16 NN O O
ascending NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
intermixed NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
under NN O O
comfortable NN O O
and NN O O
supportive NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Doses NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.375 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
?g/kg NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subject-rated NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
inhalation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Orderly NN O I-OUT
time- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dose-related NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Drug NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
definite NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
present NN O O
at NN O O
approximately NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
inhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Dose-related NN O O
increases NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mystical-type NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Mysticism NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
classic NN O I-OUT
serotonergic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5-HT2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
hallucinogens NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hallucinogen NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participant NN O I-PAR
narratives NN O I-PAR
indicated NN O O
intense NN O O
experiences NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
disruptions NN O O
in NN O O
vestibular NN O O
and NN O O
interoceptive NN O O
signals NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
spatial NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unusual NN O O
and NN O O
sometimes NN O O
recurring NN O O
themes NN O O
across NN O O
sessions NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
revisiting NN O O
childhood NN O O
memories NN O O
, NN O O
cartoon-like NN O O
imagery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
contact NN O O
with NN O O
entities NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
these NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
supportive NN O O
conditions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salvinorin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
occasioned NN O O
a NN O O
unique NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
having NN O O
similarities NN O O
to NN O O
classic NN O O
hallucinogens NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
mystical-type NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21135366)

Mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillator NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
insights NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Defibrillation NN O O
in NN O O
Acute NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DINAMIT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
although NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillators NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ICDs NN O O
) NN O O
lower NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
ICD NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
implanted NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
mortality NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
possible NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Defibrillation NN O O
in NN O O
Acute NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DINAMIT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
( 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 I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
variability NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ICD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=311 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=342 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
competing-risks NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nonarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
ICD NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arrhythmic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.15 NN O O
to NN O O
0.71 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
nonarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.70 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.00 NN O O
to NN O O
2.80 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
adjusted NN O O
time-dependent NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
ICD NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
appropriate NN O O
ICD NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
15.1 NN O O
% NN O O
yearly NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
ICD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
no NN O O
appropriate NN O O
therapy 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
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
sudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ICD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
completely NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
nonarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
greatest NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
ICD NN O O
shock NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
6.0 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
2.8 NN O O
to NN O O
12.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
ICDs NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
those NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
requiring NN O O
ICD NN O O
therapy NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nonsudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
negating NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
ICDs NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21142736)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
810-nm NN O I-INT
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hair NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
biophysical NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
clinically NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
hair NN O O
removal NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
laser NN O O
procedures NN O O
still NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
overheating NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
810-nm NN O I-INT
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hair NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
biophysical NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
various NN O O
non-invasive NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
on NN O O
various NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
hair NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
surface NN O O
color NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
integrity NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
barrier NN O O
, NN O O
sebum NN O O
production NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
pH NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
right-left NN O O
comparison NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
hair NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
single-session NN O I-INT
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hair NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
biophysical NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Hair NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thicknesses NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biophysical NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
determined NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
laser-treated NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
perform NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hair NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
significant NN O O
epidermal NN O O
damage NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21148662)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II-receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
dihydropiridine NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
J-RHYTHM NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
frequently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
by NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II-receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
AF NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
Rhythm NN O I-PAR
Management NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Atrial NN O I-PAR
Fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
J-RHYTHM NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
an NN O O
ARB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
candesartan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
AF NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
daily NN O O
transtelephonic NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
paroxysmal NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
treatment 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
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
dimension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
318 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
male/female NN O I-PAR
219/99 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
158 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ARB NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CCB NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
throughout NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
days/month NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
3.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5.0 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ARB NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
4.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6.3 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CCB NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CCB NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ARB NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two 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
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
dimension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
by NN O O
candesartan NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
AF NN O O
( NN O O
umin NN O O
CTR NN O O
C000000427 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21148666)

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
concomitant NN O O
ablation NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
regular NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Cost NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
societal NN O O
perspective NN O O
alongside NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
undergo NN O I-INT
cardiac NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cost-effectiveness NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-medical NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Costs NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
QALYs NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
the NN O O
incremental NN O O
costs NN O O
per NN O O
QALY NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
AS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
cost NN O O
difference NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
: NN O O
?4,724 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
uncertainty NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
UI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?2,770-?6,678 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bootstrapped NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
0.06 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
UI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.024 NN O O
to NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
ratio NN O O
is NN O O
?73,359 NN O O
per NN O O
QALY NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O O
curve NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
threshold NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
?80,000 NN O O
per NN O I-OUT
QALY NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
more NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
than NN O O
regular NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
beyond NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Concluding NN O O
that NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
AS NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
AF NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
regular NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21154265)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
L-citrulline NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
L-citrulline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFpEF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
therefore NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
aminoacids NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
outstanding NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFpEF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
echocardiogram NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radioisotopic NN O I-INT
ventriculography NN O I-INT
rest/exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
consecutive NN O O
manner NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
g/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
citrulline NN O I-INT
malate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
3 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
principal NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
L-arginine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
56.3 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
vs NN O O
44 NN O O
? NN O O
16.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg 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 I-INT
citrulline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
56.67 NN O O
? NN O O
7.96 NN O O
vs NN O O
47.67 NN O O
? NN O O
8.59 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Duration NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
treadmill NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
post NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
L-arginine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
citrulline NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFpEF NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21171314)

[ NN O I-INT
Accelerated NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
larynx NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
test NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
accelerated NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
boost NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
larynx NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
The NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
112 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
larynx NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
had NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
C NN O O
-- NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
locoregional NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
83 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
C NN O O
-- NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
72 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
C NN O O
-- NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Concomitant NN O I-INT
boost NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
loco-regional NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
close NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
margins NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
longer NN O O
interval NN O O
between NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
T4 NN O O
had NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21188521)

Differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
K1 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
AFP NN O O
and NN O O
DCP NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lines NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
DCP NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
HCC NN O O
tumor NN O O
marker NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
reflects NN O O
a NN O O
defect NN O O
in NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K NN O O
metabolism 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
vitamin NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
suppress NN O O
this NN O O
marker NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
AFP NN O O
also NN O O
. NN O O

EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
AFP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
DCP NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
cohort NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
escalating NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
K1 NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O O
weekly NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
27-patient NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
then NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
oral NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
100-fold NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
K1 NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1,000 NN O O
mg/infusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
decreased NN O O
DCP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
responses NN O O
by NN O O
decreased NN O O
AFP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CT NN O O
scans NN O O
showed NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
PRs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
29.6 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mechanism NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K1 NN O O
induced NN O O
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
JNK NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
c-Jun NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
caspase-mediated NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
K1 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
non-toxic NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
strongly NN O O
inhibited NN O O
plasma NN O O
DCP NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
weakly NN O O
suppressed NN O O
AFP NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
tumor NN O O
markers NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
directly NN O O
linked NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
DCP NN O O
levels NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
reflect NN O O
HCC NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
DCP NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
AFP NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
suppressed NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K1 NN O O
concentration NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
AFP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21189767)

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chromatic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
silver NN O I-INT
nanoparticles NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
linked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
gantrez NN O I-INT
S-97 NN O I-INT
copolymer NN O I-INT
on NN O O
tooth NN O I-PAR
enamel NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Silver NN O I-INT
nanoparticles NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NNPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
bioadhesive NN O O
Gantrez NN O I-INT
S-97 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
against NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
mutans NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
changes NN O O
the NN O O
color NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
teeth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
work NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
color NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Gantrez-NNP NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
on NN O O
enamel NN O O
tooth NN O O
blocks NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
formed NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
enamel NN O I-PAR
blocks NN O I-PAR
brushed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
Gantrez-NNP NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
minute NN O I-PAR
once NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
rinsed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
distilled NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
thymol NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Color NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
blocks NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Minolta NN O I-OUT
colorimeter NN O I-OUT
CR300 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
mixed NN O O
models NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
R NN O O
2.10.1 NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
mixed NN O O
effects NN O O
( NN O O
NLME NN O O
) NN O O
package 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 I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
luminosity NN O I-OUT
equal NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Gantrez-NNP NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
dental NN O I-OUT
esthetics NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
S. NN O I-OUT
mutans NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21190079)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
expression NN O O
on NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
mRNA NN O O
level NN O O
: NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
GeparTrio NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
NCT00544765 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-INT
epidermal NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HER2 NN O O
) NN O O
testing NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
pathological NN O O
assessment NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
HER2 NN O O
provides NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
prognostic NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
predictive NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
targeted NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

So NN O O
far NN O O
, NN O O
HER2 NN O O
test NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
immunohistochemistry/in NN O O
situ-hybridization NN O O
techniques NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
under NN O O
debate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
reliable NN O O
and NN O O
robust NN O O
technologies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
on NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
278 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
GeparTrio NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O O
anthracycline/taxane-based NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
GeparTrio NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
anti-HER2 NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HER2 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
approaches NN O O
: NN O O
local NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
immunohistochemistry NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
situ-hybridization NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-INT
kinetic NN O I-INT
RT-PCR NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
formalin-fixed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
paraffin-embedded NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FFPE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
predefined NN O O
cutoff NN O O
. NN O O

HER2 NN O I-OUT
overexpression/amplification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
37.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
91/244 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
41/229 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
informative NN O O
samples NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
evaluations NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
19.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
55/278 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
kinetic NN O I-OUT
RT-PCR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.856 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
agreement NN O O
of NN O O
95.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
statistic NN O O
, NN O O
0.862 NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
0.77-0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
neoadjuvant NN O I-OUT
anthracycline/taxane-based NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
univariate NN O O
binary NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
3.29 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
2.65 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
3.04 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
locally NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
HER2 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
standardized NN O O
methods NN O O
are NN O O
preferable NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
HER2 NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
kinetic NN O O
RT-PCR NN O O
from NN O O
FFPE NN O O
tissue NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
important NN O O
prognostic NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
parameter NN O O
but NN O O
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21204103)

Interleukin-6 NN O O
receptor NN O O
inhibition NN O O
with NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O O
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
reactants NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
on NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
measures NN O O
that NN O O
do NN O O
or NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
comprise NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
reactants NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Simplified NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease-modifying NN O I-INT
antirheumatic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
CDAI NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
contain NN O O
an NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
reactant NN O O
component NN O O
. NN O O

Disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
states NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
using NN O O
established NN O O
cut NN O O
points NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
cut NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
2.4 NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SDAI NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
CDAI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Rheumatology NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
?20 NN O O
% NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
acute-phase NN O O
reactant NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
fulfill NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
( NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
cut NN O O
point NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
of NN O O
tocilizumab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
SDAI NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CDAI NN O O
( NN O O
?21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
infliximab NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SDAI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
magnitude NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tocilizumab-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O O
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
swollen NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
sedimentation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ESRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SDAI NN O O
or NN O O
CDAI NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
RA NN O O
is NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
composite NN O O
measure NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
much NN O O
higher NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SDAI NN O O
and NN O O
CDAI NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
weight NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ESR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tocilizumab NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ESR NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
stringent NN O O
SDAI NN O O
and NN O O
CDAI NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
remission NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tocilizumab NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
range NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21206549)

The NN O O
nightly NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
oxybate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disruption NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
narcolepsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
further NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
oxybate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SXB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
narcolepsy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
228 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
narcolepsy/cataplexy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
antidepressants NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sedative/hypnotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
4.5 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
9 NN O O
g NN O O
SXB NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
nightly NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
g/night NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
final NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
weekly NN O O
1.5 NN O O
g NN O O
increments NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
mock NN O O
dose NN O O
titration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
stimulant NN O O
therapy NN O O
continued NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
architecture NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
centrally NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
polysomnograms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Daily NN O O
diaries NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
narcolepsy NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Following NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
SXB NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
dose-related NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
52.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
9 NN O O
g NN O O
nightly NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
delta NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
dose NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
each NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
g/night NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
coincided NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
narcolepsy NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
nightly NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
SXB NN O O
to NN O O
narcolepsy NN O O
patients NN O O
significantly NN O O
impacts NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
slow NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wake NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-related NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
narcolepsy NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21207788)

Controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O I-INT
ceramic NN O I-INT
crowns NN O I-INT
inserted NN O O
with NN O O
RelyX NN O I-INT
Unicem NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
enamel NN O I-INT
etching NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1-year NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
ceramic NN O I-OUT
crowns NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
inserted NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
RelyX NN O I-INT
Unicem NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RXU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RXU+E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RXU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
selective NN O I-INT
enamel NN O I-INT
etching NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
investigation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
PCC NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
PCC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
insertion NN O O
with NN O O
RXU NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
PCC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
insertion NN O O
with NN O O
RXU+E NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
PCCs NN O O
were NN O O
CAD/CAM NN O O
fabricated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Cerec NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RXU NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
PCCs NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
molars NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O O
in NN O O
premolars NN O O
. NN O O

RXU+E NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
26 NN O O
PCCs NN O O
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
molars NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O O
in NN O O
premolars NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
restorations NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
rated NN O O
using NN O O
modified NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
Public NN O O
Health NN O O
Service NN O O
( NN O O
USPHS NN O O
) NN O O
criteria NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
placement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24-59 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
25-75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
PBI NN O O
was NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3-9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
recall NN O I-PAR
appointments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
PCC NN O O
( NN O I-INT
RXU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
debonded NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
PCC NN O O
( NN O I-INT
RXU+E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fractured NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
restorations NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
replaced NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
recall NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O O
controlled NN O O
restorations NN O O
were NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
evaluation NN O O
using NN O O
USHPS NN O O
criteria NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
alfa NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
respect NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
discoloration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
luting NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
RXU NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RXU+E NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
reobserved NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
adhesive NN O O
luting NN O O
with NN O O
RXU NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
selective NN O O
enamel NN O O
etching NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21220480)

Gefitinib NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-OUT
receptor-positive NN O I-OUT
metastatic NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Increased NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
signaling NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
assessed NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
gefitinib NN O O
in NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
ER NN O O
) NN O O
-positive NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurred NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
stratum NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurred NN O I-PAR
during/after NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
aromatase NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
AI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stratum NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
; NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CBR NN O O
; NN O O
stratum NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
variables NN O O
with NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
warrant NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
was NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
206 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.84 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.59-1.18 NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
10.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
8.8 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
endocrine NN O O
therapy-na?ve NN O O
subset NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
158 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.78 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.52-1.15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
endocrine-treated NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
48 NN O O
) NN O O
1.47 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.63-3.45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
CBRs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
50.5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
45.5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
stratum NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CBRs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
29.2 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
31.4 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Biomarker NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
benefit NN O O
with NN O O
gefitinib NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
ER-negative NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
ER NN O O
protein NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
stratum NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improved NN O O
PFS NN O O
with NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
met NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
criteria NN O O
to NN O O
warrant NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stratum NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
numerical NN O O
disadvantage NN O O
for NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
additional NN O O
investigation NN O O
after NN O O
AI NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
subset NN O I-PAR
appropriate NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21222024)

The NN O O
dud NN O O
effect NN O O
: NN O O
adding NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
dissimilar NN O I-PAR
fillers NN O I-PAR
increases NN O I-PAR
confidence NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
lineup NN O I-PAR
identifications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
decision-making NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
dud-alternative NN O O
effect NN O O
-- NN O O
the NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
more NN O O
confident NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
chosen NN O O
response NN O O
option NN O O
is NN O O
correct NN O O
if NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
surrounded NN O O
by NN O O
implausible NN O O
response NN O O
options NN O O
( NN O O
Windschitl NN O O
& NN O O
Chambers NN O O
, NN O O
J NN O O
Exp NN O O
Psychol NN O O
30:198-215 NN O O
, NN O O
2004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
applicable NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lineup NN O O
task NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
duds NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
highly NN O O
dissimilar NN O O
fillers NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
a NN O O
witness NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
an NN O O
identified NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
non-dud NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
lineup NN O I-PAR
member NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
the NN O O
criminal NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O O
665 NN O O
) NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
mere NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O O
dissimilar NN O O
fillers NN O O
inflates NN O O
witnesses NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
mistaken NN O O
identification NN O O
( NN O O
Studies NN O O
1-4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
inflation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
duds NN O O
inflating NN O O
the NN O O
perceived NN O O
similarity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
lineup NN O O
members NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
criminal NN O O
( NN O O
Studies NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
delineates NN O O
some NN O O
conditions NN O O
under NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
holds NN O O
( NN O O
Studies NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O O
dissimilar NN O I-INT
lineup NN O I-INT
members NN O I-INT
, NN O O
far NN O O
from NN O O
being NN O O
inert NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
implicitly NN O O
assumed NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
bias NN O O
witnesses NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
confidence NN O O
reports NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21224870)

Efficient NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
immunization NN O I-INT
on NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
mediates NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O O
functions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
deficiency NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
immunological NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
beneficial NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
lupus NN O I-PAR
erythematosus NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
affect NN O O
on NN O O
established NN O O
recall NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
is NN O O
undefined NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS/METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
daily NN O O
2000 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
booster NN O I-INT
immunization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
supplementation NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
80.3 NN O O
nM NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
29.1 NN O O
nM NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
ultraviolet-deprived NN O O
winter NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TT-specific NN O I-OUT
immunoglobulin NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
boost NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
marginal NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
TT-IgG NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
specific NN O O
antibody NN O O
secreting NN O O
cells NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TT-specific NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
polyclonally NN O I-OUT
triggered NN O I-OUT
T-cell NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
stable NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
and NN O O
booster NN O O
immunization NN O O
induced NN O O
efficiently NN O O
specific NN O O
antibodies NN O O
titers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21226576)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recommendations NN O O
vary NN O O
regarding NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
watchful NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
291 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stringent NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
; NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
initial NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.14 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
comparison NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
sustained NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
comparison NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
otoscopic NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
lower NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
than NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
visit NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
5 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
16 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
visit NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mastoiditis NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Diarrhea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diaper-area NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
nonsusceptible NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
symptom NN O O
burden NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
infection NN O O
on NN O O
otoscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Allergy NN O O
and NN O O
Infectious NN O O
Diseases NN O O
; NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00377260 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21233425)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Carolina NN O O
Abecedarian NN O O
Project NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
explored NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Carolina NN O O
Abecedarian NN O O
Project NN O O
( NN O O
ABC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1972 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1977 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Frank NN O I-PAR
Porter NN O I-PAR
Graham NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
Development NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chapel NN O I-PAR
Hill NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
improved NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
behaviors NN O O
by NN O O
21 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
ABC NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
111 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O O
on NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
when NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
mediators NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
relationship NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
previously NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
heath NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
aged NN O O
21 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
behaviors NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
math NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
educational NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Effective NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
risky NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21237718)

Triple NN O I-INT
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
nevirapine NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
mother-to-child NN O O
transmission NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
( NN O O
Kesho NN O O
Bora NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Breastfeeding NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
low-resource NN O O
settings NN O O
but NN O O
carries NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
transmission NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
late NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
disease 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
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
nevirapine NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
WHO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
counts NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
200-500 NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
?L NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
at NN O O
five NN O O
study NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Burkina NN O I-PAR
Faso NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Kenya NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
28-36 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O O
generated NN O O
random NN O O
sequence NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
lamivudine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
lopinavir NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
ritonavir NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
until NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
6?5 NN O O
months NN O O
post NN O O
partum NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
nevirapine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
until NN O O
delivery NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
nevirapine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
labour NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
amendment NN O O
in NN O O
December NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
post-partum NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
lamivudine NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
0?6 NN O O
mL NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
nevirapine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
birth NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
December NN O O
, NN O O
2006 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
of NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
investigators NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
HIV-free NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
HIV-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
ever NN O O
breastfed NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
AIDS-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O O
and NN O O
babies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O I-OUT
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
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
, NN O O
ISRCTN71468401 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
882 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
824 NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
and NN O O
gave NN O O
birth NN O O
to NN O O
805 NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
liveborn NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
cumulative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
3?3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?9-5?6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
5?0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3?3-7?7 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
nevirapine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
5?4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3?6-8?1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
9?5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7?0-12?9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-dose NN O O
nevirapine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0?029 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
was NN O O
10?2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7?6-13?6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
16?0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
12?7-20?0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
nevirapine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p=0?017 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
infants NN O O
whose NN O O
mothers NN O O
declared NN O O
they NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
breastfeed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
5?6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3?4-8?9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10?7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7?6-14?8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
nevirapine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-OUT
p=0?02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIDS-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mothers NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
publication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
babies NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Triple NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduces NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Revised NN O O
WHO NN O O
guidelines NN O O
now NN O O
recommend NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mother NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baby NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
mother NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
already NN O O
receiving NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
her NN O O
own NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Agence NN O O
nationale NN O O
de NN O O
recherches NN O O
sur NN O O
le NN O O
sida NN O O
et NN O O
les NN O O
h?patites NN O O
virales NN O O
, NN O O
Department NN O O
for NN O O
International NN O O
Development NN O O
, NN O O
European NN O O
and NN O O
Developing NN O O
Countries NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Partnership NN O O
, NN O O
Thrasher NN O O
Research NN O O
Fund NN O O
, NN O O
Belgian NN O O
Directorate NN O O
General NN O O
for NN O O
International NN O O
Cooperation NN O O
, NN O O
Centers NN O O
for NN O O
Disease NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Prevention NN O O
, NN O O
Eunice NN O O
Kennedy NN O O
Shriver NN O O
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Human NN O O
Development NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
UNDP/UNFPA/World NN O O
Bank/WHO NN O O
Special NN O O
Programme NN O O
of NN O O
Research NN O O
, NN O O
Development NN O O
and NN O O
Research NN O O
Training NN O O
in NN O O
Human NN O O
Reproduction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21238531)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
dentine NN O I-OUT
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
advent NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
lasers NN O O
has NN O O
raised NN O O
another NN O O
possible NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
dentine NN O I-OUT
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decades NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
split NN O O
mouth NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compare NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
desensitizing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
erbium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chromium-doped NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
yttrium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
scandium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
gallium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
garnet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
galium-aluminium-arsenide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
on NN O O
DH NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DH NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
diode NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
sensitive NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
irradiated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
8.5J/cm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
density NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
sensitive NN O O
teeth NN O O
were NN O O
irradiated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hard NN O O
tissue NN O O
mode NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
none-contact NN O O
probe NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
energy NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
0.25W NN O O
and NN O O
repetition NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
20Hz NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
water NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
air NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
60s NN O O
for NN O O
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30s NN O O
for NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
laser NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
a NN O O
desensitizing NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examination 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
Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
Er NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YSGG NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GaAlAs NN O I-INT
lasers NN O I-INT
were NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
DH NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21243370)

Pars NN O I-INT
plana NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
diabetic NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
. NN O O

Internal NN O I-INT
limiting NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
delamination NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
posterior NN O I-INT
hyaloid NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
subsequent NN O O
ocular NN O O
complications NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cystoid NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
( NN O O
CME NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
fundametal NN O O
socio-economic NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
limiting NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ILM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
on NN O O
longterm NN O O
morphological NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
CME NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
evident NN O I-PAR
vitreomacular NN O I-PAR
traction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
attached NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
hyaloid NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Prior NN O O
focal NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
panretinal NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
coagulation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
permitted NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
underwent NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
vitreous NN O I-INT
detachment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
PVD NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ILM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
detached NN O O
posterior NN O O
hyaloid NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ILM NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
eye NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
further NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Examinations NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
ETDRS NN O I-OUT
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluorescein NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FLA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OCT NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
foveal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
different NN O O
[ NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
log NN O O
MAR NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
0.06 NN O O
; NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
-0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OCT NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
foveal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
PVD NN O O
with NN O O
ILM NN O O
removal NN O O
[ NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
: NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
( NN O O
-208.95 NN O O
?m NN O O
; NN O O
-78.05 NN O O
?m NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
-80.90 NN O O
?m NN O O
: NN O O
+59.17 NN O O
?m NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Vitrectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PVD NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ILM NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
improve NN O O
vision NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cystoid NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
evident NN O I-PAR
vitreoretinal NN O I-PAR
traction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ILM NN O I-PAR
delamination NN O O
shows NN O O
improved NN O O
morphological NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
preexisting NN O I-PAR
PVD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21261975)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
completing NN O O
enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
EPaNIC NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
For NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
two NN O O
feeding NN O O
strategies NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
being NN O O
advocated NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
by NN O O
American/Canadian NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
by NN O O
European NN O O
expert NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
guidelines NN O O
differ NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
initiating NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
( NN O O
PN NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
enteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
does NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
reach NN O I-PAR
caloric NN O I-PAR
targets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
EPaNIC NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
investigator-initiated NN O O
, NN O O
non-commercial NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
early NN O O
( NN O O
European NN O O
guideline NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
late NN O O
( NN O O
American/Canadian NN O O
guideline NN O O
) NN O O
initiation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
fails NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reach NN O O
a NN O O
caloric NN O O
target NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
initiated NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
24-48 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
ICU NN O I-INT
admission NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
complete NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
calculated NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
completing NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
initiated NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
reached NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
early NN O O
EN NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
several NN O O
mechanistical NN O O
questions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
here NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
EPaNIC NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
initiated NN O O
as NN O O
planned NN O O
on NN O O
august NN O O
01 NN O O
2007 NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
advised NN O O
continuation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
February NN O O
2011 NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials NN O O
( NN O O
NCT NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00512122 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21262119)

Dark-phase NN O O
light NN O O
contamination NN O O
disrupts NN O O
circadian NN O O
rhythms NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
of NN O O
endocrine NN O I-PAR
physiology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dark-phase NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
contamination NN O I-INT
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
disrupt NN O O
chronobiologic NN O I-OUT
rhythms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
potentially NN O O
altering NN O O
the NN O O
endocrine NN O O
physiology NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
influencing NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
scientific NN O O
investigations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
low-level NN O O
light NN O O
contamination NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
phase NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
normally NN O O
entrained NN O O
circadian NN O O
rhythms NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
substances NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

Male NN O I-PAR
Sprague-Dawley NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
housed NN O O
in NN O O
photobiologic NN O I-INT
light-exposure NN O I-INT
chambers NN O I-INT
configured NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
12:12-h NN O O
light NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
dark NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
dark-phase NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
contamination NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
; NN O O
123 NN O O
?W/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lights NN O O
on NN O O
at NN O O
0600 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
experimental NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-h NN O O
dark NN O O
phase NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
0.08 NN O O
?W/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
light NN O O
at NN O O
night NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
constant NN O I-INT
bright NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
123 NN O O
?W/cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O O
and NN O O
water NN O O
intakes NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
rats NN O O
underwent NN O O
6 NN O O
low-volume NN O O
blood NN O O
draws NN O O
at NN O O
4-h NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
beginning NN O O
at NN O O
0400 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
light NN O O
and NN O O
dark NN O O
phases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Circadian NN O I-OUT
rhythms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
entrained NN O O
during NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
or NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
light NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
patterns NN O O
were NN O O
disrupted NN O O
in NN O O
rats NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
constant NN O I-INT
bright NN O I-INT
light NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Circadian NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
melatonin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
corticosterone NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
rats NN O O
except NN O O
those NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
constant NN O I-INT
bright NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O O
highest NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
light NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
even NN O O
minimal NN O O
light NN O O
contamination NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dark NN O O
phase NN O O
can NN O O
disrupt NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
circadian NN O I-OUT
rhythms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endocrine NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
physiology NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
scientific NN O O
investigations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21270510)

Prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Qingdao NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
components NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
population-based NN O I-INT
crosssectional NN O I-INT
survey NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
Qingdao NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
6100 NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
35-74 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5355 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
3357 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1562 NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
46.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1795 NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
definitions NN O O
of NN O O
National NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
Education NN O O
Program NN O O
Adult NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Expert NN O O
Panel NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
NCEPATPIII NN O O
) NN O O
2004 NN O O
, NN O O
NCEP NN O O
2005 NN O O
and NN O O
International NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Federation NN O O
( NN O O
IDF NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
age-standardized NN O I-OUT
prevalences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
16.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
32.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
37.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
definitions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NCEP NN O O
2004 NN O O
, NN O O
NCEP NN O O
2005 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IDF NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Urban NN O O
men NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
rural NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
that NN O O
striking NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
62.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
53.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
defined NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
NCEP NN O O
2005 NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Metabolic NN O O
disorders NN O O
were NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Qingdao NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21272822)

Using NN O O
baby NN O O
books NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
baby NN O I-INT
books NN O I-INT
are NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
low-income NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
first-time NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Primiparous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
167 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
book NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
noneducational NN O I-INT
book NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
no-book NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Home NN O O
visits NN O O
and NN O O
interviews NN O O
measured NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
third NN O O
trimester NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
educational NN O O
book NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
homes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
exercised NN O O
more NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
no-book NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
; NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
-.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
practices NN O I-OUT
involved NN O O
little NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
expense NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
putting NN O O
away NN O O
sharp NN O O
objects NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
educational NN O O
book NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
behaviors NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
no-book NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
practices NN O O
; NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
noneducational NN O O
book NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
practices NN O O
; NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
effort NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
money NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hassle NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
installing NN O O
latches NN O O
on NN O O
cabinets NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Educational NN O O
baby NN O O
books NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
easy NN O O
and NN O O
low-cost NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
especially NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
practices NN O O
involve NN O O
little NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
money NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hassle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21276573)

Initial NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cardiac NN O I-INT
resynchronization NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Overlay NN O O
Ref NN O O
technique NN O O
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
implanting NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
pacing NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
deploying NN O O
a NN O O
LV NN O O
pacing NN O O
lead NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
88 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CRT NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
CRT NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
guide NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
selection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
advance NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
specifically NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
44 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
conventionally NN O I-INT
implanted NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
LV NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
CRT NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
skin-to-skin NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
: NN O O
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
80.7 NN O O
? NN O O
18.0 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
98.5 NN O O
? NN O O
32.2 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
lead NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16.2 NN O O
? NN O O
7.7 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
36.4 NN O O
? NN O O
23.4 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
13.6 NN O O
? NN O O
4.3 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
23.8 NN O O
? NN O O
15.7 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.007 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
lead NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
: NN O O
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5.7 NN O O
? NN O O
2.9 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
14.4 NN O O
? NN O O
4.6 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Overlay NN O I-INT
Ref NN O I-INT
facilitates NN O I-INT
location NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
shortens NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
lead NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O O
vein NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2128415)

Serotonergic NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
TSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
TSH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
stimulatory NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
exerted NN O O
by NN O O
endogenous NN O O
serotonin NN O O
was NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
obesity NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
absence NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
serotonergic NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
PO NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TRH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Control NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subclinical NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
substantial NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Basal NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Normal NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
TRH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
peak NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
mU/L NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
9.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mU/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
nine NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
the NN O O
TRH-induced NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
= NN O O
16.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mU/L NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
mean NN O O
peak NN O O
= NN O O
10.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
mU/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothyroid NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
all NN O O
had NN O O
elevated NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TRH-stimulated NN O I-OUT
TSH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Basal NN O I-OUT
PRL NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
PRL NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
TRH NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
obese NN O O
men NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
II 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- (21287255)

Avatar NN O O
assistant NN O O
: NN O O
improving NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
computer-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
FaceSay NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computer-based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
indicates NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
providing NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LFA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
opportunities NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
practice NN O O
attending NN O O
to NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
, NN O O
discriminating NN O O
facial NN O O
expressions NN O O
and NN O O
recognizing NN O O
faces NN O O
and NN O O
emotions NN O O
in NN O O
FaceSay NN O O
's NN O O
structured NN O O
environment NN O O
with NN O O
interactive NN O O
, NN O O
realistic NN O O
avatar NN O O
assistants NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
LFA NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
HFA NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
areas NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
improvements NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
natural NN O O
environment NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
encouraging NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21288666)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
selenium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Se-enriched NN O I-INT
yeast NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
p34 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
cdc2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CyclinB1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
germ NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
goats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
selenium NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
p34 NN O O
( NN O O
cdc2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CyclinB1 NN O O
( NN O O
two NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
MPF NN O O
regulating NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
germ NN O O
cells NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
offspring NN O O
in NN O O
goats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
herd NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
Taihang NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
Goats NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
4 NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
Se NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
( NN O O
from NN O O
Se-enriched NN O O
yeast NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
174d NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
four NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
fed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
basal NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mgkg?? NN O O
DM NN O O
Se NN O O
. NN O O

Testis NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
goats NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
30d NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
mRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
using NN O O
real-time NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
for NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
p34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cdc2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CyclinB1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
testis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Se-deficient NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Group NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Se-excess NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
animals NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
p34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cdc2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
Se-deficient NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Se-excess NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
the NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
assay NN O O
detected NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
two NN O O
genes NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
Se-induced NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
can NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
mRNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
related NN O O
genes NN O O
( NN O O
p34 NN O O
( NN O O
cdc2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CyclinB1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
testis NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
offspring NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
Se NN O O
deficiency NN O O
and NN O O
Se NN O O
excess NN O O
could NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cell NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21300377)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychotic NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Having NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
treatment NN O O
course NN O O
predicts NN O O
poorer NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychotic NN O I-PAR
features NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDpsy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
history NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
MDpsy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
STOPD-PD NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sertraline NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
courses NN O O
received NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
hierarchy NN O O
of NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
treatments NN O O
received NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
olanzapine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
sertraline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
olanzapine NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Similar NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
emphasize NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MDpsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21304253)

[ NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
naftopidil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O O
between NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
evening NN O O
medication NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH/OAB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
morning NN O O
medication NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
evening NN O O
medication NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
naftopidil NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
supper NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
on NN O O
80 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
43 NN O O
, NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Naftopidil NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
international NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
from NN O O
19.2?7.9 NN O O
to NN O O
11.7?5.8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
19.4?6.4 NN O O
to NN O O
12.3?6.8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
QOL NN O O
score NN O O
from NN O O
4.9?0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
3.2?1.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
5.0?0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
3.6?1.3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OAB NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
7.8?2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
5.0?2.5 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
8.6?2.9 NN O O
to NN O O
5.8? NN O O
3.3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
E NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
naftopidil NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
storage NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21309374)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
interventions 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
identify NN O O
appropriate NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6-12 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fine NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
or NN O O
SI NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Pretests NN O O
and NN O O
posttests NN O O
measured NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social-emotional NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
identified NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Goal NN O I-OUT
Attainment NN O I-OUT
Scaling NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SI NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
mannerisms NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SI NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
discusses NN O O
considerations NN O O
for NN O O
designing NN O O
future NN O O
outcome NN O O
studies NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21309696)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil 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
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
neuropsychological NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
There NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
recent NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
enhancing NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
cholinesterase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
executive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EF NN O O
) NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
donepezil NN O O
on NN O O
EF NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
8-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
10-week NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
label NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
nonresponders NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
EF NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
EF NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
gains NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
donepezil NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
donepezil NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
limited NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
may NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
on NN O O
EF NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21316048)

Anastrozole NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oligo- NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anovulatory NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
follicular NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovulatory NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
assessor-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
, NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovulatory NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
35 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
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Single-dose NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
5-day NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
starting NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O O
cycle NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ovulation NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
midluteal NN O O
phase NN O O
serum NN O O
P NN O O
level NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
cycle NN O O
1 NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
were NN O O
46.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
41.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
23.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, 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
whereas NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
was NN O O
61.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
than NN O O
six NN O O
menses NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
( NN O O
52.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CC NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
42.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
CC NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
shown NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21317341)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Aspergillus NN O I-INT
oryzae NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Saccharomyces NN O I-INT
cervisiae NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
lambs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
meet NN O I-PAR
requirements NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-PAR
markets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
feed NN O I-INT
additive NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
lambs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
destined NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-PAR
markets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
Dorset NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
Hampshire NN O I-PAR
lambs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
BW NN O I-PAR
29.4 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
complete NN O O
block NN O O
experiment NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Aspergillus NN O I-INT
oryzae NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Amaferm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AMF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
growth NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lambs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allotted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
pens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
lambs NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
pen NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
blocked NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BW NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lambs NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
BW NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
pen NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
BW NN O O
( NN O O
55.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
for NN O O
wethers NN O O
and NN O O
50.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
for NN O O
ewes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
pen NN O O
of NN O O
lambs NN O O
was NN O O
slaughtered NN O O
. NN O O

Amaferm NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.07 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Exp NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
168 NN O I-PAR
crossbred NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
BW NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.7 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
arrangement NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
g/d NN O O
of NN O I-INT
Saccaromyces NN O I-INT
cervisiae NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
CNCM NN O I-INT
1079-Levucell NN O I-INT
SB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LEV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
g/d NN O O
of NN O I-INT
AMF NN O I-INT
with NN O O
2 NN O O
corn NN O O
sources NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
whole-shelled NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
moisture NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
growth NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neither NN O I-OUT
LEV NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
AMF NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
0.10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
carcass NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
non-feed-supplemented NN O I-OUT
steers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Addition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
LEV NN O I-INT
to NN O O
high-concentrate NN O O
, NN O O
corn-based NN O O
diets NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
0.10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feedlot NN O I-OUT
steers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AMF NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
dry NN O O
whole-shelled NN O O
corn NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.208 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.194 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
amounts NN O O
fed NN O O
, NN O O
AMF NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
lambs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
dry NN O O
corn-based NN O O
finishing NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21320312)

Enhancing NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
guideline NN O I-INT
among NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
adversely NN O O
affects NN O O
oral NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

Tobacco NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TUPAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
recommend NN O O
that NN O O
healthcare NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
ask NN O O
about NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
readiness NN O O
and NN O O
willingness NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
, NN O O
document NN O O
tobacco NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
habits NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
advise NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
, NN O O
assist NN O O
and NN O O
help NN O O
in NN O O
quitting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
arrange NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
progress NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
appointments NN O O
. NN O O

Adherence NN O O
to NN O O
such NN O O
guidelines NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
among NN O O
dental NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
is NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
improve NN O O
guideline NN O O
implementation NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
it NN O O
and NN O O
find NN O O
effective NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
those NN O O
factors 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
protocol NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
introduce NN O O
a NN O O
theory-based NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
diagnose NN O I-INT
implementation NN O I-INT
difficulties NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TUPAC NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
among NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
providers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Theories NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
key NN O O
theoretical NN O O
domains NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
behaviours NN O O
of NN O O
healthcare NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
involved NN O O
in NN O O
implementing NN O O
clinical NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
theoretical NN O O
domains NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TUPAC NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
among NN O O
Finnish NN O I-PAR
municipal NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Specific NN O O
items NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
guidelines NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
on NN O O
TUPAC NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
identifying NN O O
potential NN O O
implementation NN O O
difficulties NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
will NN O O
design NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
using NN O O
theories NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
to NN O O
link NN O O
them NN O O
with NN O O
relevant NN O O
behaviour NN O O
change NN O O
techniques NN O O
aiming NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
guideline NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
TUPAC NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
electronic NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
record NN O I-OUT
audit NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
To NN O O
improve NN O O
guideline NN O O
adherence NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical-domains NN O O
approach NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
implementation NN O O
difficulties NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
designing NN O O
and NN O O
evaluating NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
having NN O O
identified NN O O
implementation NN O O
difficulties NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
will NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
TUPAC NN O I-INT
guideline NN O I-INT
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical-domain NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
empirical NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
within NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
testing NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
theoretical-domain NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
TUPAC NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
among NN O O
dental NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN15427433 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21321333)

Intermittent NN O I-INT
theta-burst NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
theta-burst NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iTBS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Parkinson NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Progression NN O O
of NN O O
PD NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
eventually NN O O
respond NN O O
less NN O O
to NN O O
dopaminergic NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
pose NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
shown NN O O
promising NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O

iTBS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
iTBS NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
and NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortices NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
sessions NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
evidence NN O O
Class NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
1-month NN O O
period NN O O
included NN O O
timed NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bradykinesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Unified NN O I-OUT
Parkinson NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UPDRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurophysiologic NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
13 NN O O
received NN O O
iTBS NN O I-INT
and NN O O
13 NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
found NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
iTBS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bradykinesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
UPDRS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EEG/EMG NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O O
recorded NN O O
no NN O O
pathologic NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
epileptic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Few NN O O
reported NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
one NN O O
experienced NN O O
tinnitus NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
real NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
iTBS NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
and NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortices NN O O
appears NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PD NN O O
. NN O O

CLASSIFICATION NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
Class NN O O
I NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
iTBS NN O I-INT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
bradykinesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21327867)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
intramyocellular NN O O
triacylglycerol NN O O
, NN O O
diacylglycerol NN O O
and NN O O
ceramide NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Intramyocellular NN O O
lipids NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
diacylglycerol NN O O
( NN O O
DAG NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ceramides NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomised NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diet-induced NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DIWL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
intramyocellular NN O O
triacylglycerol NN O O
( NN O O
IMTG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
DAG NN O O
and NN O O
ceramide NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
30.6 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.8 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
67.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.0 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
either NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
lifestyle NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
DIWL NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
EX NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic NN O O
clamps NN O O
. NN O O

Intramyocellular NN O O
lipids NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
muscle NN O O
biopsies NN O O
using NN O O
histochemistry NN O O
and NN O O
tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
DIWL NN O O
( NN O O
20.6 NN O O
? NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
EX NN O O
( NN O O
19.2 NN O O
? NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
DIWL NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
EX NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Muscle NN O I-OUT
glycogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IMTG NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
DIWL NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
EX NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
DAG NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
DIWL NN O O
( NN O O
-12.4 NN O O
? NN O O
14.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
EX NN O O
( NN O O
-40.9 NN O O
? NN O O
12.0 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ceramide NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
EX NN O O
( NN O O
-33.7 NN O O
? NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
with NN O O
DIWL NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Dihydroceramide NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sphingosine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
only NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
EX NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
DAG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
ceramides NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
sphingolipids NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
glucose NN O O
disposal NN O O
. NN O O

Stearoyl-coenzyme NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
desaturase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCD1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
DIWL NN O O
( NN O O
-19.5 NN O O
? NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
EX NN O O
( NN O O
19.6 NN O O
? NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Diacylglycerol NN O I-OUT
acyltransferase NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DGAT1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION NN O O
Diet-induced NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
both NN O O
improved NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
DAG NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
only NN O O
exercise NN O O
decreased NN O O
ceramides NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
having NN O O
different NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
IMTG NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
alterations NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
differential NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
capacity NN O O
for NN O O
oxidation NN O O
and NN O O
triacylglycerol NN O O
synthesis NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT00766298 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21334545)

Augmented NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
mobilization NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
natural NN O I-INT
history NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
epicondylitis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
augmented NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
mobilization NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ASTM NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
epicondylitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
ASTM NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
natural NN O I-INT
evolution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
epicondylitis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
ergonomics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient-rated NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Patient-Rated NN O I-INT
Tennis NN O I-INT
Elbow NN O I-INT
Evaluation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
pain-free NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength 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
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain-free NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Patient-Rated NN O I-OUT
Tennis NN O I-OUT
Elbow NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sample NN O O
size NN O O
for NN O O
larger NN O O
future NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
116 NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
treatments NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
minor NN O O
improvements NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
bias NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21355149)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis 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
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
randomly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
moxibustion NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
Pishu NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BL NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Shenshu NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BL NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Mingmen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GV NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Shenque NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CV NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
on NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
taking NN O O
Alendronate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
taking NN O O
Alendronate NN O I-INT
simply NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
Integral NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and 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
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ICS NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
both NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
decreasing NN O O
degree NN O O
in NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
vertebrae NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
femur NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
obviously NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increasing NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
vertebrae NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
obvious NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dyspepsia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
alleviated NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
obviously NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
good NN O O
with NN O O
little NN O O
adverse NN O O
reaction NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
taking NN O O
Alendronate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21366734)

Which NN O O
women NN O O
default NN O O
from NN O O
follow-up NN O O
cervical NN O O
cytology NN O O
tests NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
TOMBOLA NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
default NN O O
from NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
involving NN O O
2166 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-59 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cytology NN O I-PAR
taken NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NHS NN O I-INT
Cervical NN O I-INT
Screening NN O I-INT
Programmes NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Scotland NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
6-monthly NN O I-PAR
cytology NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
6-month NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
12-month NN O O
) NN O O
surveillance NN O O
cytology NN O O
tests NN O O
separately NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
'on-time NN O I-INT
attendees NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
attended NN O I-INT
?6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
due NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
'late NN O I-INT
attendees NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
attended NN O I-INT
greater NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
due NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
'non-attendees NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
failed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
attend NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Multivariate NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
computed NN O O
for NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-attendance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
surveillance NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
non-attendance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
post-secondary NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prescribed NN O I-PAR
contraception NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Factors NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
test NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
non-attendance NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
current NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
non-attendance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
second NN O O
surveillance NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
late NN O O
attendance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
9.65 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
6.60-16.62 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Non-attendance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
second NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
cytology NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
first NN O O
surveillance NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Late NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
second NN O O
surveillance NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
first NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Women NN O O
at NN O O
highest NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
default NN O O
from NN O O
follow-up NN O O
cytology NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
smoke NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-PAR
post-secondary NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
defaulted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
surveillance NN O I-PAR
appointment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tackling NN O O
default NN O O
will NN O O
require NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
targeted NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
attendance NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
reasons NN O O
underpinning NN O O
default NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21379582)

Delayed NN O I-PAR
perceptual NN O I-PAR
awareness NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
rapid NN O I-PAR
perceptual NN O I-PAR
decisions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
flourishing NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
decision-making NN O O
calls NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
appraisal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
perceptual NN O O
decisions NN O O
and NN O O
conscious NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
exploiting NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
noisy NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
forcing NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
observers NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
make NN O I-INT
difficult NN O I-INT
speeded NN O I-INT
decisions NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
sometimes NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
blind NN O I-INT
guess NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
direction NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
traced NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
buildup NN O O
of NN O O
motion NN O O
discrimination NN O O
capability NN O O
and NN O O
perceptual NN O O
awareness NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
trial NN O O
by NN O O
trial NN O O
through NN O O
direct NN O O
rating NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
increased NN O O
gradually NN O O
with NN O O
motion NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
discrimination NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
systematically NN O I-OUT
leading NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reaching NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
plateau NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
criterion NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
contributed NN O O
jointly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
slow NN O I-OUT
buildup NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
made NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
whether NN O O
motion NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
accomplished NN O O
by NN O O
saccades NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
perceptual NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
emerges NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
top NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
even NN O I-OUT
mature NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
argue NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
middle NN O O
temporal NN O O
( NN O O
MT NN O O
) NN O O
cortical NN O O
region NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
confer NN O O
us NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O I-OUT
phenomenic NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
precursor NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
building NN O I-OUT
our NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21385351)

Vascular NN O O
pedicle NN O O
width NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
intravascular NN O O
pressures NN O O
and NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
discriminate NN O O
fluid NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Conservative NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
increases NN O O
time NN O O
alive NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
from NN O O
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vascular NN O I-OUT
pedicle NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VPW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular NN O O
volume NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VPW NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
ALI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
VPW NN O O
and NN O O
intravascular NN O O
pressure NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
VPW NN O O
could NN O O
predict NN O O
fluid NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
retrospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
152 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Fluid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Catheter NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FACTT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
NHLBI NN O I-PAR
ARDS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Respiratory NN O I-PAR
Distress NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
VPW NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CVP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relationships NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
VPW NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
end-expiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PEEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PAOP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Receiver NN O O
operator NN O O
characteristic NN O O
( NN O O
ROC NN O O
) NN O O
curves NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
VPW NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
detect NN O O
PAOP NN O O
< NN O O
8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
PAOP NN O O
? NN O O
18 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
118 NN O O
and NN O O
276 NN O O
paired NN O O
VPW/PAOP NN O O
and NN O O
VPW/CVP NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

VPW NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
PAOP NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
CVP NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.21 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
VPW NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
PAOP NN O I-OUT
1.5-fold NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
cumulative NN O O
fluid NN O O
balance NN O O
and NN O O
2.5-fold NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
PEEP NN O O
. NN O O

VPW NN O O
discriminated NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
PAOP NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
= NN O O
0.73 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
VPW NN O I-OUT
?67 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
specificity NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
59 NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
discriminating NN O O
a NN O O
hydrostatic NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
edema NN O O
( NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
PAOP NN O O
? NN O O
18 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
VPW NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
72 NN O O
mm NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
61.4 NN O O
% NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
47 NN O O
to NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
specificity NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
to NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
0.69 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
VPW NN O O
correlates NN O O
with NN O O
PAOP NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
CVP NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Due NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
its NN O O
only NN O O
moderate NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
VPW NN O O
to NN O O
discriminate NN O O
fluid NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
limited NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
only NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
when NN O O
intravascular NN O O
pressures NN O O
are NN O O
unavailable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21385365)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
standard NN O O
wound NN O O
care NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-healing NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
foot NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
amputations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
limited NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen 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
diabetic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighteen NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-healing NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Judy NN O I-PAR
Dan NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
Centre NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Wagner NN O I-PAR
grading NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
healing NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
receive NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
every NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
provided NN O O
ongoing NN O I-INT
wound NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
centre NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
wound NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
meeting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
metatarsal NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decision NN O O
to NN O O
amputate NN O O
is NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
vascular NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
run NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
detailed NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
non-healing NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
health NN O O
technology NN O O
which NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
amputations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00621608 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21389925)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
oxidized NN O I-INT
regenerated NN O I-INT
cellulose NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
infections NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
: NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dirty NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
oxidized NN O I-OUT
regenerated NN O I-OUT
cellulose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
dirty NN O O
surgical NN O O
wounds NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
microbial NN O O
load NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
consequently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
local NN O O
wound NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
recanalization NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stoma NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Authors NN O O
considered NN O O
several NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
SSI NN O O
. NN O O

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

In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
previous NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stoma NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
packed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ORC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
gauze NN O I-INT
soaked NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
iodine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Microbial NN O I-OUT
contamination NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
swabs NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dermis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
before NN O O
wound NN O O
packing NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
2nd NN O O
and NN O O
3rd NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
suturing NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
evident NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
data NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
contamination NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
swab NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
versus NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
all NN O O
factors NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
SSI NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
means NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
SSI NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
using NN O O
ORC NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
dirty NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21392837)

Pharmacist NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
reviews NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
significant NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
expenditure NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
often NN O O
on NN O O
numerous NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
agents NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
comorbidities NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
directed NN O O
home NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
review NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
CHF NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
outcomes 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
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalised NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacist NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
post-discharge NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
review NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
64 NN O O
, NN O O
53.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
, NN O O
46.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
CHF NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
1.41 NN O O
, NN O O
0.50 NN O O
to NN O O
3.97 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.514 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CHF NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
incidence NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
IRR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
1.74 NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.85-3.60 NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.131 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
CHF NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
IRR NN O O
= NN O O
2.34 NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.80-3.05 NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Post-discharge NN O O
pharmacy NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
review NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
utilisation NN O O
above NN O O
that NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
post-acute NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
collaborative NN O O
multi-disciplinary NN O O
effort NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
team NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
additive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2139523)

Sequential NN O O
alternate NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
clinical-biological NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-INT
arms NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/die NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
TAM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/die NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1500 NN O I-INT
mg/die NN O I-INT
p.o NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
wash-out NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
repeating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TAM/MPA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
immediately NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
objectively NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
hormone NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
variations NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
antiestrogen NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
initial NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Objective NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CR NN O O
+ NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
CR NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. 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

Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
reached NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
34 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B. NN O O
Metrorrhagia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thrombophlebitis NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
biopsy NN O O
confirmed NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
PgR NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
8/11 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
variations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TAM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
N-desmethyl NN O I-OUT
TAM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MPA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
checked NN O O
at NN O O
various NN O O
intervals NN O O
on NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
our NN O O
schedule NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O O
receptors NN O O
seems NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
indicating NN O O
better NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
alternate NN O O
sequential NN O O
TAM-MPA NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21396848)

Noninfiltrative NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
transrectal NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
lidocaine-prilocaine NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lidocaine-ketorolac NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Periprostatic NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
( NN O O
PPNB NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
( NN O O
US NN O O
) NN O O
guided NN O O
transrectal NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TPB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
periprostatic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
itself NN O O
constitutes NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
often NN O O
neglected NN O O
, NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
discomfort NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
perianal-intrarectal NN O I-INT
lidocaine-prilocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PILP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
PPNB NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Noninfiltrative NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
therefore NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
periprostatic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
this NN O O
in NN O O
mind NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
perianal-intrarectal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lidocaine-ketorolac NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
lidocaine-prilocaine NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
TPB NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
US-guided NN O I-PAR
TPB NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PI NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
g NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
TPB NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
tromethamine NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TPB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TPB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
0-to-10 NN O I-OUT
points 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
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
probe NN O O
insertion NN O O
and NN O O
movements NN O O
( NN O O
VAS-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
prostate NN O O
sampling NN O O
( NN O O
VAS-2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
procedural NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
MPP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complications NN O O
occurring NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Four NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
unbearable NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
leaving NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
with NN O O
98 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
with NN O O
99 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
with NN O O
99 NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
or NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
probe-related NN O O
, NN O O
sampling-related NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
procedural NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine-prilocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lidocaine-ketorolac NN O I-INT
was NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
probe-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
VAS-1 NN O O
: NN O O
1.47 NN O O
? NN O O
1.30 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.39 NN O O
? NN O O
0.65 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O I-OUT
sampling-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
VAS-2 NN O O
: NN O O
0.76 NN O O
? NN O O
0.94 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.54 NN O O
? NN O O
1.02 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
MPP NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
1.82 NN O O
? NN O O
1.21 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.67 NN O O
? NN O O
0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
such NN O O
different NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
sources NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Lidocaine-prilocaine NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
was NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
probe-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O I-INT
lidocaine-ketorolac NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
most NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
sampling-related NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
noninfiltrative NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
accepted NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
to NN O O
combine NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
TPB NN O O
deserves NN O O
further NN O O
well-designed NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21410033)

Hepatobiliary NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsions NN O I-INT
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
( NN O O
TPN NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
induced NN O O
hepatobiliary NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
setting NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
hepatic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
medium-chain NN O I-INT
triglycerides/short-chain NN O I-INT
triglycerides NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MCT/LCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
four-component NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LCT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MCT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Olive-oil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Fish-oil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
gastrointestial NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conjugated NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aspartate NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cholinesterase NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
5-days NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
gamma-glutamyl NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
2,4 NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
5-days NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsions NN O I-INT
mentioned NN O O
above NN O O
( NN O O
SMOF NN O O
lipid NN O O
: NN O O
21,9 NN O O
to NN O O
52,9 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
Lipofundin NN O O
: NN O O
from NN O O
32,5 NN O O
to NN O O
79,6 NN O O
U/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
4-days NN O O
administration NN O O
hepatic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsions NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
cholestatic NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
hepatobiliary NN O O
deviations NN O O
without NN O O
clinical NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
short-term NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2141092)

Should NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
be NN O O
deferred NN O O
after NN O O
infarction NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (21412846)

Correlation NN O O
of NN O O
adenosinergic NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
deficit NN O O
of NN O O
adenosinergic NN O O
activity NN O O
could NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
undertook NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adenosine NN O I-OUT
deaminase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clozapine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ADA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV-TR NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
or NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
ADA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADA NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clozapine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
ADA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
clozapine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
clozapine NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
antipsychotic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21416590)

An NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
educate NN O O
potential NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
carrier NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
cystic NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
( NN O O
CF NN O O
) NN O O
carrier NN O O
testing NN O O
is NN O O
steadily NN O O
growing NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
from NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
raised NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
priori NN O I-PAR
carrier NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trend NN O O
will NN O O
likely NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O O
counselors NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
it NN O O
impossible NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
standard NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
genetic NN O O
counseling NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
those NN O O
asking NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
educate NN O O
individuals NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
genetic NN O O
transmission NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
carrier NN O O
testing NN O O
peculiarities NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
developed NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
classical NN O O
genetic NN O O
counseling NN O O
session NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
people NN O O
undergoing NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproduction NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
receiving NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
one-on-one NN O I-INT
genetic NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
IC NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
measured NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
CF NN O O
genetic NN O O
transmission NN O O
and NN O O
carrier NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Starting NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
equivalent NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
answers NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
specially NN O I-OUT
designed NN O I-OUT
multiple-choice NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
47 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
counselor NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
45 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
computer NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
highly NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
reaching NN O I-OUT
84 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
counselor NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
85 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
computer NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
computer NN O O
program NN O O
under NN O O
evaluation NN O O
can NN O O
successfully NN O O
educate NN O O
individuals NN O O
considering NN O O
genetic NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
CF NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2141713)

[ NN O O
Presentation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
radical NN O O
nephrectomy NN O O
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21418212)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Hanen NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
'More NN O I-INT
Than NN O I-INT
Words NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
Hanen NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
'More NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
Words NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HMTW NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
'business NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2.6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
HMTW NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
provided NN O O
over NN O O
3.5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
measurement NN O O
periods NN O O
: NN O O
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
randomization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Time NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
post NN O I-INT
enrollment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Times NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
point NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
putative NN O I-OUT
moderator NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
Time NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HMTW NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
residualized NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Time NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
Times NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
yielded NN O O
noteworthy NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
( NN O O
Glass NN O O
's NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
.71 NN O O
, NN O O
.50 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
gains NN O O
to NN O O
Time NN O O
3 NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
moderated NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
Time NN O O
1 NN O O
object NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Time NN O O
1 NN O O
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O O
facilitated NN O O
growth NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
attenuation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O I-INT
HMTW NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
showed NN O O
differential NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
depending NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
child NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

HMTW NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Time NN O O
1 NN O O
object NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
require NN O O
greater NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
the NN O I-INT
HMTW NN O I-INT
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
may NN O O
require NN O O
different NN O O
strategies NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O I-INT
HMTW NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21418794)

[ NN O O
Protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O I-INT
postconditioning NN O I-INT
on NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O I-INT
postconditioning NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
STEMI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
affiliated NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Beihua NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
PTCA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
postconditioning NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
ischemia NN O I-INT
postconditioning NN O I-INT
within NN O O
first NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
reflow NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
30-second NN O O
inflation NN O O
and NN O O
30-second NN O O
deflation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Reperfusion NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CK NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CKMB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
frame NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WMSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
echocardiography 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

MI NN O O
areas NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ECG-54 NN O O
criteria/32 NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
blush NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MBG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias-frequent NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
52.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
short NN O I-OUT
array NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
beat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
58.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
peaks NN O I-OUT
CK NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
( NN O O
1162 NN O O
? NN O O
548 NN O O
) NN O O
U/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
( NN O O
1732 NN O O
? NN O O
480 NN O O
) NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
CKMB NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
165 NN O O
? NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
U/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
( NN O O
280 NN O O
? NN O O
99 NN O O
) NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
CTFC NN O O
( NN O O
22.23 NN O O
? NN O O
3.81 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26.97 NN O O
? NN O O
3.42 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
WMSI NN O O
( NN O O
1.27 NN O O
? NN O O
0.52 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.82 NN O O
? NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
methods NN O O
( NN O O
10.60 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
4.97 NN O O
% NN O O
vs.14.65 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
6.88 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
postconditioning NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
while NN O O
LVEF NN O O
( NN O O
0.55 NN O O
? NN O O
0.08 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.47 NN O O
? NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
MBG NN O O
( NN O O
2.27 NN O O
? NN O O
0.64 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.47 NN O O
? NN O O
0.61 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
postconditioning NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Ischemia NN O I-INT
postconditioning NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
reduce NN O O
myocardial NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21419391)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
attention-control NN O O
school NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
research NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FRIENDS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
assignment NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
school-level NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
an NN O O
attention-control NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
targeted NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
N=191 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age=10.1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
self NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
teacher-reports NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
universal NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=253 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age=9.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
story-reading NN O I-INT
( NN O O
attention NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
FRIENDS NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
girls NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
boys NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O O
grades NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
patterns NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-OUT
high-anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2142040)

Nephrotoxicity NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Renal NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Canadian-European NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
nine NN O O
being NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
to NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
before NN O O
drug NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
97 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
125 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
ml NN O O
min-1 NN O O
1.73-m-2 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
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
454 NN O O
+/- NN O O
83 NN O O
vs NN O O
536 NN O O
+/- NN O O
70 NN O O
ml NN O O
min-1 NN O O
1.73-m-2 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
lithium NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
vs NN O O
28 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
ml NN O O
min-1 NN O O
1.73-m-2 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
reabsorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
0.82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.78 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 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
the NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
reabsorption NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
0.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.03 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 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

These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
nephrotoxic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
preferential NN O O
constriction NN O O
of NN O O
afferent NN O O
glomerular NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
variables NN O O
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
except NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
corrected NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
control NN O O
it NN O O
appeared NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
not NN O O
completely NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
nephrotoxic NN O O
side-effects NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
are NN O O
reversible NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
minor NN O O
and NN O O
perhaps NN O O
chronic NN O O
renal NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21424566)

A NN O O
simplified NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
intestinal NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
preliminary NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
acceptability NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
colonography NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O O
bowel NN O O
preparation NN O O
and NN O O
software NN O O
for NN O O
post-processing NN O O
digital NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
stool NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
images NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
examination NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-INT
colonography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
full NN O O
cathartic NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
to NN O O
tag NN O O
any NN O O
residue NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
preceding NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
) 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
CT NN O I-INT
colonography NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
for NN O O
residue NN O O
tagging NN O O
being NN O O
administered NN O O
only NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Examination NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
self-completed NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
McNemar NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
examination NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
vs. NN O O
165 NN O O
segments NN O O
free NN O O
from NN O O
stools NN O O
and NN O O
fluid 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
overall NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16/17 NN O O
colonic NN O O
polyps NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
12/13 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-OUT
preparation NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
software NN O O
for NN O O
post-processing NN O O
digital NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
residue NN O O
from NN O O
images NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
examination NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
colonography NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
and NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
acceptable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21425723)

Tramadol NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
perineal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
perineorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tramodol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
rectal NN O O
suppository NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postpartum NN O I-OUT
perineal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
perineorrhaphy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
gave NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
vaginally NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
episiotomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
second- NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
third-degree NN O I-PAR
tear NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assign NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
two NN O O
tablets NN O O
oftramadol NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
ofplacebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
pill NN O O
were NN O O
physically NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
real NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
perineorrhaphy NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
10-cm NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
opinion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Tramadol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
significances NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

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

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
between NN O O
Tramadol NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
relief NN O O
perineal NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
perineorrhaphy NN O O


-DOCSTART- (21429223)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
four NN O O
intradermal NN O O
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
for NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
lower NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Almost NN O O
one NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
suffer NN O O
continuous NN O O
lower NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
from NN O O
three NN O O
systematic NN O O
reviews NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
sterile NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SWI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
statistically NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
experiencing NN O O
continuous NN O O
lower NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
SWI NN O I-INT
is NN O O
yet NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
injection NN O O
SWI NN O O
technique NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
four NN O O
injection NN O O
SWI NN O I-INT
method NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
continuous NN O O
lower NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
consultation NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
interdisciplinary NN O O
team NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
researchers NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
recruit NN O O
319 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
maternity NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomised NN O O
participants NN O O
are NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
four NN O O
or NN O O
single NN O O
intradermal NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
SWI NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
thirty NN O O
minutes NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
120 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STATISTICAL NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
Sample NN O O
size NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
alpha NN O O
of NN O O
0.025 NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
margin NN O O
of NN O O
?1 NN O O
cm NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
one-sided NN O O
, NN O O
two-sample NN O O
t-test NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
comparability NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
and NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
using NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-test NN O O
and NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intradermal NN O I-INT
SWI NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
is NN O O
no NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
four NN O O
injection NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
lower NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
will NN O O
allow NN O O
midwives NN O O
to NN O O
offer NN O O
women NN O O
requesting NN O I-INT
SWI NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
labour NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
alternative NN O O
technique NN O O
more NN O O
easily NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
staff NN O O
and NN O O
accepted NN O O
by NN O O
labouring NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ACTRN12609000964213 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21432860)

Calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AGE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RAGE NN O I-INT
axis NN O O
limits NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
growing NN O O
body NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
advanced NN O O
glycation NN O O
end NN O O
products NN O O
( NN O O
AGE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
RAGE NN O O
) NN O O
system NN O O
are NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
kidney NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CKD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
long-acting NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
improves NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CKD NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
AGE-RAGE NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
addition NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
renoprotective NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
CKD NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AGE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RAGE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sRAGE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiotensin NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
blockers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

HYPOTHESIS NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
could NN O O
limit NN O O
renal NN O O
injury NN O O
partly NN O O
by NN O O
blocking NN O O
the NN O O
AGE-RAGE NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
one NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
16 NN O O
mg NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Proteinuria NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
AGE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sRAGE NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
our NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
exhibited NN O O
comparable NN O O
and NN O O
significant 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
-lowering NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
neither NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
affected NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glycated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
azelnidipine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
AGE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sRAGE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver-type NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
tubular NN O O
injury NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
BP-lowering-independent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
present NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
azelnidipine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
exert NN O O
renoprotective NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
via NN O O
its NN O O
unique NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
AGE-RAGE NN O O
axis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21432861)

Quantification NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
coupled NN O O
to NN O O
electrospray NN O O
tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
rapid NN O O
, NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
human NN O O
plasma NN O O
using NN O O
amitriptyline NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
standard NN O O
( NN O O
IS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
analyte NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
IS NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
extracted NN O O
from NN O O
plasma NN O O
by NN O O
liquid-liquid NN O O
extraction NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
diethyl-ether/dichloromethane NN O O
( NN O O
70/30 NN O O
; NN O O
v/v NN O O
) NN O O
solvent NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
removing NN O O
and NN O O
drying NN O O
the NN O O
organic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
extracts NN O O
were NN O O
reconstituted NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
acetonitrile/water NN O O
( NN O O
50/50 NN O O
v/v NN O O
) NN O O
+0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
acetic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extracts NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
high NN O O
performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
coupled NN O O
to NN O O
electrospray NN O O
tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
( NN O O
LC-MS/MS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Chromatography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
isocratically NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
Alltech NN O O
Prevail NN O O
C18 NN O O
5 NN O O
?m NN O O
analytical NN O O
column NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
150 NN O O
mm NN O O
x NN O O
4.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
I.D. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
chromatographic NN O O
run NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
linear NN O O
calibration NN O O
curve NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
r2 NN O O
> NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
quantification NN O O
was NN O O
0.05 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
HPLC/MS/MS 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
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
+ NN O O
cobamamide NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
tablet NN O O
formulations NN O O
( NN O O
Cobactin? NN O O
[ NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
+ NN O O
cobamamide NN O O
] NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
supplied NN O O
from NN O O
Zambon NN O O
Laborat?rios NN O O
Farmac?uticos NN O O
Ltda NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
Cobavital? NN O O
from NN O O
Solvay NN O O
Farma NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
reference NN O O
formulation NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
[ NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
+ NN O O
cobamamide NN O O
] NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
formulation NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
two-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
washout NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUCs NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
limit NN O O
proposed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
( NN O O
Cobactin? NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
bioequivalent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Cobavital? NN O O
formulation NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O I-INT
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21433319)

[ NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
three-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
prostamol NN O I-INT
uno NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Prostamol NN O I-INT
Uno NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open-population NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PU NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
320 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
PU NN O I-INT
action NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
IPSS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
PU NN O O
treatment NN O O
relieved NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
IPSS NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
these NN O O
symptoms NN O O
progressed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

QoL NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
one NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
PU NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
though NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
insignificant NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
say NN O O
that NN O O
prostamol NN O O
Uno NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
320 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
PA NN O O
progression NN O O
without NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21434379)

[ NN O O
Using NN O O
gaviscon NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O O
, NN O O
extraesophageal NN O O
syndromes NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
dyspepsia NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD 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
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
alginate NN O O
drug NN O O
Geviskon NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aluminum-magnesium NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O O
, NN O O
extraesophageal NN O O
syndrome NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
dyspepsia NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ERD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
consistently NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
in-patient NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Municipal NN O I-PAR
KGVV NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
79.0 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
by NN O O
sealed NN O O
envelopes NN O O
them NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
: NN O O
alginate NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
Geviskon NN O I-INT
forte NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aluminum-magnesium NN O I-INT
antacid NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
sachet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assess NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extraesophageal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
dyspepsia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
5-point NN O O
scale NN O O
Likert NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
during NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
alginate NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
antacids NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O O
and NN O O
earlier NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sore NN O I-OUT
throat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EBS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
Geviskon NN O I-INT
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
PPD NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
Geviskon NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extraesophageal NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
dyspepsia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
antacids NN O O
. NN O O

Suspension NN O O
Geviskon NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
funds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
exchange NN O O
rate NN O O
earlier NN O O
generations NN O O
of NN O O
PPI NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
-- NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21434781)

Superior NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
pegged NN O I-INT
trabecular NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
over NN O O
screw-fixed NN O I-INT
pegged NN O I-INT
porous NN O I-INT
titanium NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
RSA NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
cementless NN O O
tibial NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Lasting NN O O
stability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cementless NN O O
implants NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
osseointegration NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
surface NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
implant NN O O
fixation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
predicted NN O O
using NN O O
radiostereometric NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
RSA NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high-porosity NN O I-INT
trabecular NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
low-porosity NN O I-INT
titanium NN O I-INT
pegged NN O I-INT
porous NN O I-INT
fiber-metal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ti NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
backings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
unblinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
cementless NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pre-study NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
calculation NN O O
was NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-INT
TM NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
press-fit NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
hexagonal NN O I-INT
pegs NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TM NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
Ti NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
press-fit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
supplemental NN O I-INT
screws NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Ti NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stereo NN O O
radiographs NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
absolute NN O O
component NN O O
migration NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
single-direction NN O O
absolute NN O O
component NN O O
migration NN O O
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

American NN O I-OUT
Knee NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
revisions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
regained NN O I-OUT
full NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
tibial NN O O
components NN O O
migrated NN O I-OUT
initially NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
migration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TM NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
whereas NN O O
migration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ti NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
stabilize NN O O
first NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
migrated NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Ti NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
mechanical NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
screw-fixed NN O O
Ti NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
expect NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
implant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
TM NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21439528)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O I-INT
ulnar NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
to NN O O
recanalize NN O O
acute NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
occlusion NN O O
after NN O O
transradial NN O O
catheterization NN O O
. NN O O

Radial NN O O
artery NN O O
occlusion NN O O
( NN O O
RAO NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
transradial NN O O
catheterization NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
RAO NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
heparin NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimens NN O O
after NN O O
transradial NN O O
coronary NN O O
angiography NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O O
homolateral NN O O
ulnar NN O O
artery NN O O
compression NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
acute NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
recanalization NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
very-low-dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2,000 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5,000 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
sheath NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
TR NN O O
band NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
plethysmography-guided NN O O
patent NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
RAO NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
duplex NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
, NN O O
immediate NN O O
1-hour NN O O
ulnar NN O O
artery NN O O
compression NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

Hematomas NN O O
> NN O O
15 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
randomized NN O O
465 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
222 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2,000-IU NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
243 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5,000-IU NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
procedural NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2,000-IU NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5,000-IU NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
compression NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
2.10 NN O O
? NN O O
0.78 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
2.25 NN O O
? NN O O
0.82 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.051 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O I-INT
ulnar NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
final NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2,000-IU NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5,000-IU 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

The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2,000- NN O O
and NN O O
5,000-IU NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
RAO NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
transradial NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
recanalized NN O O
by NN O O
early NN O O
1-hour NN O I-INT
homolateral NN O I-INT
ulnar NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
simple NN O O
nonpharmacologic NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
very-low- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low-dose NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
final NN O O
RAO NN O O
remained NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
higher NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21457605)

Improving NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
developmentally NN O O
modified NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
teach NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
anger NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
commonly NN O O
noted NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Eleven NN O I-PAR
5-7 NN O I-PAR
year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
CBT-group NN O I-INT
while NN O O
parents NN O O
participated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
psychoeducation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
delayed-treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
From NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
parent NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
negativity/lability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
better NN O O
parent NN O O
reported NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
outbursts NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
generated NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
vignettes NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
deal NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
conclusions NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21458811)

Specific NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
pregnancy-related NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
stabilizing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pregnancy-related NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Tygerberg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Paarl NN O I-PAR
Hospitals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Western NN O I-PAR
Cape NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
10-week NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
experienced NN O O
was NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
[ NN O O
72.0 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.76 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group 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
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.70 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
functional NN O O
ability NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
girdle NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2146875)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
CFS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
profound NN O O
fatigue NN O O
, NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
frequent NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
cell-mediated NN O O
immunity NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
cell-mediated NN O I-PAR
immunity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
intravenously NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
G. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
g/kg/month NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
disability NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
detailed NN O O
interviews NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatrist NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
any NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
capacity NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
psychologic NN O O
morbidity NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
patient-rated NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Cell-mediated NN O O
immunity NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
T-cell NN O O
subset NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
delayed-type NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O O
skin NN O O
testing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
transformation NN O O
with NN O O
phytohemagglutinin NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
interview NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
responded NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recommencement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leisure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
designated NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
responded NN O O
had NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
psychologic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
immunologic NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Immunomodulatory NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
CFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
immunologic NN O O
disturbance NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21484217)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
flap NN O O
designs NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sequelae NN O O
of NN O O
mandibular NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
triangular NN O O
and NN O O
envelope NN O O
flaps NN O O
on NN O O
trismus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
mandibular NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symmetrically NN O I-PAR
impacted NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
envelope NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
triangular NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trismus NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
measuring NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
interincisal NN O I-INT
opening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
facial NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
tape NN O I-INT
measuring NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
visual NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
pills NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
envelope NN O O
flap NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
triangular NN O O
flap NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
flap NN O O
designs NN O O
in NN O O
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
interincisal NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Envelope NN O O
flap NN O O
yields NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
triangular NN O O
flap NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
trismus NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
flap NN O O
designs NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
VAS NN O O
scores NN O O
with NN O O
triangular NN O O
flap NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
analgesics NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
triangular NN O O
flap NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21484517)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O I-INT
expertise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
expertise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
face NN O I-PAR
recognition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
computerized NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
involving NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
houses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-testing NN O O
included NN O O
standardized NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
event-related NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERPs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
interviews NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
met NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
expertise NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
stimuli NN O O
on NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
training NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
inversion NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
behaviorally NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrophysiological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
P100 NN O O
component NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
gain NN O O
expertise NN O O
in NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21512834)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
mediation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
communication NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tests NN O O
of NN O O
mediation NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
trials NN O O
can NN O O
illuminate NN O O
processes NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
causal NN O O
influences NN O O
in NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
communication-focused NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
ordinary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Aldred NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
J NN O O
Child NN O O
Psychol NN O O
Psychiatr NN O O
45:1-11 NN O O
, NN O O
2004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
mediating NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
targeted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
synchronous NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
mediation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
synchrony NN O I-OUT
accounting NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
autism NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
( NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Observation NN O O
Schedule NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
domain NN O O
algorithm NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
bootstrap NN O O
estimation NN O O
. NN O O

Improved NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
synchronous NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
child NN O O
communication NN O O
can NN O O
alter NN O O
short-term NN O O
autism NN O O
symptom NN O O
outcome NN O O
with NN O O
targeted NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21534846)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O I-PAR
cessation NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Many NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
continue NN O O
to NN O O
smoke NN O O
postdiagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poorer NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Identifying NN O O
prospective NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
currently NN O O
receiving NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
guide NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
with NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
246 NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-PAR
cessation NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
baseline NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
end-of-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
six-month NN O O
postbaseline NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
demographic NN O O
, NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
, NN O O
disease-related NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
biochemically-confirmed NN O O
point-prevalence NN O O
abstinence NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Multivariate NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
end-of-treatment NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
older NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.06 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.03-1.10 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
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
non-tobacco NN O O
related NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.54 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.24-5.20 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
six-month NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
older NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.04 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.01-1.08 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
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
quit NN O O
smoking NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
female NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.47 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.22-0.97 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 I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tobacco-related NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
symptoms 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
which NN O O
proved NN O O
predictive NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patient NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cancer-type NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
factors NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
when NN O O
developing NN O O
and NN O O
implementing NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21543343)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
resistant NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-OUT
adenomatous NN O I-OUT
polyposis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Evidence NN O O
supporting NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
resistant NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O O
comes NN O O
from NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Familial NN O I-PAR
adenomatous NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
strikes NN O O
young NN O O
people NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
untreated NN O O
, NN O O
confers NN O O
virtually NN O O
a NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
international NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
and/or NN O O
RS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
g/d NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
FAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
they NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
annual NN O O
clinical NN O O
examinations NN O O
including NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
polyp NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sigmoid NN O I-OUT
colon NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
largest NN O I-OUT
polyp NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
206 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
FAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
commenced NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
133 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
therefore NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Neither NN O O
intervention NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
polyp NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rectum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sigmoid NN O I-OUT
colon NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
aspirin NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
0.77 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.54-1.10 NN O O
; NN O O
versus NN O O
nonaspirin NN O O
arms NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
RS NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
1.05 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.73-1.49 NN O O
; NN O O
versus NN O O
non-RS NN O O
arms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
largest NN O O
polyp NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O O
versus NN O O
nonaspirin NN O O
-- NN O O
mean NN O O
3.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
versus NN O O
5.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
3.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
versus NN O O
6.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
weaker NN O O
trends NN O O
with NN O O
RS NN O O
versus NN O O
non-RS NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
translational NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
crypt NN O O
length NN O O
( NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
normal-appearing NN O O
mucosa NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RS NN O O
group NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
proliferation NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
Ki67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
ever NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
FAP NN O O
and NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
polyp NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
number NN O O
and NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
. NN O O

RS NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21545527)

Physical NN O O
activity NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
UNLABELLED NN O O
An NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-INT
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HSCT NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
profound NN O O
and NN O O
lasting NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
well-being NN O O
. NN O O

So NN O O
far NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
inpatient NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
allogeneic NN O O
HSCT NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
starting NN O O
parallel NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O O
conditioning NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
body NN O O
irradiation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
constitution NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
EG NN O O
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
endurance NN O O
and NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living-training NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CG NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
's NN O O
standard NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
program NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EG NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
muscular NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
posing NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
influences NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
HSCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21548512)

Pulsed NN O I-INT
azithromycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
as NN O O
2-week-longer NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
intention-to-treat NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
per-protocol NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
being NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
9 NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
( NN O O
27 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
lesions NN O O
has NN O O
satisfied NN O O
the NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
criterion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
shorter NN O O
and NN O O
simpler NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
confirming NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
of NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21552726)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
evolutional NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
different NN O O
language NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
evolutional NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
indirect NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multidisciplinary NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
specialized NN O I-PAR
speech-language NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
children 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
Therapy NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
composed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Orientation NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
constituted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
exclusively NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mothers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Sample NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Vocal NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
occasions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
beginning NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
greater NN O O
speed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
evolutional NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
Group NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Sample NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Vocal NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
item NN O O
Full NN O O
Language NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
considered NN O O
more NN O O
positive NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
evolution NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
younger NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
moderate NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
attending NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
association NN O O
is NN O O
fundamental NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
process NN O O
of 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


-DOCSTART- (21574725)

On NN O O
the NN O O
benign NN O O
qualities NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
disinhibition NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prosocial NN O I-PAR
nature NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disinhibition NN O O
can NN O O
weaken NN O O
pleasure NN O O
with NN O O
getting NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
you NN O O
deserve NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O O
situations NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
people NN O O
are NN O O
surprised NN O O
about NN O O
what NN O O
is NN O O
happening NN O O
and NN O O
inhibited NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
situation NN O O
at NN O O
hand NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
study NN O O
these NN O O
situations NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
a NN O O
classic NN O O
topic NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
psychology NN O O
: NN O O
how NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
better NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
deserved NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
these NN O O
situations NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
actions NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
authority NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
coworker NN O O
push NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
accepting NN O O
and NN O O
enjoying NN O O
the NN O O
unfair NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
personal NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
people NN O O
push NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
rejecting NN O O
or NN O O
being NN O O
displeased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
conflict NN O O
may NN O O
inhibit NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
advantageous NN O O
but NN O O
unfair NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
indeed NN O O
inhibited NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
lowering NN O O
behavioral NN O O
inhibition NN O O
by NN O O
reminding NN O O
people NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O O
acted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
without NN O O
inhibitions NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
manner NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
participants NN O O
subsequently NN O O
receive NN O O
) NN O O
should NN O O
affect NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
because NN O O
many NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
prosocial NN O O
and NN O O
want NN O O
to NN O O
adhere NN O O
to NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
fairness NN O O
, NN O O
reminders NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
disinhibition NN O I-INT
will NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
pleasure NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
unfairly NN O O
obtained NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
experiments NN O I-INT
( NN O O
conducted NN O O
both NN O O
inside NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
outside NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
psychology NN O I-INT
laboratory NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
revealed NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
benign NN O O
disinhibition NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
various NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
outcomes NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
deserved NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
further NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
our NN O O
line NN O O
of NN O O
reasoning NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
particularly NN O O
pronounced NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
adhere NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
prosocial NN O O
orientation NN O O
or NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
adopted NN O O
a NN O O
prosocial NN O O
mindset NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
proself NN O O
orientations NN O O
or NN O O
mindsets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21575074)

Literacy NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CwPLI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
difficulties NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
language NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
contexts NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
possess NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
language NN O O
difficulties NN O O
that NN O O
affect NN O O
their NN O O
educational NN O O
attainment NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
literacy NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
central NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
attainment NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
identifying NN O O
appropriate NN O O
support NN O O
needs NN O O
for NN O O
CwPLI NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
be NN O O
to NN O O
profile NN O O
their NN O O
reading NN O O
and NN O O
writing NN O O
skills NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
word NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-word NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
written NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CwPLI NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CwSLI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CwSLI NN O O
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
any NN O O
overlaps NN O O
in NN O O
literacy NN O O
impairments NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
& NN O O
PROCEDURES NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
school-aged NN O I-PAR
CwPLI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n= NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CwSLI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
speech NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
therapists NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
completed NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
assessments NN O I-INT
of NN O O
literacy NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
impairment NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
component NN O O
literacy NN O O
skill NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
CwPLI NN O O
and NN O O
CwSLI NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
& NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
CwPLI NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
mean NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
literacy NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
population NN O O
norms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
scoring NN O O
near NN O O
floor NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
scoring NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
SDs NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
) NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
illustrating NN O O
the NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
of NN O O
literacy NN O O
skills NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
CwSLI NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
literacy NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
between NN O O
1 NN O O
SD NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
SDs NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
mean NN O O
. NN O O

CwSLI NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
impaired NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
literacy NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CwPLI NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
remained NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
receptive NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
non-verbal NN O I-OUT
intelligence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
& NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
literacy NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
CwPLI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CwSLI NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
individualized NN O O
literacy NN O O
skill NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
academic NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21586215)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
multi-faceted NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adaptive NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
hygiene NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
and NN O O
orofacial NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
multifaceted NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
control NN O O
group 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
received NN O O
a NN O O
rechargeable NN O O
, NN O O
powered NN O O
Oral-B? NN O I-INT
oscillating-rotating-pulsating NN O I-INT
toothbrush NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Reach? NN O I-INT
Access? NN O I-INT
Flosser NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
toothbrush-like NN O O
handle NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
aperture NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
40 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
orofacial NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
taught NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
each NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
manual NN O O
toothbrush NN O O
and NN O O
dental NN O O
floss NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
instructions NN O O
and NN O O
demonstration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
devices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
requested NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
intervention NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluations NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
3- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6-months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
indicator NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
ps NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
20.8 NN O O
% NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
larger NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
orofacial NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
toothbrushing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
finger-held NN O I-INT
flossing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recommending NN O I-INT
and NN O O
educating NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SSc NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
use NN O O
adaptive NN O O
devices NN O O
to NN O O
clean NN O O
the NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
looks NN O O
promising NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21586714)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pregnancy-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Maternal NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
developing NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
prevention NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
infant NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
or NN O O
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pregnancy-related NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
mortality NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
among NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
live-born NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
postpartum NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety-six NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
clusters NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
sectors NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
through NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
, NN O O
7000 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
retinol NN O I-INT
equivalents NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
retinyl NN O I-INT
palmitate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
42 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
all-trans NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Married NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
125,257 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
5-week NN O O
surveillance NN O O
for NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
, NN O O
ascertained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
amenorrhea NN O O
and NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
urine NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O O
sectors NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
biochemical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
All-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stillbirth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
across NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neither NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supplement NN O O
group NN O O
outcomes NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pregnancy-related NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
100,000 NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
41 NN O O
and NN O O
206 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
140-273 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
and NN O O
237 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
166-309 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
and NN O O
250 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
177-323 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
beta NN O O
carotene NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
1.15 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.75-1.76 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.21 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.81-1.81 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
stillbirth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
47.9 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
44.3-51.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
45.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
42.1-49.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
51.8 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
48.0-55.6 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
births NN O O
and NN O O
68.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
63.7-72.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
65.0 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
60.7-69.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
69.8 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
65.4-72.3 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
live NN O O
births NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O O
or NN O O
beta NN O O
carotene NN O O
supplementation NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
1.46 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.42-1.50 NN O O
] NN O O
?mol/L NN O O
vs NN O O
1.13 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.09-1.17 NN O O
] NN O O
?mol/L NN O O
and NN O O
1.18 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.14-1.22 NN O O
] NN O O
?mol/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
eliminate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
blindness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7.1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
for NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
vs NN O O
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
beta NN O O
carotene NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O I-OUT
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00198822 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21593282)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
extended NN O O
release NN O O
capsules NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
contraindicated NN O O
, NN O O
coingestion NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
and NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
by NN O O
patients NN O O
or NN O O
drug NN O O
abusers NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
health NN O O
concern NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
dangerous NN O O
additive NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
sedative NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
alcohol NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
disrupt NN O O
the NN O O
extended-release NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
extended-release NN O O
opioid NN O O
formulations NN O O
, NN O O
releasing NN O O
a NN O O
hazardous NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Morphine NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MS-sNT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
contain NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
sequestered NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
pellet NN O O
core NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
indicated NN O O
for NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Sequestered NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
release NN O O
upon NN O O
product NN O O
tampering NN O O
( NN O O
crushing NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
potentially NN O O
mitigate NN O O
morphine-induced NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
4-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
drug NN O O
interaction NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
naltrexone NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
MS-sNT NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
opioid-naive NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
MS-sNT NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
with NN O O
240 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
alcohol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
water NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
morphine NN O O
in NN O O
MS-sNT NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
alcohol NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
alcohol NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
t NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
9 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
versus NN O O
MS-sNT NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
water NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-OUT
sequestering NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
coadministration NN O O
with NN O O
alcohol NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21595978)

Tailored NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iterative NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
printed NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
group NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
dietary NN O O
behaviours NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Tailored NN O O
nutrition NN O O
interventions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
non-tailored NN O O
materials NN O O
in NN O O
changing NN O O
dietary NN O O
behaviours NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
fat NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
fruit NN O O
and NN O O
vegetable NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
examining NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
tailored NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
across NN O O
a NN O O
wider NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
behaviours NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
Stages NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Healthy NN O I-PAR
Eating NN O I-PAR
Patterns NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
STEPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
printed NN O O
, NN O O
tailored NN O O
, NN O O
iterative NN O O
dietary NN O O
feedback NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
mail NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
short-term NN O O
dietary NN O O
behaviour NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
saturated NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
fruit NN O O
, NN O O
vegetable NN O O
and NN O O
grain NN O O
and NN O O
cereal NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
STEPs NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post-test NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iterative NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
printed NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
three NN O O
instalments NN O O
mail-delivered NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
period NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
re-tailored NN O O
to NN O O
most NN O O
recent NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
self-adequacy NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Tailoring NN O O
for NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
63-item NN O O
combination NN O O
FFQ NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
( NN O O
GE NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
90-minute NN O O
dietitian-led NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
wait-listed NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
socio-demographic NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
3-months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
saturated NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
g NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serves NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serves NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
grain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cereals NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wholegrain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
serves NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
using NN O O
7-day NN O O
estimated NN O O
dietary NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

Descriptive NN O O
statistics NN O O
, NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
linear NN O O
models NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
nutrition NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
TF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
serves/d NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
GE NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
saturated NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GE NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
within-group NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
printed NN O O
, NN O O
tailored NN O O
, NN O O
iterative NN O O
dietary NN O O
feedback NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
nutrition NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
fruit NN O O
intake NN O O
behaviour NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
saturated NN O O
fat NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
low-level NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
could NN O O
achieve NN O O
modest NN O O
dietary NN O O
behaviour NN O O
changes NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21596605)

Poor NN O O
self-rated NN O O
health NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
total NN O O
allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
high NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
is NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
self-rated NN O O
health NN O O
( NN O O
SRH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
construct NN O O
an NN O O
allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
SRH NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
came NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
, NN O O
urine NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
24h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
SRH NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
filled NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
occasions NN O O
: NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
; NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
10-week NN O O
intervention NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
including 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 I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
SRH NN O O
and NN O O
allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
other NN O O
components NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
investigation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
follow-up NN O O
investigations NN O O
- NN O O
namely NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
allostatic NN O O
load NN O O
and NN O O
SRH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
contrasts NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
hazardous NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
population NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21598839)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
encoding NN O O
in NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
and NN O O
post-hypnotic NN O O
suggestion NN O O
on NN O O
academic NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
proactive NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hypnosis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
post-hypnotic NN O I-INT
suggestion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
hypnotized NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
read NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
passage NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Concurrently NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
post-hypnotic NN O I-INT
suggestion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
aid NN O O
recognition NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
multiple-choice NN O O
test NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
aforementioned NN O O
passage NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
discerned NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
proactive NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
post-hypnotic NN O I-OUT
suggestion NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
introduced NN O O
by NN O O
scholastic NN O I-OUT
aptitude NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ACT NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
predicted NN O O
significantly NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21599896)

Study NN O O
protocol NN O O
: NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
fast-track NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
breathlessness NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Breathlessness NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
disease NN O O
causes NN O O
significant NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
carers NN O O
and NN O O
presents NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
challenges NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
professionals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Breathlessness NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
Service NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
seeks NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breathless NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
regardless NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
working NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
healthcare NN O O
providers NN O O
. NN O O

BIS NN O I-INT
delivers NN O O
a NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
non-pharmacological NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
via NN O O
a NN O O
multi-professional NN O O
team NN O O
. NN O O

BIS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
being NN O O
continuously NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
impact NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
MRC NN O O
's NN O O
framework NN O O
for NN O O
complex NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O O
PreClinical NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
completed NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
comprises NN O O
a NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
fast-track NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
BIS NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Due NN O O
to NN O O
differing NN O O
disease NN O O
trajectories NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
service NN O O
uses NN O O
two NN O I-INT
broad NN O I-INT
service NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
one NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
delivered NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
delivered NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
therefore NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
sub-protocols NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-malignant NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
eight NN O O
week NN O O
protocol NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mixed NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
are NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
lay NN O O
carers NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
five NN O O
measurement NN O O
points NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
randomisation NN O O
and NN O O
sub-protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Qualitative NN O O
interviews NN O O
are NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
referring NN O O
and NN O O
non-referring NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
( NN O O
malignant NN O O
disease NN O O
protocol NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
'patient NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
breathlessness NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
numerical NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0-10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
trial NN O O
includes NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
breathlessness NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
disease NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
MRC NN O O
framework NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
palliative NN O O
care NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
fast NN O O
track NN O O
methodology NN O O
and NN O O
single-blinding NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
informing NN O O
its NN O O
longer NN O O
term NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
centres NN O O
nationally NN O O
and NN O O
internationally NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
adds NN O O
to NN O O
methodological NN O O
developments NN O O
in NN O O
palliative NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
research NN O O
where NN O O
complex NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
but NN O O
evidence NN O O
sparse NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00678405ISRCTN NN O O
: NN O O
ISRCTN04119516 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21610189)

Do NN O O
sheltered NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
enhance NN O O
employment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
sheltered NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
help NN O O
prepare 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
for NN O O
competitive NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
215 NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sheltered NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
employment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
b NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
215 NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
sheltered NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Individuals NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
secondary NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
( NN O O
if NN O O
present NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
. 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
differences NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
sheltered NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
earned NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
129.36 NN O O
versus NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
191.42 NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
serve NN O O
( NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
6,065.08 NN O O
versus NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
2,440.60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
non-sheltered NN O I-INT
workshop NN O I-INT
peers NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
presented NN O O
here NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
vocational NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
they NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
sheltered NN O O
workshops NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
enrolling NN O O
in NN O O
supported NN O O
employment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21616612)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
on NN O O
synchrony NN O O
of NN O O
lambing NN O O
and NN O O
fertility NN O O
in NN O O
tropical NN O I-PAR
hair NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
delivering NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
estrous NN O O
synchronization NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
sheep NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
Barbados NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
Belly NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=34 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ewe NN O I-PAR
lambs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=35 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
37.5?0.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
untreated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
animals NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
PGF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
d0 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
-5 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
-2.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
PGF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2PPG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O O
2PPG NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
animals NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
service NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
ewe NN O I-PAR
lambs NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
parity 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
interval NN O O
from NN O O
ram NN O O
introduction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2PPG-treated NN O O
animals NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
Experiment NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lactating NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=61 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
60-85 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
postpartum NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
within NN O O
parity NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
lambs NN O O
reared NN O O
to NN O O
remain NN O O
nursing NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
; NN O O
n=29 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
weaned NN O O
( NN O O
W NN O O
; NN O O
n=32 NN O O
) NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
2PPG NN O O
protocol 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
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
animals NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
ram NN O O
introduction NN O O
to NN O O
lambing NN O O
and NN O O
lambing NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
8-month NN O I-OUT
lambing NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ewes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
estrus NN O O
was NN O O
synchronized NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
physiological NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two-progesterone NN O O
injection NN O O
synchronization NN O O
protocol NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
practical NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
and NN O O
efficient NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
synchronizing NN O O
estrus NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
lambing NN O O
interval NN O O
and NN O O
maximize NN O O
productivity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
tropical NN O I-PAR
breeds NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sheep NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21618513)

Dietary NN O I-INT
lignan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
proanthocyanidin NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
and NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Polyp NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

Lignans NN O O
and NN O O
proanthocyanidins NN O O
are NN O O
plant NN O O
polyphenols NN O I-INT
that NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
protective NN O O
properties NN O O
against NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
neoplasms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
estimated 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
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
lignan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
proanthocyanidin NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
databases NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
food NN O O
frequency NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1,859 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Polyp NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
or NN O O
total NN O O
lignans NN O O
or NN O O
proanthocyanidins NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
sex-specific NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
lignan NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
highest NN O O
vs. NN O O
lowest NN O O
lignan NN O O
intake NN O O
quartile NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.07 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.22-3.52 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
interaction NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
conclude NN O O
, NN O O
dietary NN O O
lignan NN O O
and NN O O
proanthocyanidin NN O O
consumption NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
generally NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
lignan NN O O
intake NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2162258)

Enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lisinopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
titration NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
weekly NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks 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
declined NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
from NN O O
147/98 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
to NN O O
126/82 NN O O
and NN O O
122/81 NN O O
mmHg 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
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
titration NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
goal NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Few NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
abnormal NN O O
laboratory NN O O
findings NN O O
during 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
once-daily NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21629200)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
levocarnitine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients 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
to NN O O
improve NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
prior NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL/METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
L-carnitine/kg NN O I-INT
bodyweight/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=19 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3-months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measures NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
professionally NN O O
completed NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
forms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
completed NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FISER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/global NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GRSEB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/patient NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRISE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
forms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lab NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.03 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=-3.7 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CGI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.69 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=-1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ATEC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
free-carnitine NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
clinical NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
hand NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2=0.23 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2=0.27 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2=0.20 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
protocol-compliant NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
adherence NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
generally NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
the NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
given NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/kilogram-bodyweight/day NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
3-months NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
several NN O O
clinical NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
subsequent NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21632816)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
somatotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
of NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Intensive NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
and NN O O
pediatric NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
PICU NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
IIT NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
anabolic NN O O
hormone NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O O
ill NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
feeding NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O O
ill NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
pediatric NN O O
hormonal NN O O
responses NN O O
may NN O O
differ NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IIT NN O I-INT
experienced NN O I-PAR
hypoglycemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
evoked NN O O
counterregulatory NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
IIT NN O I-INT
reactivates NN O O
the NN O O
somatotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
and NN O O
anabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PICU NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
preplanned NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
IIT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
369 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
stayed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
PICU NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nested NN O I-PAR
case-control NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Circulating NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bioavailable NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IGF-binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IGFBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IGFBP-3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acid-labile NN O I-OUT
subunit NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
upon NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
d NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
nested NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
somatotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
, NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
glucagon NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
d NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
10-fold NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IIT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CIT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

IIT NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
GH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lowered NN O O
bioavailable NN O I-OUT
IGF-I 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

IIT NN O I-INT
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
IGFBP-3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
acid-labile NN O I-OUT
subunit NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
increasing NN O O
IGFBP-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
urea/creatinine NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
catabolism NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
nested NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
IGFBP-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
hypoglycemia NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
somatotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
counterregulatory NN O O
hormones NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
improved NN O O
PICU NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
IIT NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
counteract NN O O
the NN O O
catabolic NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
critical NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
portal NN O O
insulin NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
bioavailable NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21635675)

Short-term NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Supraphysiologic NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
to NN O O
cause NN O O
impaired NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
yet NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
evaluated NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
during NN O O
short-term NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS 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
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
by NN O O
employing NN O O
a NN O O
two-step NN O I-INT
hyperinsulinemic NN O I-INT
euglycemic NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Step NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
mU/m?/min NN O O
; NN O O
Step NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mU/m?/min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
infused NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maintain NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
90 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
( NN O O
4.95 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
several NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
Step NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clamp NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whole NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
disposal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
M NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
M/I NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
appreciable NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
prednisone NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
Step NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
M NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
33 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
15 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-OUT
M/I NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
31 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
13 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Si NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
quotient NN O O
of NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
M/I NN O O
between NN O O
Step NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
35.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
23.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
prednisone NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
observed NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
predisposed NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
glucose NN O O
intolerance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21636141)

Short-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
reactive NN O I-OUT
hyperemic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21639806)

Exemestane NN O I-INT
for NN O O
breast-cancer NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
raloxifene NN O O
have NN O O
limited NN O O
patient NN O O
acceptance NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Aromatase NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
prevent NN O O
more NN O O
contralateral NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
and NN O O
cause NN O O
fewer NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
than NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
relative NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
invasive NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
eligible NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Gail NN O I-PAR
5-year NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1.66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
chances NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
atypical NN O I-PAR
ductal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lobular NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lobular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ductal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
menopause-specific NN O I-OUT
qualities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4560 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
62.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-OUT
Gail NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
2.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
invasive NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
exemestane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
relative NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
annual NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.19 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.55 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.35 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.18 NN O O
to NN O O
0.70 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
noninvasive NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ductal NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
situ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.35 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
exemestane NN O O
and NN O O
0.77 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.47 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.27 NN O O
to NN O O
0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exemestane NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
skeletal NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Minimal NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Exemestane NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
exemestane NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
toxic NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
minimal NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
Pfizer NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
; NN O O
NCIC NN O O
CTG NN O O
MAP.3 NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00083174 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21646599)

?-Blockers NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
nebivolol NN O O
or NN O O
metoprolol NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
occlusive NN O O
disease NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
?-receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
arterial NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
vasomotor NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
?-blocker NN O O
nebivolol NN O O
possesses NN O O
vasodilating NN O O
, NN O O
endothelium-dependent NN O O
, NN O O
NO-releasing NN O O
properties NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
arterial NN O O
disease 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
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nebivolol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
with NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
these NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
128 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nebivolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N=65 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
or NN O O
95 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N=63 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

End NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
ankle-brachial NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
artery 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
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
End NN O I-OUT
point NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
109 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
85.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
48-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ankle-brachial NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
across NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nebivolol NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
claudication NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
33.9 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
nebivolol NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
16.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
metoprolol NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nebivolol NN O O
or NN O O
metoprolol NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
?-blocker NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
?1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison 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
nebivolol NN O O
and NN O O
metoprolol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2165088)

Low-dose NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
( NN O O
Clobass NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Clobass NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
'responders NN O O
' NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
kept NN O O
on NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
checked NN O O
at NN O O
4-weekly NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Non-responders NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
checked NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
3 NN O O
months 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
first NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
54.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
41.5 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
69.0 NN O O
% NN O O
became NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
34.7 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
responders NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Withdrawals NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
about NN O O
eight NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
either NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine-treated NN O I-INT
patients 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
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
withdrawals NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine-related NN O I-INT
side NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
evident NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
tolerance NN O O
profile NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
reduced NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
favorable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21654265)

An NN O O
allopurinol-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
between-group NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMX-67 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-purine-selective NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
xanthine NN O I-INT
oxidase NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperuricemia NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gout NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Allopurinol NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperuricemia NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Febuxostat NN O O
is NN O O
potentially NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Febuxostat NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
allopurinol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperuricemia NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
gout NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks 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
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Doses NN O O
of NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
allopurinol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-day NN O O
introduction NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
percent NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
-40.75 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
-34.41 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
, NN O O
closing NN O O
testing NN O O
procedure NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
6.0 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
82.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
febuxostat NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
70.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
, NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
213 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
the NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
220 NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drugs NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
ruled NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
febuxostat NN O I-INT
group NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
gout NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
sudden NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Febuxostat NN O I-INT
at NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O I-OUT
hypouricemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
allopurinol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
gout NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
safe NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperuricemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21660428)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial 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
a NN O O
16-week 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
program NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
Recreational NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
programs NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
= NN O O
36 NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
( NN O O
SR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
anxiety NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Spence NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SCAS-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Severity NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
pre- NN O O
, NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
( NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
programs NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
generalized NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
on NN O O
SCAS-C. NN O O
Clinician NN O O
ratings NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
Normal NN O O
and NN O O
Borderline NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consistent NN O I-INT
therapists NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
autism-friendly NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
are NN O O
important NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
framework NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety 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
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21661164)

[ NN O I-INT
Diabetic NN O I-INT
retinopathy NN O I-INT
candesartan NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21664059)

The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
including NN O O
clinical NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
rectal NN O O
normal NN O O
tissue NN O O
complication NN O I-INT
probability NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
predisposing NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
rectal NN O O
normal NN O O
tissue NN O O
complication NN O O
probability NN O O
modeling NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
updated NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Dutch NN O O
prostate NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Toxicity NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
512 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
conformally NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
284 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
228 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Scored NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
stool NN O O
frequency NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fecal NN O O
incontinence NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
dose-based NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Lyman-Kutcher-Burman NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LKB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Relative NN O I-INT
Seriality NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
were NN O O
fitted NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
likelihood NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
model NN O O
fits NN O O
were NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
clinical NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
receiver NN O O
operating NN O O
characteristic NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
discriminating NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
fits NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Including NN O O
clinical NN O O
factors NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
LKB NN O O
, NN O O
RS NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
fecal NN O O
incontinence NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.011-0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
clinical NN O O
factor NN O O
was NN O O
previous NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
second NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.012-0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O O
history NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
fits NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
including NN O O
diabetes NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.039-0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
fecal NN O O
incontinence NN O O
modeling NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LKB NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
fits NN O O
only NN O O
benefitted NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003-0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
toxicity NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
models NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
fits NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
where NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
0.63 NN O O
and NN O O
0.68 NN O O
for NN O O
high NN O O
stool NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
fecal NN O O
incontinence NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

LKB NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
model NN O O
fits NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
steepness NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
logistic NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Anal NN O O
wall NN O O
DVHs NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
fecal NN O O
incontinence NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
anorectal NN O O
wall NN O O
dose NN O O
best NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Comparable NN O O
prediction NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
LKB NN O O
, NN O O
RS NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
logistic NN O O
NTCP NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Including NN O O
clinical NN O O
factors NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
models NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21667200)

Design NN O O
and NN O O
subject NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
federally-funded NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Studies NN O O
to NN O O
Advance NN O O
Autism NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Network NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
present NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
, NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
sample NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
128 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
9.3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?3.12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
88.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
6.7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD-not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-OUT
intellectually NN O I-OUT
disabled NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
117 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
78.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
rated NN O I-PAR
Moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Marked NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Study NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
Research NN O O
Units NN O O
on NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Psychopharmacology NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
slightly NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
RUPP NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21669583)

A NN O O
simple NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
'eating NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
achieving NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
an NN O O
exchange-based NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
educating NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
'eat NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
exchange-based NN O O
meal NN O O
plan NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
compared NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
HbA1c NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
instructions NN O O
to NN O O
eat NN O O
either NN O O
vegetables NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
VBC NN O O
, NN O O
n=69 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
exchange-based NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EXB NN O O
, NN O O
n=32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
plans NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
VBC NN O O
, NN O O
8.3 NN O O
to NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
EXB NN O O
, NN O O
8.2 NN O O
to NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HbA1c NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
VBC NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EXB NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
, NN O O
fats NN O O
and NN O O
sweets NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
VBC NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
green NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
simple NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
plan NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
'eating NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
an NN O O
exchange-based NN O O
meal NN O O
plan NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
24-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21672315)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
patient NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-blockers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O I-INT
T-S NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
S-T NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
preferred NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
continuation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
patient-reported NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
102 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
70.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
preferred NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
59/84 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
70.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
preferred NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18/84 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
21.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
major NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
preference NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
'good NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3/91 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O I-INT
silodosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25/88 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
28.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O I-INT
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
BPH NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
few NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
want NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21690083)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
DIR/Floortime? NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
Developmental NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Individual-Difference NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Relationship-Based NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DIR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/Floortime? NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
preschool 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 I-PAR
Measures NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
functional NN O O
emotional NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
added NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
DIR/Floortime? NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
average NN O O
of NN O O
15.2 NN O O
hours/week NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
measures NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
Functional NN O I-OUT
Emotional NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
5.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.031 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
= NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Emotional NN O I-OUT
Questionnaires NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
6.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
DIR NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
Solomon NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21694630)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
venipuncture NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Medical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
venipuncture NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
puncture NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vein NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
cause NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
many NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Noncompliance NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O O
draws NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
significant NN O O
ramifications NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
exacerbated NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
little NN O O
research NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
problem NN O O
or NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
concerns NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
Blood NN O I-INT
Draw NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
require NN O O
little NN O O
provider NN O O
or NN O O
family NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
effectively NN O O
reduce NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
draw NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
quasi-randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
? NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
with 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
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
larger NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
phenotypic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
genotypic NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
concerns NN O I-PAR
about NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
draws NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
elected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-PAR
Draw NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
draw NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
85.4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
4.80 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
= NN O O
1.12 NN O O
, NN O O
20.59 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
unlike NN O O
many NN O O
others NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
or NN O O
similar NN O O
difficulties NN O O
proposed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
without NN O O
requiring NN O O
extensive NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
effort NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
providers NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
or NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
did NN O O
it NN O O
require NN O O
large-scale NN O O
institutional NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21704300)

Preoperative NN O O
beta-blocker NN O I-INT
usage NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
is NN O O
it NN O O
really NN O O
worthy NN O O
of NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
quality NN O O
indicator NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Since NN O O
2007 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
?-blockers NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
quality NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
called NN O O
into NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
empiric NN O O
preoperative NN O O
?-blocker NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
extracted NN O O
from NN O O
our NN O O
Society NN O O
of NN O O
Thoracic NN O O
Surgeons NN O O
certified NN O O
database NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
?-blockers NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
12,855 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
7,967 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
62.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
preoperatively NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
?-blockers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O I-PAR
propensity NN O O
matching NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
selected NN O O
two NN O O
matched NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
4,474 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
?-blocker NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4,474 NN O O
not NN O O
using NN O O
preoperative NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
unmatched NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
sternal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.3 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
without NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.032 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.9 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
without NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
37.2 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
34.1 NN O O
% NN O O
without NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
reached NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
matched NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
requiring NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
among NN O O
?-blocker-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Calculating NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
matched NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
?-blockers NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
rational NN O O
for NN O O
preoperative NN O O
?-blockade NN O O
exists NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
medical NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
application NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
specific NN O O
clinical NN O O
scenarios NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
preoperative NN O O
?-blockade NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
quality NN O O
indicator NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
bypass NN O O
graft NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21705084)

Adjusting NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
for NN O O
central NN O O
corneal NN O O
thickness NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
prediction NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
open-angle NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
prediction NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
open-angle NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
( NN O O
POAG NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
correcting NN O O
intraocular NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
corneal NN O I-INT
thickness NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Reanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
prediction NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
POAG NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Ocular NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
OHTS NN O O
) NN O O
substituting NN O O
IOP NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
using NN O O
5 NN O O
different NN O O
correction NN O O
formulae NN O O
for NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
IOP NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1433 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1636 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
OHTS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prediction NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IOP NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CCT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
vertical NN O I-PAR
cup-to-disc NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VCDR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Reanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
POAG NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
baseline NN O O
variables NN O O
( NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
IOP NN O O
, NN O O
CCT NN O O
, NN O O
VCDR NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PSD NN O O
) NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
IOP NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
using NN O O
correction NN O O
formulae NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
separate NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
run NN O O
using NN O O
IOP NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
formulae NN O O
published NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

Models NN O O
were NN O O
run NN O O
including NN O O
and NN O O
excluding NN O O
CCT NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Predictive NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional NN O I-OUT
hazards NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
c-statistic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
calibration NN O I-OUT
chi-square NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
C-statistics NN O O
for NN O O
prediction NN O O
models NN O O
that NN O O
used NN O O
IOP NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
by NN O O
various NN O O
formulas NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.75 NN O O
to NN O O
0.77 NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
prediction NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
adjust NN O O
IOP NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
. NN O O

Calibration NN O O
chi-square NN O O
was NN O O
acceptable NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whether NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
models NN O O
including NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
CCT NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CCT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
models NN O O
including NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
IOP NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
calculation NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
POAG NN O O
in NN O O
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
simpler NN O O
and NN O O
equally NN O O
accurate NN O O
using NN O O
IOP NN O O
and NN O O
CCT NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
applying NN O O
an NN O O
adjustment NN O O
formula NN O O
to NN O O
correct NN O O
IOP NN O O
for NN O O
CCT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21719717)

Pharmacodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
cathepsin NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ONO-5334 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
ascending NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Selective NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
of NN O O
cathepsin NN O O
K NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
collagen NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
potential NN O O
new NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
cathepsin NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ONO-5334 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiple NN O O
ascending NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
15- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
28-day NN O I-INT
multiple-dosing NN O I-INT
cohorts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O O
ONO-5334 NN O O
concentration NN O O
reached NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
15-day NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
reduced NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
C-terminal NN O I-OUT
telopeptide NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
) NN O O
44.9 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
84.5 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
92.5 NN O O
% NN O O
? NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
28-day NN O O
cohort NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
far NN O O
smaller NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bone-specific NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B-ALP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tartrate-resistant NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
5b NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRAP5b NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ONO-5334 NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
ONO-5334 NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
considerable NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
appreciable NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B-ALP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
osteoclast NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRAP5b NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21720723)

Cross-modal NN O O
attention-switching NN O O
is NN O O
impaired NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
investigation NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
impaired NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
switch NN O O
attention NN O O
between NN O O
different NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
performance NN O O
is NN O O
further NN O O
impaired NN O O
when NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
switch NN O O
across NN O O
two NN O O
separate NN O O
modalities NN O O
( NN O O
visual NN O O
and NN O O
auditory NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
typically-developing NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronological NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O O
alternated NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
performed NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
both NN O O
comparison NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
switching NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
difficulty NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
modalities NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
where NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
modality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
switching NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
participants NN O O
matched NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
and NN O O
chronological NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21724047)

Nepafenac NN O I-INT
for NN O O
epiretinal NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21740578)

The NN O O
IDvIP NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
two-centre NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
labour NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Intramuscular NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
labour NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
little NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
labour NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
affecting NN O O
mother NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neonate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
can NN O O
cause NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and NN O O
dysphoria NN O O
in NN O O
mothers NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
cause NN O O
reduced NN O O
fetal NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
and NN O O
accelerations NN O O
. NN O O

Neonatal NN O O
effects NN O O
include NN O O
respiratory NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
feeding NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
large NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
opioids NN O O
in NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
showed NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
have NN O O
some NN O O
benefits NN O O
over NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
when NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
labour NN O O
analgesia NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
opioid NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Intramuscular NN O O
Diamorphine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Intramuscular NN O O
Pethidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IDvIP NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
two NN O O
centre NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
regarding NN O O
their NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
labour NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
mother NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fetus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neonate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
provided NN O O
to NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
antenatal NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consent NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
mother NN O O
requests NN O O
opioid NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
requirement NN O O
is NN O O
406 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
maternal NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
specifically NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
neonatal NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
resuscitation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
sedation 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
maternal NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whether NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
would NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
again NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Entonox NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
meconium NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
mins NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
naloxone NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
120 NN O I-OUT
mins NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
If NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
better NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
mother NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neonate NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
could NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
national NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
diamorphine NN O I-INT
becoming NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN14898678Eudra NN O O
No NN O O
: NN O O
2006-003250-18 NN O O
, NN O O
REC NN O O
Reference NN O O
No NN O O
: NN O O
06/Q1702/95 NN O O
, NN O O
MHRA NN O O
Authorisation NN O O
No NN O O
: NN O O
1443/0001/001-0001 NN O O
, NN O O
NIHR NN O O
UKCRN NN O O
reference NN O O
6895 NN O O
, NN O O
RfPB NN O O
grant NN O O
PB-PG-0407-13170_IR5 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21742443)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
chestnut NN O O
tannins NN O O
on NN O O
welfare NN O O
, NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
meat NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
oxidation NN O O
in NN O O
rabbits NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
ambient NN O I-PAR
temperature NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A 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
influence NN O O
of NN O O
chestnut NN O I-INT
tannins NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
welfare NN O O
, NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
meat NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
oxidation NN O O
in NN O O
rabbits NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
high NN O O
ambient NN O O
temperature NN O O
. NN O O

Rabbits NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
raised NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
20?C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
33?C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CT/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
rabbits NN O O
in NN O O
CT10 NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
cooking NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thiobarbituric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
reacting NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
0 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
forced NN O O
oxidation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rabbits NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
C NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
N NN O O
and NN O O
CT10 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O O
seemed 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
growth NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
welfare NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
meat NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rabbits NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
high NN O O
ambient NN O O
temperature NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21753062)

A NN O O
high NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
trans NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
has NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consumption NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
industrial NN O I-INT
trans NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iTFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
, NN O O
decreases NN O O
HDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CVD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
circulating NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
whether NN O O
iTFA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
linoleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
affect NN O O
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
consumed NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
diets NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Diets NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
oleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
iTFA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CLA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF-RI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
-RII NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
chemotactic NN O I-OUT
protein-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
8-iso-PGF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
peroxidation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Consumption NN O O
of NN O I-INT
iTFA NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
TNF-RI NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
oleic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CLA NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8-iso-PGF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
iTFA NN O O
[ NN O O
0.54 NN O O
( NN O O
0.48 NN O O
, NN O O
0.60 NN O O
) NN O O
nmol/mmol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CLA NN O O
[ NN O O
1.2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
nmol/mmol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
] NN O O
diet NN O O
periods NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
[ NN O O
0.45 NN O O
( NN O O
0.41 NN O O
, NN O O
0.50 NN O O
) NN O O
nmol/mmol NN O O
creatinine NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
intakes NN O O
of NN O O
iTFA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CLA NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
substantially NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
they NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
8-iso-PGF NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
this NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O I-INT
iTFA NN O I-INT
increase NN O I-INT
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
CVD NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21761341)

Increased NN O O
5?-reductase NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-INT
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
steroids NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O I-INT
aromatase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
become NN O O
unresponsive NN O O
or NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
estrogens NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
androgens NN O O
may NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
regulators NN O O
of NN O O
estrogen-responsive NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
estrogen-unresponsive NN O O
human NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
underlying NN O O
these NN O O
androgenic NN O O
actions NN O O
has NN O O
remained NN O O
relatively NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
AI NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intratumoral NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
17?-hydroxysteroid NN O I-OUT
dehydrogenase NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
17?HSD5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5?-reductase NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5?Red1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
5?Red2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
findings NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
Ki67 NN O I-OUT
labeling NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ki67 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighty-two NN O I-OUT
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
ductal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
CAAN NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
specimens NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
17?HSD5 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5?Red1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5?Red2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Ki67 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significant NN O O
increments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5?Red2 NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
AR NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
in NN O O
biological NN O O
response NN O O
group NN O O
whose NN O I-OUT
Ki67 NN O I-OUT
LI NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
level 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
demonstrating NN O O
an NN O O
increment NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
5?Red2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
Ki67 NN O I-OUT
decrement NN O O
following NN O O
AI NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
5?Red2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AR NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
AI NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
partly NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
proliferation NN O O
through NN O O
increasing NN O O
intratumoral NN O O
androgen NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
receptor NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21767149)

A NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
exploring NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Endometriosis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
disabling NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
condition NN O O
affecting NN O O
between NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
of NN O O
childbearing NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Conventional NN O O
medical NN O O
intervention NN O O
has NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
side-effects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
frequently NN O O
return NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
endometriosis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
methodology NN O O
for NN O O
investigating NN O O
individualized NN O O
decoctions NN O O
of NN O O
CHM NN O O
rigorously NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
gather NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CHM NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
definitive NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
laparoscopically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
endometriosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTINGS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
CHM NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Hove NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
U.K. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Service NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
London NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
U.K. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Participants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
initially NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
CHM NN O I-INT
decoctions NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
therapeutically NN O I-INT
inert NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Four NN O O
10-cm NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scales NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
menstrual NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
intercourse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Endometriosis NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Profile-30 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EHP-30 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
endometriosis-specific NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning 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
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Measure NN O I-OUT
Yourself NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MYMOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
patient-centered NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
completed NN O O
monthly NN O O
. NN O O

Liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
High NN O O
dropout NN O O
rates NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
suspension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
WLC NN O O
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blinding NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
allocation NN O O
concealment NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
successfully NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EHP-30 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MYMOP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
menstrual NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
the NN O O
methodology NN O O
successfully NN O O
allowed NN O O
individualized NN O O
CHM NN O O
decoctions NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
rigorously NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
contextual NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
CHM NN O O
that NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Provisional NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
generated NN O O
to NN O O
warrant NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
, NN O O
more-definitive NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2177746)

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Org NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O O
analog NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adrenocorticotrophic NN O O
hormone NN O O
( NN O O
4-9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
atypical NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
child NN O O
received NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Org NN O I-INT
2766 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ACTH NN O I-INT
4-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/day NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
sequence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
monitored NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ethological NN O I-OUT
playroom NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teachers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
playroom NN O O
observation NN O O
pointed NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
activating NN O I-OUT
influence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Org NN O O
2766 NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
revealed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
toys NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
locomote NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
talk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O O
ratings NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21785360)

To NN O O
share NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
share NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
consent NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
sharing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
genome NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Despite NN O O
growing NN O O
concerns NN O O
toward NN O O
maintaining NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
privacy NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
investigators NN O O
collecting NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
biological NN O O
specimens NN O O
for NN O O
genomic NN O O
analysis NN O O
are NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
informed NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
for NN O O
broad NN O O
data NN O O
sharing NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
research NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
sharing NN O O
decisions NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
consent NN O O
types NN O O
( NN O O
traditional NN O O
, NN O O
binary NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
tiered NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
varying NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
choices NN O O
regarding NN O O
data NN O O
sharing NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
323 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
genome NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Baylor NN O I-PAR
College NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Houston NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
documents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
binary NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
103 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tiered NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Debriefing NN O O
in NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
provided NN O O
participants NN O O
a NN O O
detailed NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
consent NN O O
types NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
chance NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
data NN O O
sharing NN O O
choices NN O O
or NN O O
decline NN O O
genome NN O O
study NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
debriefing NN O O
, NN O O
83.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
chose NN O O
public NN O O
data NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
debriefing NN O O
, NN O O
53.1 NN O O
% NN O O
chose NN O O
public NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
33.1 NN O O
% NN O O
chose NN O O
restricted NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
access NN O I-OUT
database NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
opted NN O I-OUT
out NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
sharing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
one NN O O
participant NN O O
declined NN O O
genome NN O O
study NN O O
participation NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
data NN O I-OUT
sharing NN O I-OUT
concerns NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
most NN O O
participants NN O O
are NN O O
willing NN O O
to NN O O
publicly NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
their NN O O
genomic NN O O
data NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
portion NN O O
prefers NN O O
restricted NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
discordance NN O O
between NN O O
existing NN O O
data NN O O
sharing NN O O
policies NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
judgments NN O O
and NN O O
desires NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21785368)

A NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
address NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
managers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leadership NN O I-INT
development NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
specifically NN O O
for NN O O
managers NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biometric NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
145 NN O I-PAR
managers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
organizations NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O I-INT
Internet-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
completed NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
posttest NN O O
assessments NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
both NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
biometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eg NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
reduced NN O O
their NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
program NN O O
showed NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Similar NN O O
results NN O O
across NN O O
diverse NN O O
organizations NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
across NN O O
industry NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21787048)

A NN O O
communication-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
autism NN O O
: NN O O
what NN O O
changes NN O O
? NN O O
Who NN O O
benefits NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
article NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
predictors NN O O
in NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
classroom-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
PECS NN O O
( NN O O
P. NN O O
Howlin NN O O
, NN O O
R. NN O O
K. NN O O
Gordon NN O O
, NN O O
G. NN O O
Pasco NN O O
, NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Wade NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
T. NN O O
Charman NN O O
, NN O O
2007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
naturalistic NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
classroom NN O O
. NN O O

Multilevel NN O O
Poisson NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Spontaneous NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
picture NN O I-OUT
cards NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
following NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
=1.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
1.46 NN O O
, NN O O
2.48 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.77 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
1.35 NN O O
, NN O O
2.32 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
3.74 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
2.19 NN O O
, NN O O
6.37 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Spontaneous NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
request NN O I-OUT
objects NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
2.17 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
1.75 NN O O
, NN O O
2.68 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
requesting NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
purposes NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.34 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
0.83 NN O O
, NN O O
2.18 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.237 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
by NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Less NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnosis NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
C. NN O O
Lord NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
0.83 NN O O
, NN O O
0.98 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
lower NN O O
ADOS NN O O
item NN O O
A1 NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pictures NN O I-OUT
together NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.62 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
PECS NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
communication NN O O
for NN O O
instrumental NN O O
requesting NN O O
using NN O O
pictures NN O O
, NN O O
speech NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
were NN O O
moderated NN O O
by NN O O
baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
increased NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
speech NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
talk NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
little NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21793626)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ginseng NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
testicular NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
It NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
standardized NN O O
ginseng NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fertility NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
rats NN O O
each NN O O
: NN O O
1. NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
2. NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3. NN O O
diabetes NN O O
+ NN O O
ginseng NN O O
( NN O O
DG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latter NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
rendered NN O O
diabetic NN O O
by NN O O
i.p NN O O
. NN O O

injection NN O O
of NN O O
streptozotocin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
STZ NN O O
; NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Dansk NN O O
Droge NN O O
A/S NN O O
, NN O O
Copenhagen NN O O
, NN O O
Denmark NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
BW NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
stomach NN O O
tube NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
starting NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
STZ NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O O
days NN O O
post NN O O
STZ NN O O
the NN O O
rats NN O O
were NN O O
sacrificed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
testis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epididymis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
seminal NN O I-OUT
vesicles NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
weighed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjected NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
spermiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intratesticular NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
ginseng NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
fertility NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
antioxidants NN O I-OUT
together NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
degenerative NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
seminiferous NN O I-OUT
tubules NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Ginseng NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
diabetics NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
infertility NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21798536)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
Pritchard NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
eclampsia NN O I-OUT
imminent NN O I-OUT
eclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21800228)

Preliminary NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cartoon-based NN O I-INT
hostile NN O I-OUT
attributional NN O I-OUT
bias NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
illustrates NN O O
how NN O O
researchers NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
validated NN O O
a NN O O
cartoon-based NN O I-INT
adaptation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
a NN O O
written NN O O
hostile NN O I-OUT
attributional NN O I-OUT
bias NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
cartoon NN O O
illustrations NN O O
to NN O O
accompany NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
written NN O I-OUT
hostile NN O I-OUT
attributional NN O I-OUT
bias NN O I-OUT
vignette NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
initial NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Study NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
test-retest NN O I-OUT
reliability NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adapted NN O O
measure NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
sample NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
studies NN O O
utilize NN O O
a NN O O
participatory NN O O
action NN O O
research NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
measurement NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
adaptation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
collaborations NN O O
between NN O O
researchers NN O O
and NN O O
key NN O O
school NN O O
stakeholders NN O O
can NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
measures NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
psychometrically NN O O
strong NN O O
, NN O O
developmentally NN O O
appropriate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
culturally NN O O
sensitive NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cartoon-based NN O I-INT
hostile NN O I-OUT
attributional NN O I-OUT
bias NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
and/or NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
aggression NN O O
and NN O O
bullying NN O O
prevention NN O O
programs NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21801451)

Falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
falls NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
are NN O O
argued NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
idiopathic NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
this NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
scale NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
movement NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
falls NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
falls NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
generic NN O I-INT
life-skills NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
People NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
person NN O O
shall NN O O
receive NN O O
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
out-patient NN O O
setting NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
3-4 NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
group NN O O
shall NN O O
be NN O O
scheduled NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
2 NN O O
hour NN O O
home NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
intervention NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
will NN O O
occur NN O O
before NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
therapy NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
falls NN O O
calendar NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
kept NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
outpatient NN O O
therapy.Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
recommendations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
Falls NN O O
Network NN O O
Europe NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
variables NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fallers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
fallers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
quantifying NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
shall NN O O
measure NN O O
mobility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
outpatient NN O O
movement NN O O
strategy NN O O
training NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
falls NN O O
prevention NN O O
education NN O O
or NN O O
progressive NN O O
resistance NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
falls NN O O
prevention NN O O
education NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
live NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Australia NN O O
and NN O O
New NN O O
Zealand NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Register NN O O
( NN O O
ANZCTR NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
ACTRN12606000344594 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2180462)

Comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cephamandole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
infective NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
previous NN O O
published NN O O
work NN O O
we NN O O
described NN O O
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cephamandole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
single-antibiotic NN O O
, NN O O
three-dose NN O O
, NN O O
peri-operative NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
post-operative NN O O
infective NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
earlier NN O O
work NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
wound NN O O
sepsis NN O O
in NN O O
emergency NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
here NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
who NN O O
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
or NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Infective NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
12/32 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
15/31 NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5/32 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
9/31 NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
organisms NN O O
cultured NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
sensitivities NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
series NN O O
showed NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
62 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
58 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
difference NN O O
reaches NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance 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

Possible NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

Again NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
regime NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
cefotaxime NN O I-INT
given NN O O
peri-operatively NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21809679)

[ NN O I-PAR
Use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Tachocomb NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
lymphatic NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdomen NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21811855)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
prospectively NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
flexion NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
leg NN O I-INT
elevated NN O I-INT
30? NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inactive NN O I-INT
CPM NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
72 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
postoperatively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
flexion NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
flexed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
30? NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
extension NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
fully NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Perioperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hidden NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ecchymosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fixed NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
deformity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
straight-leg NN O I-OUT
raising NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hidden NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scope NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ecchymosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
flexion NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extension NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
straight-leg NN O I-OUT
raising NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
FFD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FFD NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
30? NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
leg NN O O
elevated NN O O
30? NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
hip NN O O
after NN O O
total NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
may NN O O
mitigate NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
provide NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
early NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
following NN O O
TKA NN O O
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
Prospective NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
Level NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2181434)

Using NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
recruitment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
cancer NN O O
control NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Cancer NN O O
control NN O O
investigations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
rarely NN O O
use NN O O
population-based NN O I-PAR
registries NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
a NN O O
resource NN O O
for NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
toxicity NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
achieve NN O O
the NN O O
accrual NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Wisconsin NN O I-OUT
Cancer NN O I-OUT
Reporting NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WCRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Registry NN O O
information NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
9 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
3,585 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respect NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
vital NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
identified NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
Wisconsin NN O O
state NN O O
death NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
identified NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
rosters NN O O
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
sent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cover NN O O
letter NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
description NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
physicians NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
update NN O O
the NN O O
list NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
appropriate NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
sign NN O O
letters NN O O
to NN O O
potentially NN O O
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
interested NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-eight NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
letter NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
information NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
physicians NN O O
contacted NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
office NN O O
about NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
its NN O O
initiation NN O O
, NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
successful NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
registry NN O I-OUT
illustrates NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O I-OUT
recruitment NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
modified NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
cancer NN O O
control/chemoprevention NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2182235)

Variability NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
angiographic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
and NN O O
anistreplase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1,615 NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
readings NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
anistreplase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Eminase NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
known NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
anisoylated NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APSAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
versus NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Coronary NN O O
arteriography NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Coronary NN O O
flow NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infarct-related NN O O
artery NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
TIMI NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
serial NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
grade NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
reperfused NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Half NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
ultimately NN O O
developed NN O O
complete NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
flow NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
circumflex NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
for NN O O
anistreplase NN O I-INT
or NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
frequent NN O O
alterations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
occur NN O O
early NN O O
during NN O O
reperfusion NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
reports NN O O
with NN O O
varying NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Any NN O O
angiographic NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
should NN O O
take NN O O
these NN O O
variations NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
interobserver NN O O
variability NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21822762)

Predictors NN O O
and NN O O
moderators NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Research NN O O
Units NN O O
on NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Psychopharmacology NN O O
-- NN O O
Autism NN O O
Network NN O O
reported NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
when NN O O
adding NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
rerun NN O O
with NN O O
putative NN O O
predictors NN O O
and NN O O
moderators NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Home NN O I-OUT
Situations NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HSQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity/Noncompliance NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Candidate NN O O
predictors NN O O
and NN O O
moderators NN O O
included NN O O
21 NN O O
demographics NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
baseline NN O O
HSQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
HSQ NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
moderated NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
PT NN O O
. NN O O

Antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
wide NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21822764)

Using NN O O
the NN O O
transporters NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
learning NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
identify NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
label NN O I-OUT
basic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
home NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
when NN O O
viewing NN O O
The NN O I-INT
Transporters NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Improvements NN O O
in NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
appear NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DVD NN O I-INT
as NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
observed NN O O
an NN O O
alternate NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
watching NN O O
The NN O O
Transporters NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Thomas NN O O
the NN O O
Tank NN O O
Engine NN O O
condition NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
unique NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
The NN O O
Transporters NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
pivotal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
general NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2182521)

The NN O O
clinician NN O O
's NN O O
decision NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
diffuse NN O I-OUT
histiocytic NN O I-OUT
lymphoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (21830957)

Rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
requires NN O O
frequent NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O

Rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
factor NN O O
Xa NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O O
and NN O O
predictable NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
than NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
14,264 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
( NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
dose-adjusted NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
, NN O O
as-treated NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
was NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
188 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
241 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.79 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.66 NN O O
to NN O O
0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
269 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
306 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.74 NN O O
to NN O O
1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.12 NN O O
for NN O O
superiority NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonmajor NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
1475 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1449 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
14.5 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.03 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.96 NN O O
to NN O O
1.11 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.44 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
intracranial NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
, NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
was NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
warfarin NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
or NN O O
systemic NN O O
embolism NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
intracranial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rivaroxaban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
Johnson NN O O
& NN O O
Johnson NN O O
and NN O O
Bayer NN O O
; NN O O
ROCKET NN O O
AF NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00403767 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2183734)

Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasmapheresis NN O O
, NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy 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
to NN O O
examine 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
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
plasmapheresis NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
irreversible NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
biopsy NN O O
tissues NN O O
from NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
forced NN O I-INT
diuresis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
forced NN O I-INT
diuresis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
plasmapheresis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasmapheresis NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
lowered NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
myeloma NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
much NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
than NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
oliguric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
presentation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
only NN O O
3 NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
plasmapheresis NN O O
recovered NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
polyuric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
main NN O O
factor NN O O
that NN O O
determined NN O O
irreversibility NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
failure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
myeloma NN O O
cast NN O O
formation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2184179)

Topical NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etretinate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etretinate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
palmoplantar NN O O
pustulosis NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
influences NN O O
of NN O O
tonsillar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
focal NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
palmoplantar NN O I-PAR
pustulosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
etretinate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Re NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etretinate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Re-PUVA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Re NN O O
and NN O O
Re-PUVA NN O O
treated NN O O
sites NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
than NN O O
PUVA NN O O
treated NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
sites NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Re-PUVA NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
with NN O O
Re NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
sites NN O O
with NN O O
PUVA NN O O
within NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

UVA-control NN O O
sites NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cleared NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Remission NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
Re NN O O
, NN O O
10.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
Re-PUVA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
PUVA NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
overall NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
Re-PUVA NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
PPP NN O O
. NN O O

Tonsillar NN O I-OUT
focal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TFI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
focal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
6/20 NN O O
and NN O O
17/20 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
focal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TFI NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
DFI NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
Re NN O O
and/or NN O O
PUVA NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
FI NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
FI NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21844080)

Comparative NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
electrocardiography NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
myocardial NN O O
perfusion NN O O
single NN O O
photon NN O O
emission NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
What NN O O
Is NN O O
the NN O O
Optimal NN O O
Method NN O O
for NN O O
Ischemia NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
Women NN O O
( NN O O
WOMEN NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
regarding NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
perfusion NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
MPI NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
ECG NN O O
exercise NN O O
treadmill NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
ETT NN O O
) NN O O
provides NN O O
incremental NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-INT
interpretable NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
?5 NN O I-INT
metabolic NN O I-INT
equivalents NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
Duke NN O I-PAR
Activity NN O I-PAR
Status NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategies NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
ETT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
MPI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
2-year NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
CAD NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
824 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ETT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
MPI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
women NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
ETT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
normal NN O O
in NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
abnormal NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
MPI NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
normal NN O O
in NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
mildly NN O O
abnormal NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severely NN O O
abnormal NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
years 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
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
98.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ETT NN O O
and NN O O
97.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
MPI NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.59 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
ETT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
MPI NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
downstream NN O O
procedural NN O O
costs NN O O
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
48 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ETT NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
MPI NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
low-risk NN O O
, NN O O
exercising NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
that NN O O
uses NN O O
ETT NN O O
versus NN O O
exercise NN O O
MPI NN O O
yields NN O O
similar NN O O
2-year NN O O
posttest NN O O
outcomes NN O O
while NN O O
providing NN O O
significant NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
cost NN O O
savings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ETT NN O O
with NN O O
selective NN O O
follow-up NN O O
testing NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CAD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00282711 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21846665)

Increasing NN O O
verbal NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
in NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Correlational NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
parent NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
learn NN O O
and NN O O
implement NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
categories NN O O
of NN O O
verbal NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
language NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
included NN O O
group NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
small-group NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
parent-child NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
interactions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parents NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
comments NN O O
that NN O O
: NN O O
described NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
focus NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
interpreted NN O O
or NN O O
expanded NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prompted NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Preliminary NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
prompted NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21849168)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
gravity NN O O
on NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
distinct NN O O
6-week NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
reaching NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ICAE NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke-related NN O I-OUT
upper-extremity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
horizontal NN O I-PAR
plane NN O I-PAR
leads NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
12-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Research NN O O
setting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
medical NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=62 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stroke-related NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
weakness NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
UE NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Sixty NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
planar NN O I-INT
reaching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
gravity NN O I-INT
compensated NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
planar NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
vertical NN O I-INT
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
reaching NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
UE NN O I-OUT
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
final NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
modest NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
final NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
change NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
planar NN O O
robot NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
2.94 NN O O
? NN O O
0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.40-4.47 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n=41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
larger NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
change NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
2.29 NN O O
? NN O O
0.72 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.85-3.72 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
planar NN O O
robot-assisted NN O O
exercise NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
conventional NN O O
arm NN O O
exercise NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
? NN O O
0.72 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-1.00 NN O O
to NN O O
1.86 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
UE NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
are NN O I-OUT
responsive NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
intensive NN O O
motor NN O O
task NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
training NN O O
outside NN O O
the NN O O
horizontal NN O O
plane NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
gravity NN O O
present NN O O
environment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
vertical NN O O
with NN O O
planar NN O O
robots NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
planar NN O O
robot NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21851906)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
dual NN O I-PAR
antiplatelet NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clopidogrel NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
phosphodiesterase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
dual NN O I-PAR
antiplatelet NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DAPT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
DAPT NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
PDE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
presenting NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
( NN O O
DM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PDE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DM NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
DAPT NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
DM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
DAPT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
PD NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
vasodilator-stimulated NN O I-OUT
phosphoprotein NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
transmittance NN O I-OUT
aggregometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VerifyNow NN O I-OUT
P2Y12 NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Accumetric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Inc. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
San NN O I-OUT
Diego NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
California NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
electrode NN O I-OUT
aggregometry NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PD NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
according NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
on-treatment NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
P2Y NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
vasodilator-stimulated NN O I-OUT
phosphoprotein NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.93 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intra-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
also NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
14-day NN O I-OUT
P2Y NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
arms NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.61 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
inter- NN O O
and NN O O
intra-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
PD NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
PD NN O O
effects NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
according NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
on-treatment NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DM 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
receiving NN O I-PAR
DAPT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2185458)

The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Drug NN O O
trial NN O O
considerations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21859193)

Ameliorating NN O I-OUT
intrusive NN O I-OUT
memories NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distressing NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
computerized NN O I-INT
reappraisal NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
appraisals NN O O
that NN O O
follow NN O I-PAR
traumatic NN O I-PAR
experiences NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
stress NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
PTSD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Could NN O O
changing NN O O
reappraisals NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
stressful NN O O
event NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
PTSD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
? NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
proof-of-principle NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
nonexplicit NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
systematic NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reappraisal NN O O
style NN O O
following NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stressful NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
distressing NN O I-PAR
film NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
intrusive NN O O
memories NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
film NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
distress NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
trained NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
adopt NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
generally NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
negative NN O I-INT
poststressor NN O I-INT
appraisal NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
series NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
scripted NN O I-INT
vignettes NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
having NN O I-INT
been NN O I-INT
exposed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
highly NN O I-INT
distressing NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
training NN O O
targeted NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
beliefs NN O O
and NN O O
reappraisals NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
emotions NN O O
( NN O O
emotions NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
reactions NN O O
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
film NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O O
appraisal NN O O
induction NN O O
was NN O O
verified NN O O
using NN O O
novel NN O O
vignettes NN O O
and NN O O
via NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O O
traumatic NN O O
cognitions NN O O
inventory NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
trained NN O O
negatively NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
trained NN O O
positively NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
diary NN O O
fewer NN O O
intrusive NN O I-OUT
memories NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
film NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Event NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
posttraumatic NN O O
stress NN O O
symptoms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
computerized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nonexplicit NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
reappraisal NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
stressful NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
occurred NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
platform NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
translational NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
populations NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
real-world NN O O
stress NN O O
or NN O O
trauma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21859314)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
resin-dentin NN O I-OUT
microtensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
ozone NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
during NN O O
caries NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
bond NN O O
strength NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
compromised NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
agents NN O O
neutralizes NN O O
the NN O O
free NN O O
oxygen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
ascorbate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
resin-dentin NN O I-OUT
microtensile NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?TBS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
etching NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
acid NN O I-INT
etching NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ozone NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Group NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
ozone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
ascorbate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bonded NN O O
beams NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
under NN O O
tension NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
?TBS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
one-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Tukey NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
beams NN O O
that NN O O
fractured NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
under NN O O
stereomicroscopy NN O O
( NN O O
40? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
?TBS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
?TBS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Groups NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ozone NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
?TBS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
conditions NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predominant NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
mode NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
adhesive NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
ozone NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
?TBS NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dentin-composite NN O I-OUT
resin NN O I-OUT
interface NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
were NN O O
reversed NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
when NN O O
sodium NN O O
ascorbate NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21869698)

Symptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
employed NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
succinate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
exclusively NN O O
in NN O O
employed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Gainfully NN O I-PAR
employed NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?20 NN O I-PAR
h/wk NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
17-item NN O O
Hamilton NN O O
Depression NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
HAM-D?? NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Sheehan NN O O
Disability NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
SDS NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
key NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
predefined NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ie NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
HAM-D?? NN O I-PAR
?20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Tolerability NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
recording NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Arizona NN O O
Sexual NN O O
Experience NN O O
Scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Baseline NN O I-OUT
HAM-D?? NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
desvenlafaxine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
285 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
142 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
22.0 NN O O
and NN O O
21.8 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
baseline NN O O
SDS NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
19.8 NN O O
and NN O O
20.4 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adjusted NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.78-3.46 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
HAM-D?? NN O O
and NN O O
1.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
2.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.067 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
SDS NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
ITT NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
208 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
102 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
HAM-D?? NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
23.8 NN O O
and NN O O
23.9 NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
SDS NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
20.1 NN O O
and NN O O
20.8 NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
2.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.93-4.22 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
HAM-D?? NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.36-3.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
SDS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Arizona NN O I-OUT
Sexual NN O I-OUT
Experience NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Desvenlafaxine NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
MDD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
gainfully NN O I-PAR
employed NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
SDS NN O O
narrowly NN O O
missed NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
population NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
totality NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
suggests NN O O
functional NN O O
improvements NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2188165)

[ NN O I-INT
Sublingually NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
emergencies NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SLN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
emergencies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
crises NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
exceeding NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
exceeding NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
SLC NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
SLN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
then NN O O
controlled NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
8th NN O O
hour NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
crises NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SLC NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
13/8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
52/36 NN O O
mmHg 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
SLN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
15/11 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
57/38 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
SLC NN O I-INT
having NN O O
a NN O O
mildly NN O O
delayed NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
SLN NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
) NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
lasting NN O O
for NN O O
about NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SLC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
progressively NN O O
raising NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
SLN NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
PRA NN O O
and NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SLC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O I-OUT
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
emergencies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-PAR
Anyway NN O O
we NN O O
think NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
forms NN O O
SLN NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
preferred NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
shorter NN O O
time NN O O
preceding NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2188871)

Oral NN O I-INT
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
intrahepatic NN O I-OUT
cholestasis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

Parenteral NN O O
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reversing NN O O
intrahepatic NN O I-OUT
cholestasis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pregnant NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
cholestatic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
220 NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
twofold NN O I-PAR
increases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
conjugated NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
volunteered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cholestasis NN O I-OUT
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
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
1600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
values NN O O
were 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
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
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
improved NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
unwell NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
controls 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
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
reduced NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
inefficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
extent NN O O
as NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
short-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
S-adenosylmethionine 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
improving NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intrahepatic NN O I-OUT
cholestasis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21892106)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
dose NN O O
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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
not NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Trans NN O O
Tasman NN O O
Radiation NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Study NN O O
TROG NN O O
03.07 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stage NN O O
I-III NN O O
non-small NN O O
cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
curative NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
are NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
isolated NN O O
solitary NN O O
extracranial NN O O
metastasis NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
cranial NN O O
or NN O O
multiple NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
good NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
receiving NN O O
moderate NN O O
dose NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
have NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I-IIIB NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unsuitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
PET-detected NN O I-PAR
extracranial NN O I-PAR
solitary NN O I-PAR
metastasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
groups-arm NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
40 NN O O
Gy/20 NN O I-INT
fractions/4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
weekly NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
or NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
30 NN O O
Gy/15 NN O I-INT
fractions/3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
weekly NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
above NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.147 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
was NN O O
acceptable 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
median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
versus NN O O
5.0 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
had NN O O
longer NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
13.1 NN O O
versus NN O O
8.3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
future NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
had NN O O
superior NN O O
survival NN O O
to NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21900715)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
induction NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
HIV-HCV-coinfected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
CORAL-2 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
induction NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
virological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
HIV-HCV-coinfected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
HCV NN O I-PAR
genotype NN O I-PAR
1- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4-coinfected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
270 NN O I-INT
?g/week NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
1,600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
and NN O O
epoetin-? NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
dosages NN O O
plus NN O O
weight-based NN O O
ribavirin NN O O
( NN O O
WBR NN O O
) NN O O
dosage NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
induction NN O O
arm NN O O
[ NN O O
IA NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
WBR NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
arm NN O O
[ NN O O
SA NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
determined 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
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Ribavirin NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
determined NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
RBV-C NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
RBV-C NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
SA NN O O
and NN O O
34 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IA NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
received NN O I-OUT
nucleoside NN O I-OUT
reverse NN O I-OUT
transcriptase NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NRTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-sparing NN O I-OUT
regimens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
?1 NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IA NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SA NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
EVR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IA NN O O
and NN O O
SA NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
RBV-C NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RBV-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
allocated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IA NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
NRTIs NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
4-week NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
translate NN O O
into NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
EVR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Higher NN O I-OUT
RBV NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
avoidance NN O O
of NN O O
NRTI-sparing NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
regimens NN O O
might NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
HCV NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21902704)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
oral NN O O
analgesics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
preparation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
oral NN O O
medications NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
canals NN O O
in NN O O
teeth NN O O
with NN O O
irreversible NN O O
pulpitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
premolar NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irreversible NN O I-PAR
pulpitis NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
apical NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
by NN O O
balanced NN O O
block NN O O
random NN O O
allocation NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
each NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
Tramadol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Novafen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
325 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
anhydrous NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Naproxen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
where NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pulp NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
removed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
canals NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
fully NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
10-point NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
submitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperative NN O O
intervals NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tramadol NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
less NN O O
effective NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
Naproxen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Novafen NN O I-INT
that NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other 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
A NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Naproxen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Novafen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Tramadol NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
reduced NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O O
pulpectomy NN O O
and NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
teeth NN O O
with NN O O
irreversible NN O O
pulpitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21908036)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
disease NN O O
using NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
non-invasive NN O I-INT
multimodality NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dal-PLAQUE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
cholesteryl NN O O
ester NN O O
transfer NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CETP NN O O
) NN O O
activity 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
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
failure NN O O
of NN O O
torcetrapib NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
unknown NN O O
if NN O O
HDL NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
CETP NN O O
had NN O O
pro-atherogenic NN O O
or NN O O
pro-inflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

dal-PLAQUE NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
novel NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
multimodality NN O O
imaging NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
structural NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
2b NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomisation NN O O
code NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
investigators NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Coprimary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
MRI-assessed NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
normalised NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
average NN O O
carotid NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-fluorodeoxyglucose NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-FDG NN O O
) NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
inflammation NN O O
within NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O O
vessel NN O O
( NN O O
right NN O O
carotid NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O O
carotid NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ascending NN O O
thoracic NN O O
aorta NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no-harm NN O O
boundaries NN O O
established NN O O
before NN O O
unblinding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00655473 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
189 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
coprimary NN O O
MRI NN O O
and NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
CIs NN O O
were NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
no-harm NN O O
boundary NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
numerically NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

MRI-derived NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
absolute NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
-4?01 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-7?23 NN O O
to NN O O
-0?80 NN O O
; NN O O
nominal NN O O
p=0?04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PET/CT NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
most-diseased-segment NN O I-OUT
target-to-background NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TBR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
most-diseased-segment NN O O
TBR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-7?3 NN O O
[ NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-13?5 NN O O
to NN O O
-0?8 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
nominal NN O O
p=0?07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-INT
Dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
office NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O I-INT
Dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
showed NN O I-INT
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pathological NN O O
effect NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
arterial NN O O
wall NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
suggests NN O O
possible NN O O
beneficial NN O O
vascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O I-INT
dalcetrapib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
vessel NN O O
enlargement NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
long-term NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
dalcetrapib NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
F NN O O
Hoffmann-La NN O O
Roche NN O O
Ltd NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21914906)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
supports NN O O
on NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
TGMD-2 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
supports NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Gross NN O I-INT
Motor NN O I-INT
Development NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TGMD-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
the NN O O
TGMD-2 NN O I-INT
under NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
protocols NN O O
( NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
card NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
picture NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Gross NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
TGMD-2 NN O I-INT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
within-subjects NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
tests NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
picture NN O O
task NN O O
card NN O O
condition NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
gross NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
picture NN O O
activity NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
gross NN O O
motor NN O O
quotient NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
TGMD-2 NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
elicited NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
picture NN O O
task NN O O
card NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21915543)

Functional NN O O
outcome NN O O
following NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
femur NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
piriformis NN O O
fossa NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
entry NN O O
portals NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
femur NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
piriformis NN O O
fossa NN O O
entry NN O O
portal NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
shaft NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O I-INT
piriformis NN O I-INT
fossa NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fifty-six NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O I-INT
trochanteric NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
Ontario NN O O
and NN O O
McMaster NN O O
Universities NN O O
( NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
) NN O O
Osteoarthritis NN O O
Index NN O O
hip NN O O
function NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blinded NN O O
functional NN O O
evaluation NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O O
therapist NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Most NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O O
function NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
piriformis NN O O
fossa NN O O
and NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
nailing NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O O
tests NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
chair NN O O
stand NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
timed NN O O
up NN O O
and NN O O
go NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
chair NN O I-OUT
stand NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13.3 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
11.1 NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
at NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
14.0 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
13.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
timed NN O O
up NN O O
and NN O O
go NN O O
test NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
six NN O O
or NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intraoperative NN O O
parameters NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluoroscopy NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incision NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
favoring NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O

Analog NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
2.49 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
2.15 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
nailing NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
hip NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
through NN O O
the NN O O
piriformis NN O O
fossa NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trochanteric NN O O
nailing NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
hip NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
femoral NN O O
intramedullary NN O O
nailing NN O O
performed NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
trochanter NN O O
is NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
nailing NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
piriformis NN O O
fossa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21915740)

Social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults 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
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
difficulties NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
little NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
exist NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Using 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
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O I-INT
evidence-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
caregiver-assisted NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
known NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Young NN O I-INT
Adults NN O I-INT
with NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
18-23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
self- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
caregiver-report NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
treated NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
loneliness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
caregivers NN O O
reported NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
overall NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
empathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
get-togethers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
this NN O O
caregiver-assisted NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
manualized NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21918912)

Enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
discrete NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
for NN O O
eliciting NN O O
first NN O O
words NN O O
in NN O O
preverbal NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
package NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
discrete NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Rapid NN O I-INT
Motor NN O I-INT
Imitation NN O I-INT
Antecedent NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Tsiouri NN O O
and NN O O
Greer NN O O
, NN O O
J NN O O
Behav NN O O
Educat NN O O
12:185-206 NN O O
, NN O O
2003 NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
eliciting NN O O
first NN O O
words NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
little NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
spoken NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
approach NN O O
includes NN O O
specific NN O O
intervention NN O O
targets NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tager-Flusberg NN O I-OUT
et NN O I-OUT
al. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
J NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
Lang NN O I-OUT
Hear NN O I-OUT
Res NN O I-OUT
52:643-652 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
RMIA NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
catalyzes NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
imitation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O O
word NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
DTT NN O O
framework NN O O
and NN O O
achieved NN O O
milestones NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Tager-Flusberg NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
J NN O O
Speech NN O O
Lang NN O O
Hear NN O O
Res NN O O
52:643-652 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
for NN O O
understanding NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
discrete NN O O
trial NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
language NN O O
intervention NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2192405)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
equipotency NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
congenerate NN O O
to NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
laboratory NN O O
animals NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
few NN O O
investigations NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
nerve NN O O
blocks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
long-acting NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
( NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
try NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
some NN O O
statement NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
equipotency NN O O
of NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
stripping NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
50-100 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sitting NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
space NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
midline NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
L-3/4 NN O O
interspace NN O O
. NN O O

Injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
remainder NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml/min NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
injection NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
immediately NN O O
positioned NN O O
supine NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesia NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pin-prick NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
motor NN O O
blockade NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Bromage NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
until NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
blocked NN O O
segment NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
12 NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
ropivacaine NN O O
and NN O O
L-1 NN O O
for NN O O
etidocaine NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
6.0 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
5.5 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5.2 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
thoracic NN O O
dermatome NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
5 NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
T NN O O
4 NN O O
for NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
T NN O O
7 NN O O
for NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reached NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
10 NN O O
dermatomal NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
257 NN O O
+/- NN O O
102 NN O O
, NN O O
278 NN O O
+/- NN O O
67 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
191 NN O O
+/- NN O O
86 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two-segment NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
199 NN O O
+/- NN O O
80 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
201 NN O O
+/- NN O O
52 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
174 NN O O
+/- NN O O
81 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
340 NN O O
+/- NN O O
103 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
428 NN O O
+/- NN O O
65 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
223 NN O O
+/- NN O O
62 NN O O
min NN O O
for NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
sensory NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
inadequate NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
all NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12/20 NN O O
) NN O O
required NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesics NN O O
. NN O O

Bupivacaine NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
2.3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
2.4 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION 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
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
potency NN O O
is NN O O
about NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
etidocaine NN O I-INT
... NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2192505)

[ NN O I-INT
Cisapride NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
stomach NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21929716)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
artificial NN O I-INT
tear NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
for NN O O
dry NN O O
eye NN O O
through NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
artificial NN O I-INT
eye-drop NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
by NN O O
analysing NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
tear NN O O
film NN O O
meniscus NN O O
volume NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
spectral-domain NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomographer NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
dry NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
57.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
8.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
refractive NN O I-PAR
errors NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
-2.50 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
+0.75 NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
-1.34 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1.02 NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cylinders NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1.00 NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tear NN O I-OUT
meniscus NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
instillation NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Copernicus NN O O
high-resolution NN O O
spectral-domain NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomographer NN O O
( NN O O
Optopol NN O O
Tech NN O O
SA NN O O
, NN O O
Zawiercie NN O O
, NN O O
Poland NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Volume NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
area NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
tomograms NN O O
considering NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tear NN O O
meniscus NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
eyelid NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Blink NN O I-INT
Intensive NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Abbot NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Optics NN O I-INT
Inc NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
USA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypromellose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Artific NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Farma-Lepori NN O I-INT
SA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Barcelona NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Spain NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measures NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
repeated NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
one-week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
eye-drop NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.38 NN O O
? NN O O
0.10 NN O O
?L NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
mean NN O O
baseline NN O O
volume NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
0.39 NN O O
? NN O O
0.10 NN O O
?L NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.638 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
meniscus NN O O
volume NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
instillation NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
formulations NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
decreasing NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
following NN O O
instillation NN O O
, NN O O
values NN O O
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
almost NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
difference NN O O
0.02 NN O O
? NN O O
0.03 NN O O
?L NN O O
at NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
and NN O O
0.01 NN O O
? NN O O
0.01 NN O O
?L NN O O
at NN O O
t NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.098 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
tear NN O O
film NN O O
meniscus NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
dry NN O O
eyes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
eye-drops NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
resolution NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O O
tear NN O O
film NN O O
meniscus NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
systems NN O O
provides NN O O
useful NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
tear NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-OUT
formulations NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
efficient NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
tear NN O I-OUT
meniscus NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
although NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
meniscus NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21930490)

Side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
with NN O O
everolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
three-year NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
SPIRIT NN O O
III NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
periprocedural NN O O
MI NN O O
during NN O O
everolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
paclitaxel-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
placement NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomised NN O O
SPIRIT NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Periprocedural NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stent NN O O
placement NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
adverse NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Occlusion NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
branches NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
periprocedural NN O O
MIs NN O O
. NN O O

Consecutive NN O I-INT
procedural NN O I-INT
angiograms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
EES NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=669 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
PES NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=333 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analysed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
independent NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
Thrombolysis NN O O
In NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
( NN O O
TIMI NN O O
) NN O O
flow NN O O
grade NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
through NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
stent NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
2,048 NN O O
side NN O O
branches NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
( NN O O
EES NN O O
N=1,345 NN O O
side NN O O
branches NN O O
in NN O O
688 NN O O
stented NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
PES NN O O
N=703 NN O O
side NN O O
branches NN O O
in NN O O
346 NN O O
stented NN O O
lesions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
transient NN O O
or NN O O
final NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NQMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O O
( NN O O
9.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
NQMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
4.45 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
[ NN O O
1.82 NN O O
, NN O O
10.85 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Transient NN O O
or NN O O
final NN O O
side NN O O
branch NN O O
occlusion NN O O
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
EES NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
PES NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
numerically NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
NQMI NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
EES NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
PES NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EES NN O I-INT
rather NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
PES NN O I-INT
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
branch NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
stent NN O O
placement NN O O
, NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
periprocedural NN O O
MI NN O O
with NN O O
EES NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
PES NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21931984)

Locomoting-to-reach NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
information NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
nested NN O O
actions NN O O
. NN O O

Locomoting-to-reach NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
basic NN O O
perception/action NN O O
behavior NN O O
that NN O O
requires NN O O
visual NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
locomotion NN O O
and NN O O
reaching NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
strategies NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
on NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
locomotion-to-reach NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
locomote NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dark NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lit NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
monocular NN O I-INT
vision/target NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
image NN O I-INT
size NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
binocular NN O I-INT
vision/target NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
image NN O I-INT
size NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
binocular NN O I-INT
vision/point-light NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
image NN O I-INT
size NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
task NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
brought NN O O
their NN O O
eyes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
task NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
brought NN O O
their NN O O
outstretched NN O O
hand NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
. NN O O

Movement NN O I-OUT
trajectories NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
tasks NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
binocular NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
both NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
proportional NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
rather NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
constant NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
walk-to-reach NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
they NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
monocular NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
binocular NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
guide NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
then NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
disparity NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
guide NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
final NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
switching NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
centric NN O O
? NN O O
became NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
centric NN O O
?. NN O O
Dynamical NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O I-OUT
simulations NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
fit NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
conclusion NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
proportional NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
sequentially NN O O
with NN O O
head NN O I-OUT
centric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
then NN O I-OUT
hand-centric NN O I-OUT
?-based NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
moment NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
smallest NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21935685)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dezocine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fentanyl-induced NN O I-PAR
cough NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
suppressive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dezocine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fentanyl-induced NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
equally NN O I-PAR
sized NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
either NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
dezocine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
equal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
saline NN O O
) NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
?g/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
1-1.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
suxamethonium NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
injection NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
bolus NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dezocine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
dezocine NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
suppressing NN O I-PAR
fentanyl-induced NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (21946197)

[ NN O O
Impact NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
molecular NN O O
adsorbent NN O O
recirculating NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
coagulative NN O O
parameters NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
anticoagulation NN O I-OUT
systems NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
molecular NN O O
adsorbent NN O O
recirculating NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
MARS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
anticoagulation NN O I-OUT
methods NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
experimental NN O O
observation NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
Methods NN O O
, NN O O
174 NN O I-PAR
MARS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
146 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prothrombin NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
percentage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
MARS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
heparin-free NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
82 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Time NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, 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
, NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
coagulation NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PTA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
thromboplastin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APTT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
international NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
INR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
dynamically NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
line NN O I-OUT
/ NN O I-OUT
filter NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rupture NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
investigated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
PT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PTA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
INR NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
APTT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Fbg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
APTT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
rapidly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
given NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
reached NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
min.The NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Fbg NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O O
stabilized NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
slightly 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
. NN O O

While NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
heparin-free NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
gradually NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
ravine 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
. NN O O

A NN O O
curve NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
2.5 NN O O
h NN O O
treatment NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
MARS NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
finished NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
terminated NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
heparin-free NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Fibrinogen NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
adsorbed NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
touches NN O O
the NN O I-INT
MARS NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
path NN O O
and NN O O
anticoagulants NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

Comprehensive NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BPC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibrin NN O I-OUT
degradation NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FDP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
critical NN O O
and NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
coagulation NN O O
status NN O O
to NN O O
select NN O O
an NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
system NN O O
before NN O I-INT
MARS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
MARS NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypercoagulable NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
high NN O O
coaguation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-INT
heparin-free NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
low NN O O
coagulation NN O O
period NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O O
heparin-like NN O O
substance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2196621)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
critically NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
3.08 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7.99 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
blind NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Consensus NN O I-OUT
Ratings NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
unpublished NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
behavioral NN O O
rating NN O O
measures NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
confirm NN O O
this NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
fidgety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
alleviate NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
discrimination NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
are NN O O
preliminary NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
only NN O O
suggestive NN O O
until NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
completed NN O O
or NN O O
replication NN O O
is NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
independent NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21967909)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
passive NN O I-OUT
warming NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypothermia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
can NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
compare NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
passive NN O O
warming NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
an NN O O
unblinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
passive NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
normothermia NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
PACU NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assigned NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
578 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
two NN O I-INT
folded NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
warmed NN O I-INT
cotton NN O I-INT
blankets NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
warmed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
unfolded NN O I-INT
cotton NN O I-INT
sheet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cotton NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
recorded NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
arrival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PACU NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
arrival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
temperatures NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
arrival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
fewer NN O O
warmed NN O O
blankets NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
cost NN O O
savings NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21975231)

Design NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TRACIA NN O O
: NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
autologous NN O O
transplant NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow-derived NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
transplant NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
TRACIA NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
following NN O O
predetermined NN O O
inclusion NN O O
and NN O O
exclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
protocol NN O O
includes NN O O
procedures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
randomization NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
retrieval NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intracoronary NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
infarct-related NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
preand- NN O I-INT
post NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pre-and-post NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
radioisotope NN O I-INT
ventriculography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-OUT
STEMI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
perfused NN O I-PAR
successfully NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
LVEF NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
corresponded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neither NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
re-infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
initial NN O O
experience NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
Instituto NN O I-PAR
Nacional NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
Cardiolog?a NN O I-PAR
Ignacio NN O I-PAR
Ch?vez NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
means NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
transplantation NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
encouraging NN O O
. NN O O

Implementation NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21978765)

Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
consolidation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
consolidation NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IC-IV NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
GC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
[ NN O O
AUC NN O O
] NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
TC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
175 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
AUC NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
optional NN O O
consolidation NN O O
with NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
135 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
? NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
without NN O O
CR NN O O
received NN O O
single-agent NN O O
crossover NN O O
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
induction NN O O
doses/schedules NN O O
until NN O O
CR NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unacceptable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
636 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
required NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
induction NN O O
arms NN O O
with NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
statistical NN O O
power NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
received NN O O
by NN O O
820 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
919 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
352 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
paclitaxel NN O O
consolidation NN O O
whereas NN O I-PAR
155 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
single-agent NN O O
crossover NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
for NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
median NN O O
, NN O O
20.0 NN O O
and NN O O
22.2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P=.199 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
high NN O O
censoring NN O O
rates NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
52 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
longer NN O O
for NN O O
TC NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
57.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
43.8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
GC NN O O
; NN O O
P=.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
including NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O O
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tumor NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
HR=1.22 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=0.99-1.52 NN O O
; NN O O
P=.067 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
first-line NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
OC NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
favoring NN O O
TC NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
censoring NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (219802)

Estrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
depressions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Positive NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
to NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
three-month NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Placebos NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Possible NN O O
physiological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk-benefit NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
estrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
judged NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
periodic NN O O
endometrial NN O O
biopsies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
endometrial NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
estrogens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (21983766)

[ NN O O
Comparative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
coupling NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increased NN O O
atrial NN O O
electromechanical NN O O
coupling NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
tissue NN O O
Doppler NN O O
is NN O O
accepted NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
atrial NN O O
electromechanical NN O O
coupling NN O O
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
nebivolol NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
21 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
men NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
48.4 NN O O
? NN O O
11.4 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
21 NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
men NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
age NN O O
49.8 NN O O
? NN O O
11.3 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
tissue NN O O
Doppler NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
examination NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
on NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
coupling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Baseline NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
coupling NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Atrial NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
coupling NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Prolonged NN O I-OUT
interatrial NN O I-OUT
electromechanical NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hypertensives NN O O
are NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21989146)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitazoxanide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
doxycycline NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Resistance NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
has NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
cure NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
HP-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
four-drug NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
three NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
PPI NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
HP NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HP NN O I-PAR
gastritis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stool NN O I-PAR
antigen NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
from NN O O
any NN O O
prior NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
or NN O O
PPI NN O O
usage NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitazoxanide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LOAD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
LOAD-7 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
LOAD-10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitazoxanide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Alina NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
dinner NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lansoprozole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
included NN O O
lansoprozole NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dinner NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dinner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HP NN O O
eradication NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Intention-to-treat NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
LOAD NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
80/90 NN O O
) NN O O
LOAD-10 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
81/90 NN O O
) NN O O
LOAD-7 NN O O
, NN O O
89.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
161/180 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
combined NN O O
LOAD NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
LAC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
73.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
66/90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
LOAD NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
active NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HP NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21990307)

Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ginger NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
on NN O O
eicosanoids NN O O
in NN O O
colon NN O O
mucosa NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inhibitors NN O O
of NN O O
COX NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
eicosanoids NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
COX NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
E NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
PGE NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
early NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
CRC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ginger NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
downregulation NN O O
of NN O O
COX NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
incidence/multiplicity NN O O
of NN O O
adenomas NN O O
in NN O O
rats NN O O
. 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
if NN O O
2.0 NN O O
g/d NN O O
of NN O O
ginger NN O I-INT
could NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
PGE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
13-hydroxy-octadecadienoic NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
5- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
12- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
15-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
12- NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
15-HETE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
colon NN O O
mucosa NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
this NN O O
aim NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
2.0 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
ginger NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Flexible NN O I-OUT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
colon NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
chromatography NN O I-INT
mass NN O I-INT
spectrometry NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
eicosanoid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
biopsies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
per NN O O
protein NN O O
or NN O O
per NN O O
free NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid 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
mean NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eicosanoids NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
when NN O O
normalized NN O O
to NN O O
protein NN O O
. 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
mean NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PGE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5-HETE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
12-HETE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15-HETE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
normalized NN O O
to NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
seems NN O O
that NN O O
ginger NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
eicosanoid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
perhaps NN O O
by NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
their NN O O
synthesis NN O O
from NN O O
arachidonic NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

Ginger NN O I-INT
also NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tolerable NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
CRC NN O O
seems NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2199180)

[ NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
with NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
salmon NN O I-INT
calcitonin NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60.8 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
27-80 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
salmon NN O I-INT
calcitonin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
1 NN O O
g NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
every NN O O
morning NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
specific NN O O
medication NN O O
while NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
19 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
I.U NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
calcitonin NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
subdivided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
severity NN O O
grades NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
diminution NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
carried NN O O
out NN O O
by NN O O
photon NN O O
absorption NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
5.5 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O I-OUT
radius NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
mineral NN O O
content NN O O
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
calcitonin NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
alternate NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
extravertebral NN O O
fractures NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
or NN O O
progressive NN O O
vertebral NN O O
deformity NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21996342)

Epicutaneous NN O O
allergen-specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
ameliorates NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen-induced NN O O
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Epicutaneous NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
patch NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
or NN O O
sublingual NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
optimize NN O O
treatment NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
epicutaneous NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
monocentric NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
132 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen-induced NN O I-PAR
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
February NN O O
2008 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
2008 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
patches NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
110 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
pollen NN O O
season NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment-free NN O O
follow-up NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
2009 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
93 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
patient-reported NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hay NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
pollen NN O I-OUT
season NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Hay NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pollen NN O I-OUT
season NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
2008 NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
2009 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
alleviation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
allergen NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
drug-related 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
, NN O I-OUT
predominantly NN O O
manifested NN O O
by NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wheal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
eczema NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eleven NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
grades NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
required NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
exclusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
drug-related NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Epicutaneous NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
patches NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21997224)

Hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
cannulated NN O I-INT
screws NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
displaced NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cost-utility NN O O
analysis NN O O
performed NN O O
alongside 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

UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
estimated NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
displaced NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Over NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
gained NN O O
more NN O O
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
costs NN O O
for NN O O
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

Hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
was NN O O
thus NN O O
cost NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Estimating NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
displaced NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
fractures NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
cost-utility NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
CUA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
alongside NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
86 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
80 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O I-OUT
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Resource NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
quantified NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
valued NN O O
for NN O O
direct NN O O
and NN O O
indirect NN O O
hospital NN O O
costs NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
societal NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
ratios NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Over NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-OUT
gained NN O I-OUT
0.15-0.20 NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
non-significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
costly NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
?2,731 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?2,474 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?14,160 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hemiarthroplasty NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
the NN O O
dominant NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O O
analyses NN O O
by NN O O
bootstrapping NN O O
supported NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Hemiarthroplasty NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Trial NN O O
registration NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00464230 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (21998264)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
H NN O O
reflex NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
wave NN O O
following NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasticity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
soleus NN O O
H NN O O
reflex NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
wave NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Evoked NN O O
V-wave NN O O
, NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
M-wave NN O O
recruitment NN O O
curves NN O O
, NN O O
maximal NN O O
voluntary NN O O
contraction NN O O
( NN O O
MVC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time-to-task-failure NN O O
( NN O O
isometric NN O O
contraction NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
MVC NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
plantar NN O O
flexors NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O O
MVC NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plantar NN O I-OUT
flexors NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
14.4 NN O O
? NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
time-to-task-failure NN O O
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
endurance NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
22.7 NN O O
? NN O O
17.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
wave-to-maximal NN O I-OUT
M NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
V/M NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
55.1 NN O O
? NN O O
28.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
H NN O I-OUT
wave-to-maximal NN O I-OUT
M NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
H NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/M NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
endurance NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
V/M NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
altered NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
H NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
/M NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
30.8 NN O O
? NN O O
21.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
also NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
amplitude NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ascending NN O O
limb NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recruitment NN O O
curve NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Strength NN O O
training NN O O
only NN O O
elicited NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
excitability NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
H-reflex NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
ascending NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
H-reflex NN O O
pathway NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
following NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O I-INT
the NN O O
contrary NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MVC NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
strength NN O O
training NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
descending NN O O
drive NN O O
and/or NN O O
modulation NN O O
in NN O O
afferents NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
Ia NN O O
afferents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22006695)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
maximum NN O O
voluntary NN O O
arm NN O O
torques NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Increased NN O O
reliance NN O O
on NN O O
bulbospinal NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
maximum NN O O
voluntary NN O O
arm NN O O
joint NN O O
torque NN O O
generation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Maximum NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
single-joint NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multi-joint NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
orientations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sitting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
while NN O O
maintaining NN O O
identical NN O O
head/neck/trunk/extremity NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
configurations NN O I-INT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
bulbospinal NN O I-PAR
contributions NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
torque NN O I-PAR
generation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
sitting NN O I-INT
, NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elbow NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
flexion NN O O
synergy NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Body NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
influenced NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
notably NN O O
the NN O O
constituents NN O O
of NN O O
flexion NN O I-OUT
synergy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
stroke NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
bulbospinal NN O O
motor NN O O
pathway NN O O
involvement NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
a NN O O
practical NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
may NN O O
underestimate NN O O
strength NN O O
available NN O O
during NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
upright NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22007005)

Use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
Internet NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
quality NN O I-INT
improvement NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
pediatricians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
existing NN O O
, NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
, NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
practice NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
pediatricians NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cluster-randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Practices NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pediatricians NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
proportions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
Medicaid NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
medical NN O O
charts NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participating NN O O
pediatricians NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
practices NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
didactic NN O I-INT
lectures NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
office NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
modification NN O I-INT
workshops NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Practices NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
given NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
ADHD NN O I-INT
Internet NN O I-INT
portal NN O I-INT
that NN O O
allowed NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pediatricians NN O O
to NN O O
input NN O O
information NN O O
( NN O O
eg NN O O
, NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
) NN O O
about NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
, NN O O
interpreted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
formatted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
report NN O O
style NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
helpful NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
evaluated NN O O
their NN O O
practice NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
quarterly NN O O
and NN O O
addressed NN O O
underperforming NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Pediatricians NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
many NN O O
American NN O O
Academy NN O O
of NN O O
Pediatrics-recommended NN O O
ADHD NN O O
care NN O O
practices NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
collection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
Statistical NN O I-OUT
Manual NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Mental NN O I-OUT
Disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Fourth NN O O
Edition NN O O
, NN O O
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.85 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
teacher NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
treatment NN O O
responses NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O I-INT
quality NN O I-INT
improvement NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
widely NN O O
disseminated NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
ADHD NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22008443)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
postconditioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
tetralogy NN O O
of NN O O
Fallot NN O O
. NN O O

Inappropriate NN O O
myocardial NN O O
protection NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
morbidity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
correction NN O O
of NN O O
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TOF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
reports NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O O
postconditioning NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
animals NN O O
and NN O O
humans NN O O
are NN O O
very NN O O
encouraging NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
postconditioning NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
in NN O O
TOF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cardioplegia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
correction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
TOF NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
postconditioning NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
seconds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ischemia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
seconds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
re-clamping NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
de-clamping NN O I-INT
starting NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
seconds NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
initial NN O I-INT
de-clamping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
aorta NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
41 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
39 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
troponin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
cTnI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assayed NN O I-INT
preoperatively NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
persistent NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pre- NN O O
, NN O O
intra- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
relevant NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
ischemic NN O O
postconditioning NN O O
reduced NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
cTnI 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
0.43 NN O O
? NN O O
0.18 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
versus NN O O
0.78 NN O O
? NN O O
0.15 NN O O
ng/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

Ischemic NN O O
postconditioned NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
? NN O O
2.2 NN O O
?g/kg/minute NN O O
versus NN O O
8.6 NN O O
? NN O O
3.6 NN O O
?g/kg/minute NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21.5 NN O O
? NN O O
7.3 NN O O
hours NN O O
versus NN O O
30.2 NN O O
? NN O O
12.4 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
43.4 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
12.6 NN O O
hours NN O O
versus NN O O
56.3 NN O O
? NN O O
17.8 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
1.41 NN O O
? NN O O
0.26 NN O O
L/minute NN O O
versus NN O O
1.28 NN O O
? NN O O
0.25 NN O O
L/minute NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0255 NN O O
) 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

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
ischemic NN O O
postconditioning NN O O
may NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
extent NN O O
provide NN O O
myocardial NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
correction 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 I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22011217)

Skin NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
oestroprogestins NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
instrumental NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
accepted NN O O
that NN O O
acne NN O O
is NN O O
mostly NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
hyper-responsiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pilo-sebaceous NN O O
unit NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
circulating NN O O
androgen NN O O
hormones NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
acneic NN O O
lesions NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hyperandrogenism NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
polycystic NN O O
ovary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
PCOS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
cause NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
estroprogestins NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
option NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
estroprogestins NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ethinyl-estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mcg/drospirenone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DRSP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ethinyl-estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mcg/chlormadinone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
on NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
several NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
EE/DRSP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
EE/CMA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hirsutism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
respectively NN O O
with NN O O
Pillsbury NN O O
and NN O O
Ferriman-Gallwey NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
non-invasive NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
hydration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transepidermal NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TEWL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
homogeneity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
EE/DRSP NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
seborrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Estroprogestins NN O I-INT
represent NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
polycystic NN O O
ovary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
PCOS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
EE NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mcg/DRSP NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
option NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22014222)

Midlife NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
online NN O O
: NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
internet-based NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
unintended NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
& NN O O
STIs NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Midlife NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
an NN O O
underserved NN O O
population NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
unintended NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
STI NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O O
yet NN O O
remain NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
health NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O I-INT
multimedia NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
unintended NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
STIs NN O O
among NN O O
midlife NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
164 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
40-55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
reported NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Interventions NN O O
specifically NN O O
targeted NN O O
to NN O O
midlife NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
impact NN O O
constructs NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
development NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22015462)

The NN O O
competition NN O O
between NN O O
enamel NN O O
and NN O O
dentin NN O O
adhesion NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
cavity NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
V NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
gain NN O O
more NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
curing NN O O
contraction NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
tooth NN O O
cavity NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
margin NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
contemporary NN O I-PAR
restorative NN O I-PAR
systems NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
V NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
margins NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
enamel NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
loading NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
storage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mixed NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
V NN O I-PAR
cavities NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prepared NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
restored NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-INT
etch NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-INT
self-etch NN O I-INT
adhesive NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
corresponding NN O I-PAR
composites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Marginal NN O O
adaptation NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
computer-assisted NN O O
quantitative NN O O
marginal NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
scanning NN O I-INT
electron NN O I-INT
microscope NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
epoxy NN O O
replicas NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
thermal NN O O
and NN O O
mechanical NN O O
stressing NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O O
storage NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interactions NN O O
of NN O O
testing NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
adhesive-composite NN O O
combination NN O O
and NN O O
tooth NN O O
substrate NN O O
with NN O O
marginal NN O O
adaptation NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
two-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
. NN O O

Fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
storage NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
Optibond NN O O
FL NN O O
and NN O O
G NN O O
Bond NN O O
) NN O O
presented NN O O
equal NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
degradation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
product NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
materials NN O O
tested NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
distinct NN O O
behavior NN O O
on NN O O
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
mechanical NN O O
resistance NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
stability NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
within NN O O
materials NN O O
also NN O O
exist NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
simultaneously NN O I-OUT
bond NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
enamel NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dentin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22020134)

Docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid-rich NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tasks NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
( NN O O
n-3 NN O O
PUFAs NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
behavioral NN O O
outcomes NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
very NN O O
little NN O O
attention NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
upon NN O O
brain NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
physiological NN O O
terms NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-five NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-29yrs NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
daily NN O O
dietary NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid-rich NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1g NN O O
, NN O O
2g NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Relative NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxyhemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
deoxyhemoglobin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
using NN O O
near-infrared NN O O
spectroscopy NN O O
during NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
computerized NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxyhemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
to NN O O
tasks NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
consistent NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22026323)

Early NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
parent-delivered NN O I-INT
Qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
recent 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
of NN O O
a NN O O
dual NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
trainer-delivered NN O I-INT
qigong NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
intervention 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
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
self-regulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
RCT NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parent-delivered NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
wait-list NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
group NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
parent-delivered NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trained NN O O
therapists NN O O
provided NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Improvement NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
settings NN O O
-- NN O O
preschool NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
-- NN O O
by NN O O
teachers NN O O
( NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
parent-delivered NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O O
medium NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-regulatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Teacher NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
parent NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
parent-delivered NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
provided NN O O
effective NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
delivery NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22038501)

Standard NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
radical NN O O
pancreatoduodenectomy NN O O
for NN O O
ductal NN O O
adenocarcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pancreas NN O O
: NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Japanese NN O O
multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatoduodenectomy NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
extended NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
for NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
many NN O O
retrospective NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
protocols NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
RCTs NN O O
were NN O O
diverse NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
RCT NN O O
was NN O O
proposed NN O O
in NN O O
1998 NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
March NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
potentially NN O I-PAR
curable NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intraoperatively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
resected NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
any NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Demographic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
histopathological NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retrieved NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extended NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
operative NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
RCT NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
strict NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
radical NN O O
PD NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
long-term NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22038637)

[ NN O I-INT
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
intraaortic NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
pumping NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
IABP NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
EuroSCORE-stratified NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
?8 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
IABP NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=52 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IABP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=52 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
17.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
13.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
14 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Intra- NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
IABP NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
was NN O O
required NN O O
by NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
catecholamine NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dialysis-dependent NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
versus NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
26 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
versus NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
IABP NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
EuroSCORE-stratified NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
30-day NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22039290)

Armodafinil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modafinil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
excessive NN O I-PAR
sleepiness NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
shift NN O I-PAR
work NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
model NN O O
for NN O O
predicting NN O O
and NN O O
comparing NN O O
their NN O O
concentration-effect NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

Armodafinil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
lasting NN O O
R-isomer NN O O
of NN O O
racemic NN O O
modafinil NN O O
, NN O O
improves NN O O
wakefulness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
excessive NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
shift NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-PAR
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
armodafinil NN O I-INT
achieves NN O O
higher NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
modafinil NN O O
late NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
interval NN O O
following NN O O
equal NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Pooled NN O I-OUT
Multiple NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Latency NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSLT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
in NN O O
463 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SWD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
armodafinil NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
modafinil NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
around NN O I-PAR
2200 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
night NN O I-PAR
shifts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
build NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
model NN O O
. NN O O

Predicted NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
developing NN O O
and NN O O
applying NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
nonlinear NN O I-OUT
mixed-effects NN O I-OUT
modeling NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Armodafinil NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
above NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
9 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
modafinil NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
armodafinil NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
predicted NN O O
placebo-subtracted NN O I-OUT
MSLT NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.5-1 NN O O
minute NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
modafinil NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
a NN O O
milligram-to-milligram NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
armodafinil NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
consistently NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
wakefulness NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
modafinil NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
times NN O O
late NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8-hour NN O O
shift NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22040533)

Benefits NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
fluticasone NN O I-INT
propionate/salmeterol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Combining NN O O
maintenance NN O O
medications NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fluticasone/salmeterol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FSC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250/50 NN O O
mcg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O I-INT
tiotropium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
mcg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TIO NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
multi-center NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
?10 NN O I-PAR
pack-years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
post-bronchodilator NN O I-PAR
FEV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
?40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
predicted NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
FEV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/FVC NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
?0.70 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
open-label NN O O
TIO NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
mcg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
FSC NN O O
250/50 NN O O
DISKUS NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo 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 I-OUT
AM NN O I-OUT
pre-dose NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
albuterol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
addition NN O O
of NN O O
FSC NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
TIO NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
AM NN O I-OUT
pre-dose NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
post-dose NN O I-OUT
FEV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AM NN O I-OUT
pre-dose NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
post-dose NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AM NN O I-OUT
pre-dose NN O I-OUT
IC NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
TIO NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
TIO NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
albuterol NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
COPD NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
FSC NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
TIO NN O O
significantly NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

NCT00784550 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22045148)

A NN O O
simplified NN O O
score NN O O
for NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Long-term NN O O
care NN O O
hospitals NN O O
are NN O O
Medicare NN O O
providers NN O O
of NN O O
postacute NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stay NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Early NN O O
identification NN O O
and NN O O
timely NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
such NN O O
hospitals NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inpatient NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
predictive NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O O
score NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
require NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
25 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
qualify NN O O
for NN O O
transfer NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
retrospective NN O O
, NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
hospital NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
billing NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
Nationwide NN O I-PAR
Inpatient NN O I-PAR
Sample NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
686 NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
eligibility NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?32 NN O O
vs NN O O
< NN O O
32 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Split-sample NN O O
validation NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariable NN O O
survey-logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
predictors NN O O
and NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
simplified NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
predictive NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.75 NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
simplified NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.72 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
model NN O O
calibrated NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
predictors NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
32 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
tracheostomy NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
predictor NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
4.74 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
simplified NN O O
scores NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
-5 NN O O
to NN O O
110 NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
classes NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
aid NN O O
discharge NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
and NN O O
optimize NN O O
hospital NN O O
resource NN O O
planning NN O O
could NN O O
take NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
predictive NN O O
model NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
simplified NN O O
scoring NN O O
tool NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2204661)

Long-term NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
branched-chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
casein-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
Multicenter NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
branched-chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
casein NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
15-day NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
controlled NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
45-65 NN O O
g NN O O
protein NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
branched-chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.24 NN O I-PAR
g/kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
equinitrogenous NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
casein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
branched-chain NN O O
amino NN O O
acids NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
on NN O O
casein NN O O
were NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
portal-systemic NN O I-OUT
encephalopathy NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
active NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
from NN O O
40 NN O O
[ NN O O
S.D NN O O
. NN O O

14 NN O O
] NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
[ NN O O
17 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
casein NN O I-INT
( NN O O
from NN O O
37 NN O O
[ NN O O
13 NN O O
] NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
[ NN O O
12 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
61-92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
receiving NN O O
casein NN O I-INT
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
20-54 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
more NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Casein-treated NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
given NN O I-OUT
branched-chain NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
neuropsychologic NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
semiquantitative NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
became NN O O
consistently NN O O
positive NN O O
in NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acid-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
; NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
mild NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
branched-chain NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
casein NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
providing NN O O
adequate NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
supply NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22048089)

Arthroscopic NN O I-INT
rotator NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
acromioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
full-thickness NN O I-PAR
rotator NN O I-PAR
cuff NN O I-PAR
tears NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
revision NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
rotator NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
acromioplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Eighty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
consented NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
Rotator NN O I-OUT
Cuff NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WORC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Elbow NN O I-OUT
Surgeons NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASES NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
revisions NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
twelve NN O O
, NN O O
eighteen NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
twenty-four NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
WORC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ASES NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
WORC NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ASES NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
acromioplasty NN O I-INT
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
point 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
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
acromion NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
were NN O O
any NN O O
interaction NN O O
effects NN O O
identified NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
acromion NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Type-2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Type-3 NN O I-PAR
acromion NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
twenty-four-month NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
cuff NN O O
repair NN O O
alone NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
cuff NN O O
repair NN O O
and NN O O
acromioplasty NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
reports NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
rotator NN O I-PAR
cuff NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
acromioplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
reoperation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
acromioplasty NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
includes NN O O
follow-up NN O O
imaging NN O O
and NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22050040)

Once-daily NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
brimonidine NN O I-INT
tartrate NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
0?5 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rosacea NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
vehicle-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O I-PAR
Erythema NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rosacea NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
abnormal NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
vasomotor NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Brimonidine NN O I-INT
tartrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
selective NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
-adrenergic NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
with NN O O
vasoconstrictive NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rosacea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
its NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
application NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BT NN O I-INT
0?07 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0?18 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0?5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4-week NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4-week NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
269 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
BT NN O I-INT
0?5 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
BT NN O I-INT
0?18 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O O
BT NN O I-INT
0?18 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
or NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluations NN O O
included NN O O
Clinician NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Erythema NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CEA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Self-Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Chroma NN O I-OUT
Meter NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
study NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
BT NN O I-OUT
gel NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
dose-dependent NN O I-OUT
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
BT NN O O
0?5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
vehicle NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
Chroma NN O I-OUT
Meter NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
from NN O O
30min NN O O
to NN O O
12h NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
study NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
BT NN O O
0?5 NN O O
% NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
two-grade NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
CEA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
12h NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
vehicle NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0?001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
tachyphylaxis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rebound NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
aggravation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
telangiectasia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
similarly NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Once-daily NN O O
BT NN O O
gel NN O O
0?5 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
vehicle NN O O
gel NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
erythema NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rosacea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22050796)

Rapid NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
vascular NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
facilitates NN O O
Laryngeal NN O I-PAR
Mask NN O I-PAR
Airway NN O I-PAR
insertion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
Laryngeal NN O I-PAR
Mask NN O I-PAR
Airway NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LMA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
insertion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
surgeries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3.3 NN O I-INT
mg/sec NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3.3 NN O I-INT
mg/sec NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3.3 NN O I-INT
mg/sec NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pretreated NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/sec NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Pain NN O O
on NN O O
injection NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
4-point NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Scale NN O O
and NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
smooth NN O O
LMA NN O O
insertion NN O O
also NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Rapid NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
was NN O O
less NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
after NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
after NN O O
pretreatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Rapid NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O O
LMA NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
unlike NN O O
slow NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similarly NN O O
successful NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
facilitates NN O O
LMA NN O I-PAR
insertion NN O I-PAR
versus NN O O
slow NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2205798)

Reduced NN O O
mortality NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Clinical NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O O
affects NN O O
millions NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
worldwide NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subclinical NN O O
deficiency NN O O
is NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

Supplemental NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
mortality NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
questioned NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
masked NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
15,419 NN O I-PAR
preschool-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
8.7 NN O I-INT
mumol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
8333 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-INT
mumol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Vitamin NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
weekly NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
volunteers NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Weekly NN O O
contact NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
88 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
base-line NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
documented NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O O
and NN O O
undernutrition NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O O
hundred NN O O
twenty-five NN O O
deaths NN O O
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
117 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
accidental NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
half 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
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.30 NN O O
to NN O O
0.71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
reduced NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
under NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
-- NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.28 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
0.85 NN O O
; NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
-- NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.26 NN O O
to NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
chronically NN O O
undernourished NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
manifested NN O O
by NN O O
stunting NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.11 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.03 NN O O
to NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
symptom-specific NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
convulsions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
infection-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
regular NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
to NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
level NN O O
potentially NN O O
obtainable NN O O
from NN O O
foods NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
where NN O O
vitamin NN O O
A NN O O
deficiency NN O O
and NN O O
under-nutrition NN O O
are NN O O
documented NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
contributed NN O O
substantially NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
survival NN O O
; NN O O
mortality NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
by NN O O
54 NN O O
percent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22066973)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
tramadol-ropivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fentanyl-ropivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
labor NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/mL NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
g/mL NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
0.125 NN O O
% NN O O
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
parturients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
parturients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Group NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
ug/mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Bromage NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
instrument-assisted NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
gas NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Bromage NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
instrument-assisted NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
despite NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Umbilical NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
while NN O O
PCO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
than NN O O
Group NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Birth-weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
PO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
for NN O O
labor NN O O
analgesia NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
similar NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22067237)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lactate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
intense NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O O
played NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O O
task NN O O
on NN O O
athletic NN O O
performance NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
applicable NN O O
for NN O O
competitive NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
can NN O O
use NN O O
music NN O O
only NN O O
during NN O O
warm-up NN O O
or NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
stimulates NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
inspires NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
intense NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
on NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RPE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
a NN O O
6-minute NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
speed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
predetermined NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
VO NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
max NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
RPE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
counter NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined 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
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
motivational NN O O
music NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
order 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
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Listening NN O O
to NN O O
motivational NN O O
music NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
voluntary NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
499.4 NN O O
? NN O O
220.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
413.2 NN O O
? NN O O
150.6 NN O O
steps NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
music NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
28.1 NN O O
? NN O O
12.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
22.8 NN O O
? NN O O
10.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
music NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
RPE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
77.7 NN O O
? NN O O
14.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
73.1 NN O O
? NN O O
14.7 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
music NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
listening NN O O
to NN O O
motivational NN O O
music NN O O
during NN O O
nonstructured NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
intense NN O O
exercise NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
faster NN O O
lactate NN O O
clearance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
RPE NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
athletes NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22079053)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-INT
spine NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
judo NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
grip NN O O
strength NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
an NN O O
investigation NN O O
evaluating NN O O
if NN O O
cervical NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
grip NN O O
strength NN O O
on NN O O
judo NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
top NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
national-ranked NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
sexes NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
judo NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
competing NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
national NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
athletes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
SMT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
athletes NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Force NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
hydraulic NN O O
dynamometer NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
intervention NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
before NN O O
training NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
36 NN O O
hours NN O O
between NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
6.95 NN O O
% NN O O
right NN O O
, NN O O
12.61 NN O O
% NN O O
left NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
11.53 NN O O
% NN O O
right NN O O
, NN O O
17.02 NN O O
% NN O O
left NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O O
10.53 NN O O
% NN O O
right NN O O
, NN O O
16.81 NN O O
% NN O O
left NN O O
) 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
in NN O O
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
grip NN O O
strength NN O O
of NN O O
national NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
judo NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
chiropractic NN O I-INT
SMT NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
sham NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22079088)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PAH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O I-INT
Sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
highly NN O O
selective NN O O
endothelin-A NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
recently NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
manufacturer NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
idiosyncratic NN O O
liver NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Before NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
, NN O O
this NN O O
18-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PAH NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
once NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
6-min NN O O
walk NN O O
distance NN O O
( NN O O
6MWD NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
World NN O O
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
( NN O O
WHO NN O O
) NN O O
functional NN O O
class NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
worsening NN O O
( NN O O
TTCW NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
powered NN O O
for NN O O
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
WHO NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Improvement NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6MWD NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
or NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TTCW NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
100-mg NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.090 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. 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
occurring NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
improved NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
6MWD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PAH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
mostly NN O I-PAR
WHO NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
patient NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
experienced NN O O
clinical NN O O
worsening NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
sitaxsentan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22079469)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
BDP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
beginning NN O O
before NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
and NN O O
continuing NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
75 NN O O
after NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
after NN O O
myeloablative NN O O
conditioning NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BDP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
1-mg NN O O
immediate-release NN O O
formulation NN O O
plus NN O O
1-mg NN O O
delayed-release NN O O
formulation NN O O
orally NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
glucocorticoid NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
BDP NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
took NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prescribed NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
transplantation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
overall NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
strongly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
schedule NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Inconsistent NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
mucositis NN O O
during NN O O
recovery NN O O
after NN O O
myeloablative NN O I-INT
conditioning NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
obscured NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22080631)

Cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RETURN NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Millions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
survive NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
every NN O O
year NN O O
experience NN O O
newly NN O O
acquired NN O O
long-term NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
and NN O O
profound NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
disabilities NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
overcome NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
reality NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
receive NN O O
inadequate NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
devised NN O O
a NN O O
multifaceted NN O O
, NN O O
in-home NN O O
, NN O O
telerehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
implemented NN O O
using NN O O
social NN O O
workers NN O O
and NN O O
psychology NN O O
technicians NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
cognitive NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-site NN O O
, NN O O
feasibility NN O O
, NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
medical/surgical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
controls NN O O
received NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sporadic NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
in-home NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
functional NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
over NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
period NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O O
worker NN O O
or NN O O
master NN O O
's NN O O
level NN O O
psychology NN O O
technician NN O O
utilizing NN O O
telemedicine NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
specialized NN O O
multidisciplinary NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Interventions NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
wks NN O O
included NN O O
six NN O O
in-person NN O O
visits NN O O
for NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
six NN O O
televisits NN O O
for NN O O
physical/functional NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
3-month NN O O
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
while NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well-matched NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
well-normed NN O O
Tower NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
planning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strategic NN O I-OUT
thinking NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
13.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
11.5-14.0 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.0-8.5 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
adjusted NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Activities NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
vs. NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
1.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.0 NN O O
-3.0 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.0 NN O O
[ NN O O
6.0-11.8 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
multicomponent NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O O
for NN O O
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
combining NN O O
cognitive NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
training NN O O
appears NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
possibly NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
just NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
investigations NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
build NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
feasibility NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
elements NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
contributing NN O O
most NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22082673)

Atrial NN O I-INT
fibrillation NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
2-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
minimally NN O I-INT
invasive NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
become NN O O
accepted NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug-refractory NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
their NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
antiarrhythmic NN O I-PAR
drug-refractory NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
dilatation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
SA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
61 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CA NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
linear NN O O
antral NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vein NN O O
isolation NN O O
and NN O O
optional NN O O
additional NN O O
lines NN O O
. NN O O

SA NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
bipolar NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
isolation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bilateral NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vein NN O O
, NN O O
ganglionated NN O O
plexi NN O O
ablation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
atrial NN O O
appendage NN O O
excision NN O O
with NN O O
optional NN O O
additional NN O O
lines NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
ECG NN O O
and NN O O
7-day NN O O
Holter NN O O
recording NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
freedom NN O O
from NN O O
left NN O O
atrial NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
without NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
36.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
65.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
SA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0.0022 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
effect NN O O
for NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
safety NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
SA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
[ NN O O
34.4 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
versus NN O O
n=10 NN O O
[ NN O O
15.9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
driven NN O O
mainly NN O O
by NN O O
procedural NN O O
complications NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
pneumothorax NN O O
, NN O O
major NN O O
bleeding NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
died NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dilated NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
atrium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
freedom NN O O
from NN O O
left NN O O
atrial NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
procedural NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
rate NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
SA NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
//clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00662701 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2208619)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
observations NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hookworm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ascaris NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Trichuris NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
oxibendazole NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

340 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hookworm NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
196 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ascariasis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
178 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
trichuriasis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-INT
anthelmintic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxibendazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15mg/kg.d NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
3d NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
102 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
66 NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
respective NN O I-INT
infections NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pyrantel NN O I-INT
10mg/kg.d NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
3d NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
108 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
74 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
63 NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
took NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
observations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Re-examinations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stool NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oxibendazole NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hookworm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ascaris NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Trichuris NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
70.3-80.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
92.5-97.8 NN O O
and NN O O
67.0-71.0 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hookworm NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
98.1-98.6 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
larval NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Ancylostoma NN O I-OUT
duodenale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Necator NN O I-OUT
americanus NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
77.7 NN O O
and NN O O
83.2 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pyrantel NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
above NN O O
mentioned NN O O
parasites NN O O
were NN O O
73.5 NN O O
, NN O O
90.0 NN O O
and NN O O
28.8 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hookworm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
98.8 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
above NN O O
mentioned NN O O
parasites NN O O
were NN O O
6.5 NN O O
, NN O O
29.7 NN O O
and NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
marked NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22092038)

Activator NN O I-INT
protein-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AP-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
signalling NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Animal NN O O
studies NN O O
implicate NN O O
the NN O O
AP-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
protein-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pro-inflammatory NN O O
pathway NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
target NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
observations NN O O
apply NN O O
to NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
AP-1 NN O I-INT
activation NN O I-INT
through NN O O
histological NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
AP-1 NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AP-1 NN O I-INT
activation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
phospho-c-Jun NN O O
nuclear NN O O
translocation NN O O
( NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
biobank NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
organ NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
AP-1 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
vascular NN O O
parameters NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
brachial NN O O
dilation NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
hs-CRP NN O O
( NN O O
high-sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
( NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
, NN O O
ICAM-1 NN O O
( NN O O
intercellular NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecule-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vWF NN O O
( NN O O
von NN O O
Willebrand NN O O
factor NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
MCP-1 NN O O
( NN O O
monocyte NN O O
chemoattractant NN O O
protein-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PAI-1 NN O O
( NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
inhibitor-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
. NN O O

Histological NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
AP-1 NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-diseased NN O O
arterial NN O O
wall NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

vessel NN O O
wall NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
gradual NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
AP-1 NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
non-progressive NN O O
and NN O O
progressive NN O O
phases NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
progressive NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
vulnerable NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
phospho-c-Jun NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
lesion NN O O
stabilized NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
aortic NN O O
wall NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
doxycycline NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
only NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
borderline-significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
hs-CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.51 NN O O
?g/ml NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
studies NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
characterize NN O I-INT
AP-1 NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22092536)

Paracetamol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
opioid NN O O
pathways NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
antinociceptive NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
APAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
might NN O O
involve NN O O
descending NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
pain NN O O
pathways NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
opioidergic NN O O
system NN O O
: NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
explores NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
naloxone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
ethical NN O O
approval NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
four-arm NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APAP NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
at NN O O
100 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
naloxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nal NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amplitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
thermal/painful NN O O
stimuli NN O O
applied NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
nine NN O O
times NN O O
over NN O O
150 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
witnessing NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
integration NN O O
at NN O O
central NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Amplitude NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUCs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
150 NN O O
min NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
treatments NN O O
by NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
( NN O O
significance NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Amplitude NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
APAP/pl NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
pl/pl NN O O
at NN O O
t150 NN O O
: NN O O
-44 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-58 NN O O
to NN O O
-30 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
-27 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-37 NN O O
to NN O O
-17 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
vs. NN O O
APAP/Nal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0-150 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
APAP/pl NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
pl/pl NN O O
( NN O O
-3452 NN O O
% NN O O
.min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-4705 NN O O
to NN O O
-2199 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
-933 NN O O
% NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-2273 NN O O
to NN O O
407 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
from NN O O
APAP/Nal NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-1731 NN O O
% NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-3676 NN O O
to NN O O
214 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
90-150 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
naloxone NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
inhibit NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
antinociception NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
implication NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-INT
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
: NN O O
this NN O O
needs NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22092941)

Maintaining NN O O
tissue NN O O
orientation NN O O
during NN O O
mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
scalpel NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
marker NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Critical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
Mohs NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
proper NN O O
orientation NN O O
of NN O O
excised NN O O
tissue NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
surrounding NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
techniques NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
for NN O O
maintaining NN O O
this NN O O
orientation NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
no NN O O
prior NN O O
investigations NN O O
directly NN O O
compare NN O O
these NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
orientation NN O O
loss NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
skin NN O O
score NN O O
marks NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
occurring NN O O
from NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
marks NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
gentian NN O I-INT
violet NN O I-INT
marker NN O I-INT
during NN O O
Mohs NN O I-INT
micrographic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
scars NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
skin NN O O
scoring NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
MMS NN O I-INT
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
their NN O O
tissue NN O I-INT
margins NN O I-INT
oriented NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
scoring NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
scalpel NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
marking NN O I-INT
them NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
gentian NN O I-INT
violet NN O I-INT
marker NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
scoring NN O O
scars NN O O
and NN O O
tissue NN O O
orientation NN O O
loss NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
instances NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
scalpel NN O O
or NN O O
marker NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
were NN O O
there NN O O
any NN O O
visible NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
mark NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
lightly NN O O
scored NN O O
tissue NN O O
or NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
tissue NN O O
orientation NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
lost NN O O
gentian NN O O
violet NN O O
markings NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
methods NN O O
worked NN O O
well NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
confines NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22101219)

Challenges NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
solutions NN O O
to NN O O
meeting NN O O
accrual NN O O
goals NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
report NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
on NN O O
going NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
successes NN O O
, NN O O
challenges NN O O
and NN O O
solutions NN O O
for NN O O
recruitment NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
trial NN O O
targeting NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
implemented NN O O
a NN O O
multi-center NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
institutions NN O O
with NN O O
supportive NN O O
infrastructure NN O O
, NN O O
lead NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
recruitment NN O O
team NN O O
of NN O O
experienced NN O O
and NN O O
committed NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
staff NN O O
, NN O O
implementing NN O O
multi-media NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
outreach NN O I-INT
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
recruitment NN O O
goals NN O O
. NN O O

Screening NN O I-INT
logs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
trends NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
infrastructure NN O O
-related NN O O
barriers NN O O
impacting NN O O
accrual NN O O
and NN O O
revisions NN O O
to NN O O
protocol NN O O
implemented NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3547 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prescreened NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=3092 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
216 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=113 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
declining NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
eliminated NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
protocol-related NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
exclusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety-four NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
eligibility NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
study NN O O
agent NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
all NN O O
sites NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
via NN O O
physician NN O O
recruitment NN O O
and NN O O
referral NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
recruitment NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
contemporary NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
subject NN O O
recruitment NN O O
and NN O O
frequent NN O O
evaluation NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assure NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
emerging NN O O
challenges NN O O
to NN O O
accrual NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
evolving NN O O
scientific NN O O
literature NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
investing NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
systems NN O O
for NN O O
physician NN O O
recruitment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
key NN O O
to NN O O
meeting NN O O
recruitment NN O O
target NN O O
in NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22112544)

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O O
colorectal NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
flexible NN O I-INT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIM NN O O
Inadequate NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
wastes NN O O
limited NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
patients NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O O
flexible NN O I-INT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FSG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
3-5 NN O O
years NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
geographically-dispersed NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colorectal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ovarian NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
64,554 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
55-74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
FSG NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
39,385 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
repeat NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O I-INT
FSG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
insertion NN O O
of NN O O
FSG NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
cm NN O O
or NN O O
visual NN O O
inspection NN O O
was NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mucosal NN O O
surface NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
polyp NN O O
or NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
7084 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O O
FSG NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6496 NN O O
( NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
cm NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
insertion NN O O
( NN O O
75.3 NN O O
% NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
discomfort NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
500 NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
adequate NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
insertion NN O O
but NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
bowel NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
55-59 NN O O
year NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
advancing NN O O
age NN O O
in NN O O
5-year NN O O
increments NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
1.08 NN O O
to NN O O
1.51 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.40 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
2.27-2.54 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O O
FSG NN O O
. NN O O

Obesity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
odds NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.67 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.62-0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Inadequate NN O O
FSG NN O O
screening NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inadequate NN O O
FSG NN O O
at NN O O
repeat NN O O
screening NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
6.24 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
5.78-6.75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sedation NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
FSG NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22115710)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
subconjunctival NN O O
and NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCJ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
an NN O O
ophthalmic NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
diabetic NN O O
macular NN O O
edema NN O O
( NN O O
DME NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
dose-escalating NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DME NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
thickness NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
microns NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
best-corrected NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
acuity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BCVA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
20/40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
20/200 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
SCJ NN O O
( NN O O
220 NN O O
, NN O O
440 NN O O
, NN O O
880 NN O O
, NN O O
1320 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
1760 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
IVT NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
, NN O O
110 NN O O
, NN O O
176 NN O O
, NN O O
264 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
352 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
; NN O O
observation NN O O
through NN O O
day NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O I-OUT
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
dose-limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
and NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Conjunctival NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
common NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
SCJ NN O O
injection NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
common NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
IVT NN O O
injection NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
considered NN O I-OUT
possibly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
: NN O I-OUT
Conjunctival NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
SCJ NN O O
patient NN O O
each NN O O
and NN O O
iritis NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
IVT NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
nonocular NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
considered NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Systemic NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sirolimus NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
below NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
SCJ NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
started NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
5.0 NN O O
letters NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
4.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
letters NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
day NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
-23.7 NN O O
?m NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
IVT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.0 NN O O
letters NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
( NN O O
4.0 NN O O
letters NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
-52.0 NN O O
?m NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
45 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Locally NN O O
administered NN O I-INT
sirolimus NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
well-tolerated NN O I-INT
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
advancing NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
sirolimus NN O O
formulation NN O O
into NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

FINANCIAL NN O O
DISCLOSURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Proprietary NN O O
or NN O O
commercial NN O O
disclosure NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
references NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22118062)

Making NN O O
the NN O O
connection NN O O
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
at NN O O
school 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
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
functioning 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
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
intervention NN O O
involved NN O O
a NN O O
peer-mediated NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEER NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
involved NN O O
a NN O O
child-assisted NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHILD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
yielding NN O O
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PEER NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CHILD NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
both NN O O
PEER NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CHILD NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O I-PAR
involved NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
playground NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
network NN O I-OUT
salience NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
friendship NN O I-OUT
nominations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
playground NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
PEER NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
obtained 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
persisted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
connections NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
education NN O O
classrooms NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
gains NN O O
persist NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22133572)

Response NN O O
prediction NN O O
in NN O O
metastasised NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
using NN O O
intratumoural NN O O
thymidylate NN O O
synthase NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Molecular NN O O
markers NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastasised NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
thymidylate NN O O
synthase NN O O
( NN O O
TS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
enzyme NN O O
of NN O O
DNA NN O O
synthesis NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
5-FU NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
mCRC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Tumour NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
168 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
thymidylate NN O I-OUT
synthase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-PAR
quantitation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
5-FU/folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FUFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil/folinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
irinotecan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FOLFIRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stratified NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
TS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first-line NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
TS NN O O
high NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
parties NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
randomisation NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
for NN O O
TS NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Biopsies NN O O
( NN O O
n=168 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
without NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

TS NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
147 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
87.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analysing NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
FUFA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FOLFIRI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
set NN O O
( NN O O
n=119 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
un-blinding NN O O
TS NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
base NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
FOLFIRI NN O O
( NN O O
9/19 NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
TS NN O O
high NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
FUFA NN O O
( NN O O
5/23 NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.077 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
biopsies NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
liver NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
n=91 NN O O
) NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
FOLFIRI NN O O
and NN O O
FUFA NN O O
in NN O O
TS NN O O
high NN O O
was NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9/17 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3/17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
TS NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
remarkable NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
FOLFIRI NN O O
and NN O O
FUFA NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Taking NN O O
a NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
biopsy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
feasible NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
mCRC NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
group NN O O
TS NN O O
determination NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
help NN O O
direct NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
non-resectable NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22133872)

Object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
object NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18-60 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Responsive NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Prelinguistic NN O I-INT
Milieu NN O I-INT
Teaching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RPMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
unstructured NN O O
play NN O O
session NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
toys NN O O
, NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
adult NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
location NN O O
than NN O O
experienced NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RPMT NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
object NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PECS NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
child NN O O
characteristics NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
objects NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
interventions NN O O
using NN O O
object NN O O
play NN O O
as NN O O
contexts NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
affect NN O O
object NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22134468)

In NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incidental NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
revascularization NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
stent NN O O
improves NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIM NN O O
In NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HTs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incidental NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
revascularization NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PR-STENT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
HTs NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
9.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PR-STENT NN O O
( NN O O
N=9 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
NO-STENT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N=9 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

BP NN O O
( NN O O
mercury NN O O
sphygmomanometer NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
GFR NN O O
( NN O O
99mTc-DTPA NN O O
clearances NN O O
during NN O O
renal NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
yearly NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Echo-Doppler NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
arteries NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
anatomic NN O O
patency NN O O
and NN O O
flow NN O O
velocities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reperfused NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
compared NN O O
BP NN O O
and NN O O
GFR NN O O
values NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
; NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Tukey NN O O
's NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
test NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
GFR NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Baseline NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
PR-STENT NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
NO-STENT NN O O
at NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
? NN O O
19.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
42.24 NN O O
? NN O O
17.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
disappeared NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
PR-STENT NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
NO-STENT NN O O
( NN O O
140.1 NN O O
? NN O O
4.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
170.0 NN O O
? NN O O
8.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
also NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
GFR NN O O
and NN O O
BMI NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
PR-STENT NN O O
reduces NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Due NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
high NN O O
BP NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
damage NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
raises NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
PR-STENT NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
HTs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
incidental NN O I-PAR
RAS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22136317)

Outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pre-operative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-operative NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pre-Operative NN O I-INT
Arimidex NN O I-INT
Compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Tamoxifen NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
following NN O I-INT
pre-operative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-operative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
potentially NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
locally-advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
pre-operatively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
surgery NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
recurrence NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intolerable NN O I-INT
toxicity NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
whichever NN O O
occurred NN O O
first NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
post-operative NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
4/48 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
25/49 NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.14 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.05-0.41 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.21 NN O O
; NN O O
0.05-0.96 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0436 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
2/48 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
10/49 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
patients NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
therapy NN O O
remained NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sequential NN O O
pre-operative/post-operative NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
anastrozole NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22146934)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
focused NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Imitation NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
skill NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
some NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
teaching NN O O
imitation NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
focused NN O I-INT
imitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social-emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
made NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
social-emotional NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
imitation NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
improves NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22151475)

Motion NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MSAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Acupuncture NN O O
is NN O O
widely-used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
despite NN O O
insufficient NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
's NN O O
efficacy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Motion NN O I-INT
style NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MSAT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
non-traditional NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
treatment NN O O
requiring NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
while NN O O
receiving NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
Korea NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
MSAT NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
MSAT NN O O
on NN O O
acute NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
disability NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Oswestry NN O I-PAR
Disability NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ODI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
MSAT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
will NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
procedures NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
assessors NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
numerical 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
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
moving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
NRS NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ODI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
straight NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
raising NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SLR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Post-treatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
ROM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SLR NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrial.gov NN O O
NCT01315561 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22151477)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
are NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
autism NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
three NN O O
month NN O O
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
141 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pre NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
post NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
taken NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
5-16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
nutritional NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
status NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
individually NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
optimum NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
many NN O I-OUT
vitamins NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
minerals NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
improved/increased NN O O
showing NN O O
good NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
metabolic NN O O
status NN O O
were NN O O
many NN O O
including NN O O
: NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+17 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
S-adenosylmethionine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
SAM NN O O
; NN O O
+6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxidized NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GSSG NN O O
: NN O O
GSH NN O O
; NN O O
-27 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
nitrotyrosine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-29 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
ATP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NADH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
NADPH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+30 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

Most NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
metabolic NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
improved NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
or NN O O
near-normal NN O O
levels.The NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Parental NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Revised NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PGI-R NN O O
, NN O O
Average NN O O
Change NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
subscores NN O O
for NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Tantrumming NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Overall 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
and NN O O
Receptive NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
assessment NN O O
tools NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant.Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Average NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PGI-R NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
( NN O O
adj NN O O
. NN O O

R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.61 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
biotin NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
most 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
both NN O O
biotin NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
K NN O O
are NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
beneficial NN O O
intestinal NN O O
flora NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
status 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
including NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
methylation NN O O
, NN O O
glutathione NN O O
, NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
sulfation NN O O
, NN O O
ATP NN O O
, NN O O
NADH NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
NADPH NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
PGI-R NN O O
Average NN O O
Change NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
NCT01225198 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22153696)

Significant NN O O
differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
are NN O O
both NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
head-to-head NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
medicines NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
fat NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
( NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
dosage NN O O
in NN O O
Korean NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides/HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation 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
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
QUICKI NN O O
) NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

Fenofibrate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides/HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fenofibrate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
non-HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides/HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
while NN O O
increasing NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
apolipoprotein NN O I-OUT
AI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
note NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
, NN O O
fenofibrate NN O O
therapy NN O O
decreased NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Omega-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
and NN O O
fenofibrate NN O O
therapy NN O O
promoted NN O O
similar NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
fenofibrate NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
substantially NN O O
better NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertriglyceridemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22156577)

Genetic NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
biological NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lipoproteins NN O I-INT
are NN O O
highly NN O O
heritable NN O O
and NN O O
constitute NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Hitherto NN O O
, NN O O
genome-wide NN O O
association NN O O
studies NN O O
revealed NN O O
95 NN O O
lipid-associated NN O O
loci NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
associations NN O O
large NN O O
sample NN O O
numbers NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
100 NN O O
000 NN O O
samples NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
analyzing NN O O
more NN O O
refined NN O O
lipid NN O O
phenotypes NN O O
, NN O O
namely NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
loci NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
bulk NN O O
high-density NN O I-INT
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
and NN O O
low-density NN O I-INT
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
identical NN O O
sample NN O O
numbers NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
provide NN O O
novel NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
lipid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
15 NN O I-INT
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L1-L15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
1791 NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
H-NMR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nuclear NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
spectroscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
cluster NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
quantified NN O O
inter-relationships NN O O
among NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
analyzed NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
subfractions NN O I-INT
at NN O O
known NN O O
lipid NN O O
loci NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
identified NN O O
five NN O O
distinct NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
subfractions NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O I-INT
L1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
marginally NN O O
captured NN O O
by NN O O
serum NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
extends NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
biochemistry NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
lipid-tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
L1 NN O I-INT
lost NN O O
its NN O O
special NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
eight NN O O
loci NN O O
( NN O O
LIPC NN O O
, NN O O
CETP NN O O
, NN O O
PLTP NN O O
, NN O O
FADS1-2-3 NN O O
, NN O O
SORT1 NN O O
, NN O O
GCKR NN O O
, NN O O
APOB NN O O
, NN O O
APOA1 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
subfractions NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
four NN O O
loci NN O O
( NN O O
CETP NN O O
, NN O O
SORT1 NN O O
, NN O O
GCKR NN O O
, NN O O
APOA1 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
serum NN O O
lipids NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
LIPC NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
10-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
our NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
NMR-based NN O O
fine NN O O
mapping NN O O
of NN O O
lipoprotein NN O I-INT
subfractions NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
novel NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
biological NN O O
nature NN O O
and NN O O
strengthens NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
genetic NN O O
loci NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
now NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
their NN O O
biomedical NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22156967)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
MSM NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
DiSH NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
MSM NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
sexual NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
intentions NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
condoms NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
single-site NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
283 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reporting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unprotected NN O I-PAR
anal NN O I-PAR
intercourse NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
social-cognitive NN O I-INT
theory-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Men NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
2-h NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
creating NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
environment NN O O
with NN O O
sexual NN O O
risk-reduction NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
exercises NN O O
woven NN O O
into NN O O
joint NN O O
meal NN O O
preparation NN O O
and NN O O
sharing NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
exploring NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
perceptions NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
expectancies NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
142 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
141 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O O
HIV NN O O
counseling NN O O
and NN O O
testing NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
male NN O I-OUT
partners NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unprotected NN O I-OUT
anal NN O I-OUT
intercourse NN O I-OUT
partners NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
reporting NN O I-OUT
unprotected NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
protected NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
condoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
condom NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
condom NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
declines NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
isolation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
condom NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
condom NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
As NN O O
the NN O O
HIV NN O O
epidemic NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
dramatic NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
MSM NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
USA NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
urgency NN O O
to NN O O
design NN O O
innovative NN O O
interventions NN O O
continues NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22160347)

The NN O O
home NN O I-INT
TEACCHing NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training 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
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
TEACCH NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
families NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
at NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
on NN O O
formal NN O O
dependent NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
across NN O O
six NN O O
matched NN O O
pairs NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multiple NN O O
baseline NN O O
probe NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O O
baseline NN O O
design NN O O
showed NN O O
robust NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
frame NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22182296)

Dopamine NN O I-INT
transporter NN O I-INT
gene NN O I-INT
moderates NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
behavioral NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
great NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
improve NN O O
through NN O O
behavioral NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
transporter NN O I-INT
gene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCL6A3/DAT1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subsample NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
DAT1 NN O I-PAR
genotypes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
BPT NN O I-PAR
effectiveness NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
BPT NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ongoing NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RCC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
RCC NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
referred NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
parent-reported NN O O
ADHD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

Presence NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
versus NN O O
no NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
DAT1 NN O O
10-repeat NN O O
allele NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
moderator NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O O
? NN O O
Treatment NN O O
? NN O O
Genotype NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
medication NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
DAT1 NN O I-OUT
moderated NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
DAT1 NN O I-OUT
10-repeat NN O I-OUT
allele NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BPT NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
RCC NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
RCC NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.005 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
DAT1 NN O I-OUT
10-repeat NN O I-OUT
alleles NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.57 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
genetic NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
DAT1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
influence NN O O
their NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
directed NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
shaping NN O O
their NN O O
environment NN O O
through NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
dopamine NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
motivation NN O O
and NN O O
learning NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aberrant NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
this NN O O
moderating NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
contingencies NN O O
is NN O O
typically NN O O
addressed NN O O
in NN O O
BPT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22185349)

Non-verbal NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
compassion NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
measuring NN O O
psychophysiologic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Calm NN O O
, NN O O
compassionate NN O O
clinicians NN O O
comfort NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
psychophysiologic NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
non-verbal NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
compassion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NVCC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
expectation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
maintaining NN O O
subject NN O O
blinding NN O O
to NN O O
non-verbal NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
compassion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NVCC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
blinded NN O O
subjects NN O O
would NN O O
experience NN O O
psychophysiologic NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
NVCC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
told NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
touch NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
autonomic NN O I-PAR
nervous NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
practitioner NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
loving-kindness NN O I-INT
meditation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
LKM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
form NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
NVCC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
10-point NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peacefulness NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
LKM NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
physiologic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
practitioners NN O O
and NN O O
subjects NN O O
wore NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
monitors NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
assess NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
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
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
10-minute NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
: NN O O
Baseline NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
practitioner NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
read NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
material NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
non-tactile-LKM NN O O
( NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
read NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
practiced NN O I-INT
LKM NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
pretending NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
read NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
tactile-LKM NN O O
( NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
rested NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
practiced NN O I-INT
LKM NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
lightly NN O I-INT
touching NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subject NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
arms NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
shoulders NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hands NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
feet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
legs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Post-Intervention NN O O
Rest NN O O
( NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
rested NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
read NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
blinding NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
what NN O O
the NN O O
practitioner NN O O
was NN O O
doing NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
reading NN O O
, NN O O
touch NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
something NN O O
else NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
43.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blinding NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
practitioner NN O O
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
meditation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
tactile NN O O
and NN O O
non-tactile NN O O
LKM NN O O
interventions NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
blinding NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
for NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
peacefulness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
9.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
HRV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
tactile NN O O
and NN O O
non-tactile NN O O
LKM NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
LKM NN O O
with NN O O
tactile NN O O
and NN O O
non-tactile NN O O
blinding NN O O
strategies NN O O
; NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
blinding NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
well-being NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O O
physiologic NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
autonomic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Extending NN O O
compassion NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
good NN O O
care NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
good NN O O
medicine NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
US NN O O
National NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
registration NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01428674 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2218657)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cefaclor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
suspensions NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media 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 I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
comparison NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
377 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AOM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
10-day NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
suspension NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
cefuroxime NN O I-INT
axetil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
; NN O O
cefaclor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
amoxicillin-clavulanate NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AMX-CL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
pneumatic NN O O
otoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
tympanometric NN O O
testing NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
to NN O O
26 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy 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
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
; NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CAE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
AMX-CL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
complete NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AOM NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Paired NN O O
comparisons NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
CAE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CEC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
nearly NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
AMX-CL NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CEC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Taste NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
for NN O O
CEC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
CAE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AMX-CL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CAE NN O I-INT
or NN O O
CEC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
primarily NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diaper NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
CAE NN O O
suspension NN O O
has NN O O
greater NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
CEC NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
AMX-CL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22214113)

Pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
vests NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
vest NN O I-INT
on NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
task NN O O
for NN O O
second-grade NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
difficulty NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
We NN O O
used NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
ABA NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
task NN O O
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
vest NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suburban NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
group NN O O
participants NN O O
wore NN O O
a NN O O
nonweighted NN O I-INT
vest NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
, NN O O
classroom NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
assistants NN O O
who NN O O
coded NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
blind NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
vests NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
generalized NN O O
cautiously NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
participant NN O O
selection NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22215436)

Exploring NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
for NN O O
included 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
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
being NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O O
peer NN O O
model NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
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
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized-controlled-treatment NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
targeted NN O O
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
networks NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
elementary-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
typical NN O O
peer NN O O
models NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
network NN O I-OUT
centrality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-OUT
friendships NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
friendship NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
loneliness NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
non-peer NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Peer NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
likely NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
connected NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
than NN O O
non-peer NN O O
models NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
exit NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
typical NN O O
peers NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
socially NN O O
connected NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
classmates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
classroom NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22219012)

Pre-bent NN O I-INT
instruments NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
single-port NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
lab NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
single-incision NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SILS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
become NN O O
increasingly NN O O
popular NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
SILS NN O O
is NN O O
technically NN O O
even NN O O
more NN O O
challenging NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
published NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
first NN O O
clinical NN O O
series NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O

Various NN O O
attempts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
overcome NN O O
restrictions NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
triangulation NN O O
in NN O O
SILS NN O O
by NN O O
specially NN O O
designed NN O O
SILS-specific NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
novices NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
lab NN O O
compared NN O O
task NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-port NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SPLS NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
newly NN O O
designed NN O O
pre-bent NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
techniques NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
CLS NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SPLS NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
pre-bent NN O I-PAR
instruments NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPLS-pp NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
SPLS NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
pre-bent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
straight NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
instrument NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPLS-ps NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
lab NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
performed NN O O
four NN O O
typical NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
tasks NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
difficulty NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
included NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
completed NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
given NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
frame NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
performances NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
videotaped NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
unsuccessful NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unwanted NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
rated NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
two-dimensional NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
instruments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Task NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CLS NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
SPLS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SPLS-ps NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
toward NN O O
better NN O O
performances NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
SPLS-pp NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Video NN O O
sequences NN O O
and NN O O
participants` NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
showed NN O O
instrument NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
single-incision NN O O
surgery NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
SILS NN O O
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
series NN O O
published NN O O
by NN O O
laparoscopically NN O O
experienced NN O O
experts NN O O
, NN O O
SILS NN O O
techniques NN O O
are NN O O
demanding NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
restrictions NN O O
that NN O O
come NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
triangulation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
compensated NN O O
only NN O O
partially NN O O
by NN O O
currently NN O O
available NN O O
SILS-designed NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
future NN O O
of NN O O
SILS NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
further NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
available NN O O
equipment NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
approaches NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
needlescopically NN O O
assisted NN O O
or NN O O
robotically NN O O
assisted NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22221670)

Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
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
TIME-A NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
areas NN O O
typically NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
such NN O O
as NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
generalisability NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
restricted NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
limited NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
methodological NN O O
accuracy NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
additional NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
if NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
affects NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are 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
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
( NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
offered NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
improvisational NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
( NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
sessions NN O O
( NN O O
high-intensity NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Generalised NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
standardised NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
completed NN O O
by NN O O
blinded NN O O
assessors NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
. NN O O

Cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
man NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
group NN O O
sequential NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
first NN O O
interim NN O O
look NN O O
at NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
235 NN O O
will NN O O
ensure NN O O
both NN O O
power NN O O
and NN O O
efficiency NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Responding NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
rigorously NN O O
designed NN O O
trials NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
this NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
trial NN O O
sets NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
findings NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
well NN O O
generalisable NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Addressing NN O O
the NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
variation NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
's NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
provide NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
session NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN78923965 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22236501)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
antisecretory NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antisecretory NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
extraesophageal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
extraesophageal NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multichannel NN O I-PAR
intraluminal NN O I-PAR
impedance NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pH NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MII/pH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
MII/pH NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPIs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-receptor NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
3 NN O O
months 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
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
recalled NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
symptom-free NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-five NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
forty-one NN O O
( NN O O
85.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pathologic NN O O
MII/pH NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
extraesophageal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PPIs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n:19 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RAs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n:16 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
11/19 NN O O
( NN O O
57.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
PPI-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
6/8 NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PPI NN O I-INT
for NN O O
another NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
became NN O O
all NN O O
symptom-free NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
Nissen NN O O
fundoplication NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
5/16 NN O O
( NN O O
31.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RAs NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
1/11 NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
again NN O O
with NN O O
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RAs NN O I-INT
during NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10/11 NN O O
were NN O O
changed NN O O
to NN O O
PPIs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
3/10 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
7/10 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Antisecretory NN O I-INT
reflux NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
extraesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
PPIs NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RAs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22240882)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O I-INT
occlusive NN O I-INT
ionic NN O I-INT
silver-containing NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-INT
occlusive NN O I-INT
ionic NN O I-INT
silver-containing NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TOISD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
dressing NN O I-INT
after NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
surgical NN O O
sites NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
swabbed NN O O
and NN O O
sent NN O O
for NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
upon NN O O
wound NN O O
closure NN O O
( NN O O
superficial NN O O
incisional NN O O
skin NN O O
surface NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
theatre NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
bacterial NN O O
colonisation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
wounds NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
dressed NN O O
with NN O O
TOISD NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
surgical NN O O
wounds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
swab NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
superficial NN O O
incisional NN O O
skin NN O O
surface NN O O
for NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
investigation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
to NN O O
seventh NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bacterial NN O O
colonisation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One-hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
dropped NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
before NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
leaving NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Microbial NN O O
swab NN O O
cultures NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
mean=1.43?0.63 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
colonisation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
wounds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
4.1 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
is NN O O
1.884 NN O O
, NN O O
8.964 NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
contaminated NN O O
with NN O O
bacteria NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
wounds NN O O
covered NN O O
with NN O O
occlusive NN O O
ionic NN O O
silver-containing NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TOISD NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
colonisation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
dressing NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
properties NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
put NN O O
into NN O O
use NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
infested NN O O
with NN O O
bacterial NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
TOISD NN O O
might NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
necessarily NN O O
on NN O O
surgical NN O O
incisional NN O O
site NN O O
not NN O O
infested NN O O
with NN O O
bacteria NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
post-operation NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
further NN O O
transcription NN O O
and NN O O
division NN O O
for NN O O
opportunistic NN O O
bacteria NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
superficial NN O I-OUT
incisional NN O I-OUT
SSI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
TOSID NN O O
though NN O O
statistically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
dressing NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exaceration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
incisional NN O I-OUT
SSI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22244705)

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
to NN O O
emotional NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
within NN O O
an NN O O
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Difficulties NN O O
regulating NN O O
emotions NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
maintenance NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
alcohol NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
construct NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
impede NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
emotion NN O O
is NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
. NN O O

Alexithymia NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
difficulties NN O O
identifying NN O O
, NN O O
differentiating NN O O
and NN O O
expressing NN O O
feelings NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
imagination NN O O
and NN O O
fantasy NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
externally-oriented NN O O
thinking NN O O
style NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
prefer NN O O
talking NN O O
about NN O O
daily NN O O
activities NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
feelings NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
that NN O O
poor NN O O
emotion NN O O
regulation NN O O
skills NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
posttreatment NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
several NN O O
defining NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
bear NN O O
similarity NN O O
to NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
emotion NN O O
regulation NN O O
skills NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
that NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
may NN O O
predict NN O O
poorer NN O O
alcohol NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
first NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
alexithymia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
several NN O O
other NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
then NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
alexithymia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
attrition NN O O
and NN O O
alcohol NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
dependence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
abstinent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
dependence NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
high-risk NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
situations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Alexithymia NN O O
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
attrition NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consumption NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
construct NN O O
of NN O O
alexithymia NN O O
is NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
several NN O O
theoretically-related NN O O
constructs NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
emotion NN O O
regulation NN O O
, NN O O
mindfulness NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
drinking NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2224810)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22265360)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adaptive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Pervasive NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
delayed NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
children NN O O
actually NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O O
skills NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
mates NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
24-week NN O O
, NN O O
three-site NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
randomized NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDDs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
MED NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3.5 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
if NN O O
ineffective NN O O
, NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
permitted NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
COMB NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
COMB NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11.4 NN O I-PAR
PT NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Standard NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
Age-Equivalent NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
Vineland NN O O
Adaptive NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Scales NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
post-randomization NN O I-PAR
Vineland NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
conditioned NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
Vineland NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
24-week NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
Vineland NN O O
domains NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
MED NN O O
, NN O O
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Socialization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Composite NN O I-OUT
Standard NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
and NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
and NN O O
0.22 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
Age NN O O
Equivalent NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
Socialization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Communication NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
COMB NN O O
versus NN O O
MED NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
and NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
= NN O O
0.33 NN O O
and NN O O
0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
gain NN O O
( NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
passage NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Communication NN O I-OUT
Age NN O I-OUT
Equivalent NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
MED NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
IQ NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
maladaptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
promotes NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
modest NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
information-RUPP NN O O
PI NN O O
PDD NN O O
: NN O O
Drug NN O O
and NN O O
Behavioral NN O O
Therapy NN O O
for NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Pervasive NN O I-PAR
Developmental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
; NN O O
NCT00080145 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22273828)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ramosetron NN O I-INT
and NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
problem NN O O
after NN O O
strabismus NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
retching NN O O
or NN O O
vomiting NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
agitation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
operating NN O I-PAR
theatre NN O I-PAR
suite NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Seoul NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
January NN O O
to NN O O
December NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
405 NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
strabismus NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and 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
ramosetron NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTION NN O O
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
ramosetron NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
kg NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
retching NN O O
or NN O O
vomiting NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
emergence NN O O
agitation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
post-anaesthetic NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
The NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O O
, NN O O
retching NN O O
or NN O O
vomiting NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
24-h NN O O
periods NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
delirium NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Adding NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
no NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O I-INT
ramosetron NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
undergoing NN O I-INT
strabismus NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22275153)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-INT
distension NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bladder NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-INT
distension NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
detrusor NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Multichannel NN O O
urodynamic NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
completed NN O O
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
rectal NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
distension NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bladder NN O O
sensation NN O O
volumes NN O O
and NN O O
detrusor NN O O
contractions NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
28.3 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
Bladder NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
with NN O I-INT
rectal NN O I-INT
distention NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
follows NN O O
: NN O O
normal NN O O
desire NN O O
to NN O O
void NN O O
( NN O O
139 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
?114 NN O O
vs. NN O O
197 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
?150 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
strong NN O O
desire NN O O
to NN O O
void NN O O
( NN O O
260 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
?171 NN O O
vs. NN O O
330 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
?172 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O O
cystometric NN O O
capacity NN O O
( NN O O
326 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
?183 NN O O
vs. NN O O
403 NN O O
ml NN O O
SD NN O O
?180 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
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
detrusor NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
detrusor NN O I-OUT
contraction NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
rectal NN O O
distension NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Rectal NN O I-INT
distention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O O
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
desire NN O O
, NN O O
strong NN O O
desire NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
capacity NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22277317)

Randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
zotarolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
for NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
CAtholic NN O I-PAR
Total NN O I-PAR
Occlusion NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CATOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Limited NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
angiographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
PCI NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
drug-eluting NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DESs NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CTO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
zotarolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZES NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Endeavor NN O I-INT
Sprint? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=80 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SES NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Cypher? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=80 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CTO NN O I-PAR
lesion NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
reference NN O I-PAR
vessel NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.5mm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
in-segment NN O I-OUT
binary NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
9-month NN O O
angiographic NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Key NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TVF NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
cardiac 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
and NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Academic NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
Consortium-defined NN O I-OUT
definite/probable NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ZES NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
SES NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
14.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
6.0-22.2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
5.8-21.6 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
margin NN O O
, NN O O
15.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TVF NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.168 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
ST NN O O
( NN O O
0.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.316 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
clinical NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
ZES NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
SES NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
CTO NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DESs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22278094)

Effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CD38 NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
challenge NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
possible NN O O
links NN O O
to NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intranasal NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
probably NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
genetic NN O O
variations NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
OT NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
candidate NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CD38 NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
codes NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
transmembrane NN O O
protein NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
OT NN O O
secretion NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
common NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
gene NN O O
( NN O O
rs3796863 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
recently NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with 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
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
an NN O O
imaging NN O O
genetics NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intranasal NN O O
OT NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
depending NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
CD38 NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Genotype NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuronal NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Homozygotic NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
allele NN O I-PAR
carriers NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
slower NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
fusiform NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
visual NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Under NN O O
OT NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
genotypes NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
( NN O O
though NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
accelerated NN O O
in NN O O
homozygotic NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
allele NN O I-PAR
carriers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
According NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
rs3796863 NN O I-OUT
mainly NN O I-OUT
influences NN O I-OUT
fusiform NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

OT NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
modulate NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
by NN O O
enhancing NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
allele NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
genetic NN O I-OUT
makeup NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
OT NN O I-OUT
availability NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
fusiform NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
recent NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
OT NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2228570)

Enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inpatient NN O I-PAR
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pairing NN O O
inpatient NN O I-PAR
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
residents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NHRs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
alcoholics NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
PALS NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
inpatients NN O O
assumed NN O O
a NN O O
helping-companion NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
NHRs NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
hr NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
during NN O O
their NN O O
last NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PALS NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
library NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
reading NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Tennessee NN O I-OUT
Self-Concept NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TSCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
nine NN O O
TSCS NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Moral-Ethical NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PALS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
alcoholic NN O O
inpatients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PALS NN O O
group NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
altruistic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
moral NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
logical NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
prevalent NN O O
weakness NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
in NN O O
alcoholics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22306962)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
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
. NN O I-PAR
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
exercise NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
, 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
running/exercise-related NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Stroop NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wisconsin NN O I-OUT
Card NN O I-OUT
Sorting NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WCST NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed 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

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O O
exercise NN O O
facilitated NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Stroop NN O O
Test NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Stroop NN O I-OUT
Color-Word NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
specific NN O O
WCST NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Non-perseverative NN O I-OUT
Errors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Categories NN O I-OUT
Completed NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
influences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
performances NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Tentative NN O O
explanations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
effect NN O O
postulate NN O O
that NN O O
exercise NN O O
allocates NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
resources NN O O
, NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
dorsolateral NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
dopamine NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
promising NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
investigations NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
are NN O O
encouraged NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22311204)

Prefrontal NN O O
neuromodulation NN O O
using NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
error NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
correction NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
important NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
compromised NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-error NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Several NN O O
reports NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
reduced NN O O
error NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
deficient NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
an NN O O
error NN O O
is NN O O
committed NN O O
. NN O O

Error NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
readily NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
event-related NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
errors NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fronto-central NN O I-OUT
error-related NN O I-OUT
negativity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
error-related NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Pe NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-error NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ERN NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Pe NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
show NN O O
positive NN O O
changes NN O O
following NN O O
12-week NN O O
long NN O O
slow NN O O
frequency NN O O
repetitive NN O O
TMS NN O O
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
over NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
Hz NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
bilaterally NN O O
applied NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
will NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improvements NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
wait-list NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WTL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-TMS/or NN O I-OUT
WTL NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
collected NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
128 NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
EEG NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
task NN O O
involved NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
illusory NN O O
shape NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
case NN O O
a NN O O
square NN O O
or NN O O
triangle NN O O
, NN O O
created NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
or NN O O
four NN O O
inducer NN O O
disks NN O O
. NN O O

ERN NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
TMS NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
became NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
omission NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
post-TMS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RT NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
post-error NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
slower NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
RT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-error NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
slowing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ERN/Pe NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
wait-list NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
post-TMS NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
response-locked NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
such NN O O
as NN O O
ERN NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
behavioral NN O O
response NN O O
monitoring NN O O
measures NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O O
error NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
correction NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ERN NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Pe NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
behavioral NN O O
performance NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
functional NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
neuromodulation NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
rTMS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
thus NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
practical NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2231203)

Azathioprine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22320409)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
sedative NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
under NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
or NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
during NN O O
phacoemulsification NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
midazolam+fentanyl NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
primarily NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
during NN O O
phacoemulsification NN O O
under NN O O
topical NN O O
and NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiology NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
phacoemulsification NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
sedation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peribulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
midazolam+fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
midazolam+fentanyl NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peribulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient NN O O
and NN O O
surgeon NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
5-point NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
verbal NN O O
pain NN O O
scale NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Ramsay NN O O
sedation NN O O
scale NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O O
and NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
ophthalmologist NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O O
, NN O O
respiratory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
monitoring NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
. NN O O

Operative NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
midazolam+fentanyl NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surgeon NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
needed NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ramsay NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
between NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O O
groups 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
The NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
midazolam+fentanyl NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
high-level NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
low-level NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
and NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
procedures NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
efficiency NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22324448)

Randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
synbiotic NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
paracasei NN O I-INT
B21060 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
arabinogalactan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xilooligosaccharides 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 I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Acute NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
economic NN O I-PAR
burden NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
society NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
synbiotic NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
paracasei NN O I-INT
B21060 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
arabinogalactan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xilooligosaccharides 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 I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
3-36 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
diarrhoea NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
synbiotic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Major NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
72 NN O I-OUT
h. NN O I-OUT
Total NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
outputs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adjunctive NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
synbiotic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Resolution NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
synbiotic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
synbiotic NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
90.5 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
78.1-102.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
109.8 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
96.0-123.5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.040 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
outputs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.3 NN O O
, NN O O
2.8-3.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
1.9-2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
0.9-1.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
0.4-0.9 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
data NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
missed NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
41.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
15.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
adjunctive NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
synbiotic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
synbiotic NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
studied NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
. 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
( NN O O
ACTRN12611000641998 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22325844)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O O
infection NN O O
on NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bacteriologic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Two NN O O
international NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
examining NN O O
fluoroquinolone-containing NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
smear-positive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
conducted NN O O
from NN O O
July NN O O
2003 NN O O
to NN O O
March NN O O
2007 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
trials NN O O
enrolled NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ART NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
TB NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O O
infection NN O O
on NN O O
TB NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Cross-protocol NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
comparing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
anti-tuberculosis NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
750 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
by NN O O
HIV NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
infected NN O O
vs. NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
non-infected NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
culture NN O O
conversion NN O O
( NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
infected NN O O
vs. NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
non-infected NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
infected NN O O
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
non-infected NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
using NN O O
liquid NN O O
media NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
thrice NN O O
weekly NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
thrice NN O O
weekly NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
experienced NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
phase NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
non-HIV-infected NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
15 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
receiving NN O O
ART NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intensive NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
anti-tuberculosis NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Failure NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
thrice-weekly NN O O
intensive NN O O
phase NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2232625)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
penbutolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
sugar NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
consumption NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
glucose-controlled NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
artificial NN O O
endocrine NN O O
pancreas NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
penbutolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Betapressin NN O O
TM NN O O
; NN O O
Hoechst NN O O
Ltd. NN O O
, NN O O
Frankfurt/Main NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
consumption NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
sugar NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
twelve NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDDM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
penbutolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
examined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
help NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
glucose-controlled NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
hour NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
penbutolol NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
could NN O O
any NN O O
changes NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
when NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
submaximal NN O O
exercise NN O O
load NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
bicycle NN O O
ergometer NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
watt NN O O
per NN O O
kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
evening NN O O
meal NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
penbutolol NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
above-mentioned NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
true NN O O
for NN O O
hormonal NN O O
parameters NN O O
as NN O O
STH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
medication NN O O
of NN O O
penbutolol NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
three-day NN O O
period NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
blood NN O O
sugar NN O O
profile NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
consumption NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
consumption NN O O
after NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
during NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22330261)

Bilateral NN O I-INT
transversus NN O I-INT
abdominis NN O I-INT
plane NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Transversus NN O I-INT
abdominis NN O I-INT
plane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
after NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
TAP NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
decrease NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
of NN O O
trocar NN O O
insertion NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
TAP NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
trocar NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
and NN O O
analgesic NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
exclusions NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
on NN O O
39 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
( NN O O
bilateral NN O O
TAP NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
infiltration NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0-10 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
hrs NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
start NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
start NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
than NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
vs NN O O
35 NN O O
mins NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
in NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Bilateral NN O I-INT
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
TAP NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
is NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
of NN O O
trocar NN O O
insertion NN O O
sites NN O O
for NN O O
overall NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22332211)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
masking NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
injections NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
masking NN O O
study NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
using NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Eyes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
deferred NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
every NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
sham NN O O
injections NN O O
intermittently NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
sham NN O O
as NN O O
often NN O O
as NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
1 NN O O
eye NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
eye NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Sham NN O O
injections NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
pressing NN O O
the NN O O
syringe NN O O
hub NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
to NN O O
mimic NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
masked NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
believed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
injections NN O O
received NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
real NN O O
, NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
sometimes NN O I-INT
real NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sometimes NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
423 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
assignment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
stated NN O O
by NN O O
9.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
88.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
89.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
unmasked NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
deferred NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
44.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
112 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
assignment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
stated NN O O
for NN O O
24.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
plus NN O O
prompt NN O O
laser NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Successful NN O I-OUT
masking NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
injection NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
accomplished NN O O
when NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
carefully NN O O
mimics NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Masking NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
less NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
one NN O O
eye NN O O
is NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O O
injection NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
eye NN O O
is NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
sham NN O O
injection NN O O
or NN O O
when NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
eye NN O O
receives NN O O
both NN O O
real NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22349989)

ApoA-I NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
cardioprotective NN O O
strategy NN O O
: NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SUSTAIN NN O O
and NN O O
ASSURE NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Considerable NN O O
interest NN O O
has NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
therapies NN O O
that NN O O
target NN O O
the NN O O
functionality NN O O
of NN O O
high-density NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
( NN O O
HDL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Upregulation NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
protein NN O O
on NN O O
HDL NN O O
particles NN O O
, NN O O
apolipoprotein NN O I-INT
A-I NN O I-INT
( NN O O
apoA-I NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
generation NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
HDL NN O O
particles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Quantitative NN O O
Serial NN O O
Trends NN O O
in NN O O
Lipids NN O O
with NN O O
Apolipoprotein NN O I-INT
A-I NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SUSTAIN NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01423188 NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
apoA-I NN O I-INT
inducer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RVX-208 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
ApoA-I NN O O
Synthesis NN O O
Stimulation NN O O
and NN O O
Intravascular NN O I-INT
Ultrasound NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Atheroma NN O O
Regression NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
( NN O O
ASSURE NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01067820 NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RVX-208 NN O O
on NN O O
plaque NN O O
burden NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
SUSTAIN NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
172 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HDL-C NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
RVX-208 NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameter NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-PAR
ASSURE NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
310 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
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
HDL-C NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
RVX-208 NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameter NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
nominal NN O O
change NN O O
in 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
determined NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
( NN O O
IVUS NN O O
) NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
matched NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
segments NN O O
acquired NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
26-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
RVX-208 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
other NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
ApoA-I NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
novel NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
generating NN O O
nascent NN O O
HDL NN O O
particles NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
studies NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
early NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
RVX-208 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
plaque NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22369958)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clay NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
chocolate NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Elaborated NN O O
Intrusion NN O O
theory NN O O
( NN O O
EI NN O O
theory NN O O
; NN O O
Kavanagh NN O O
, NN O O
Andrade NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
May NN O O
, NN O O
2005 NN O O
) NN O O
posits NN O O
two NN O O
main NN O O
cognitive NN O O
components NN O O
in NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
associative NN O O
processes NN O O
that NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
intrusive NN O O
thoughts NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
craved NN O O
substance NN O O
or NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
elaborative NN O O
processes NN O O
supporting NN O O
mental NN O O
imagery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
substance NN O O
or NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
visuospatial NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
visual NN O O
imagery NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
spending NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
constructing NN O I-INT
shapes NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
clay NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
plasticine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
craving NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
chocolate NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
spending NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
'letting NN O I-INT
your NN O I-INT
mind NN O I-INT
wander NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
load NN O O
on NN O O
verbal NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O O
arithmetic NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
counting NN O O
backwards NN O O
by NN O O
threes NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
further NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
compared NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
simpler NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
counting NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ones NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clay NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clay NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
imagery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thoughts NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
chocolate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
EI NN O O
theory NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
loading NN O O
the NN O O
visuospatial NN O O
sketchpad NN O O
of NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
loading NN O O
the NN O O
phonological NN O O
loop NN O O
. NN O O

Clay NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
self-help NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
manage NN O O
craving NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
chocolate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
snacks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
foods NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22370992)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
arachidonic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
cortical NN O O
functional NN O O
connectivity NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O O
cognition NN O O
. NN O O

Polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
arachidonic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ARA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
key NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
brain NN O O
network NN O O
maturation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particularly NN O O
, NN O O
ARA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
signal NN O O
transduction NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
neuronal NN O O
maturation NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
ARA NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
mitigate NN O O
social NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
16-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
large NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ARA NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14.6 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5.9 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
examine NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
supplementation NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antioxidants NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
useful NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
signal NN O O
transduction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
our NN O O
supplementation NN O O
regimen NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community-measured NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale-measured NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
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
communication NN O O
: NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
0.87 NN O O
vs NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.44 NN O O
; NN O O
social NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
: NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
ARA NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
impaired NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
in 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
by NN O O
up-regulating NN O O
signal NN O O
transduction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22374696)

The NN O O
FLT3ITD NN O I-INT
mRNA NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prognostic NN O O
impact NN O O
in NN O O
NPM1 NN O I-PAR
mutated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
NPM1 NN O I-PAR
unmutated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
karyotype NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
FLT3-internal NN O O
tandem NN O O
duplication NN O O
( NN O O
FLT3ITD NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of 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
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
mutated NN O O
to NN O O
wild-type NN O O
allele NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
648 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
karyotype NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O I-OUT
FLT3ITD NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
( NN O I-INT
FLT3ITD/wtFLT3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FLT3ITD/wtFLT3+1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
clearly NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
329 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mutated NN O I-PAR
NPM1 NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPM1+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
319 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
NPM1 NN O I-PAR
mutation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
wtNPM1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O O
FLT3ITD NN O I-INT
mRNA NN O O
level NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RFS NN O O
) NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NPM1+ NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
OS NN O O
: NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
5.9 NN O O
; NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
3.1-11.2 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
RFS NN O O
: NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
7.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
3.4-16.5 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
FLT3ITD NN O I-INT
mRNA NN O O
level NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
postremission NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
NPM1-mutated NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22385102)

Combination NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
incorporated NN O I-INT
fractional NN O I-INT
prickle NN O I-INT
coral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
keratosis NN O I-PAR
pilaris NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Keratosis NN O I-PAR
pilaris NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
KP NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
condition NN O O
of NN O O
follicular NN O O
plugging NN O O
with NN O O
variable NN O O
erythema 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
reliable NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
KP NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
peel NN O O
with NN O O
fractional NN O I-INT
prickle NN O I-INT
coral NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FCR? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
KP NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
Korean NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FCR? NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2-week NN O I-PAR
intervals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mexameter NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
KP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
erythema NN O O
and NN O O
melanin NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
mexameter NN O O
on NN O O
treated NN O O
upper NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
physicians NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
assessments NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
mexameter NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
FCR? NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
KP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22392415)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ginkgo NN O O
biloba NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
neurotransmitter NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
properties NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
impact NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
decided NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
extract NN O O
( NN O O
Ginko NN O O
T.D. NN O O
, NN O O
Tolidaru NN O O
, NN O O
Iran NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
agent NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV-TR NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
and 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

One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
Ginko NN O I-INT
T.D NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
1-3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
Ginko NN O I-INT
T.D NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
was NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
check NN O I-OUT
list NN O I-OUT
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
subscales NN O O
of NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Incidents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Adding NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
ADs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
observations NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
this NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22395144)

Utility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
at NN O O
cesarean NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
omission NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
repeat NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-INT
deliveries NN O I-INT
shortens NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
258 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repeat NN O I-INT
cesarean NN O I-INT
deliveries NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
creation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=131 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
omission NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=127 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
flap NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Emergency NN O O
cesarean NN O O
deliveries NN O O
, NN O O
planned NN O O
vertical NN O O
uterine NN O O
incisions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgeries NN O I-INT
besides NN O O
cesarean NN O I-INT
deliveries NN O I-INT
were NN O O
excluded 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
total NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incision-to-delivery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incision-to-fascial NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
microhematuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endometritis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
principle NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
incision NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
with NN O O
omission NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bladder NN O I-INT
flap NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
1-43 NN O O
] NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
2-70 NN O O
] NN O O
minutes NN O O
; NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
51 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
18-124 NN O O
] NN O O
minutes NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
51 NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
16-178 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P=.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
and 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
estimated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
microhematuria NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endometritis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Omission NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O O
flap NN O O
at NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O O
cesarean NN O O
deliveries NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
or NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Incision-to-delivery NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
shortened NN O O
but NN O O
total NN O O
operating NN O O
time NN O O
appears NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
www.ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00918996 NN O O
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22402015)

Development NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adaptive NN O I-INT
low-pass NN O I-INT
filtered NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
One NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
auditory NN O I-PAR
processing NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
APD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
the NN O O
low-pass NN O I-INT
filtered NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LPFST NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
various NN O O
versions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
LPFSTs NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
monaural NN O O
, NN O O
low-redundancy NN O O
speech NN O O
sample NN O O
is NN O O
distorted NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
filtering NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
its NN O O
frequency NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
richness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
pathways NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
redundancy NN O O
of NN O O
acoustic NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
listener NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
recognize NN O O
speech NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
signal NN O O
are NN O O
missing NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
this NN O O
ability NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
impaired NN O O
in NN O O
listeners NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
APD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
limitation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
versions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LPFST NN O I-INT
is NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
low-pass NN O O
filtering NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

a NN O O
fixed NN O O
1kHz NN O O
corner NN O O
frequency NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
makes NN O O
them NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
ceiling NN O O
and NN O O
floor NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
counter NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
by NN O O
modifying NN O O
the NN O O
LPFST NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
computer-based NN O O
adaptive NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
normal-hearing NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
varying NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
8-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
listening NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
University NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Canterbury NN O I-INT
Adaptive NN O I-INT
Speech NN O I-INT
Test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UCAST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
platform NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
administer NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
four-alternative NN O I-INT
forced-choice NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
altered NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low-pass NN O I-INT
filter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LPF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
track NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
corner NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
correctly NN O I-INT
identified NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
certain NN O I-INT
percentage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
word NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Findings NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
University NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Canterbury NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
Test-Filtered NN O I-OUT
Words NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UCAST-FW NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
maturational NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
UCAST-FW NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
UCAST-FW NN O I-INT
test NN O O
was NN O O
reliable NN O O
over NN O O
repeated NN O O
administrations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
An NN O O
adaptive NN O O
low-pass NN O O
filtered NN O O
speech NN O O
test NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
UCAST-FW NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
maturational NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22412171)

Theta NN O I-INT
burst NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
limb NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
semirandomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Noninvasive NN O O
cortical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
could NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
add-on NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
clinical NN O O
value NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
anticipated NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
remains NN O O
largely NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
semi-randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
whether NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
gains NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
theta NN O I-INT
burst NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TBS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hand 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
41 NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
excitatory NN O I-PAR
TBS NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ipsilesional NN O I-PAR
hemisphere NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
inhibitory NN O I-INT
TBS NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
contralesional NN O I-PAR
hemisphere NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
each NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
TBS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TBS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
working NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
therapists NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
TBS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
9-hole NN O I-OUT
Peg NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
9HPT NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Jebsen NN O I-OUT
Taylor NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
JTT NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pinch-grip NN O I-OUT
dynamometry NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
post NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O O
small NN O O
sustainable NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
9HPT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
-7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
JTT NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
-8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
-10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
all NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
defined NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cortical NN O O
stimulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
augment NN O O
the NN O O
gains NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
anticipated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
was NN O O
overestimated NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
work NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
uses NN O O
of NN O O
TMS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22414202)

Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
characteristics NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
? NN O O
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
identify NN O O
associated NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O I-PAR
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spastic NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10y NN O I-PAR
1mo NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
1y NN O I-PAR
8mo NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
7-13y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
Gross NN O I-PAR
Motor NN O I-PAR
Function NN O I-PAR
Classification NN O I-PAR
System NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GMFCS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
during NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
StepWatch NN O O
activity NN O O
monitor NN O O
as NN O O
steps NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
spent NN O O
at NN O O
medium NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
step NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
backward NN O O
selection NN O O
procedure NN O O
until NN O O
only NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
with NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ambulatory NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
parameters NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
personal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
environmental NN O O
characteristics NN O O
as NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O O
for NN O O
body NN O O
height NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O O
took NN O O
more NN O O
steps NN O O
during NN O O
school NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
5169 NN O O
steps NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
1641 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
weekend NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
4158 NN O O
steps NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
2048 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
GMFCS NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
bilateral NN O O
CP NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
age NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
43-53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
bilateral NN O O
CP NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
sport NN O O
club NN O O
participation NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
weekend NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
) NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
21-42 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Correcting NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Interventions NN O O
should NN O O
focus NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
weekend NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
spastic NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22414705)

Noradrenergic NN O O
moderation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
having NN O O
difficulties NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O O
communications NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
also NN O O
experience NN O O
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
higher-order NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
system NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
impairments NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
demographically-matched NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
AX NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AX-CPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
and NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

AX-CPT NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
following NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
adrenergic NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
sugar NN O O
pill NN O O
) NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
poorly NN O O
than NN O O
non-ASD NN O O
individuals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
BX NN O O
trials NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
performing NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O O
condition NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-ASD NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
propranolol/placebo NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
medication NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
inhibition NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AY NN O O
trials NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairments NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
understand NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
role NN O O
is NN O O
primarily NN O O
causal NN O O
or NN O O
compensatory NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22419350)

Most NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tranexamic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
antifibrinolytic NN O I-INT
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
surgical NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
different NN O O
dosages NN O O
, NN O O
timings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
maximum NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
TKA NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
studied NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
no NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
four NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10-mg/kg NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
regimens NN O O
included NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
tourniquet NN O I-INT
deflation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
POIO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
POIOPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
fifth NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
local NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
independent NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
statistically NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
regimens NN O O
as NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
POIO NN O O
, NN O O
IOPO NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
POIOPO NN O O
groups NN O O
whereas NN O O
total NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
POIO NN O O
, NN O O
POIOPO NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
LA NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
POIOPO NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
303 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
total NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
688 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IO NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
IOPO NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Single-dose NN O O
tranexamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
give NN O O
effective NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two-dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
POIO NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
amount NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
regimen NN O O
produced NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
IOPO NN O O
regimen NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three-dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
POIOPO NN O O
produced NN O O
maximum NN O O
effective NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22438600)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
active-learning NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
for NN O O
motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
first-year NN O I-PAR
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
3 NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
student NN O I-PAR
learning NN O O
of NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
principles NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
and NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
toward NN O O
their NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Following NN O O
a NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
lecture NN O I-INT
, NN O O
first-year NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
practice NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
dialogue NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
role-play NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mock-patient NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

ASSESSMENT NN O O
All NN O O
students NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Students NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
mock-patient NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
trended NN O O
toward NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
summative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
written NN O O
dialogue NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Feedback NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
expressing NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Students NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
their NN O O
best NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
assessments NN O O
using NN O O
interactions NN O O
with NN O O
mock NN O O
or NN O O
standardized NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22446996)

Elevated NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
placental NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
PlGF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PROVE NN O I-PAR
IT-TIMI NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Placental NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PlGF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
member NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
) NN O O
family NN O O
, NN O O
acts NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
flt-1 NN O O
receptor NN O O
and NN O O
promotes NN O O
endothelial NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
macrophage NN O O
recruitment NN O O
into NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
PlGF NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PlGF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3,761 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
at NN O O
four-months NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3,369 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
ACS NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
PROVE NN O O
IT-TIMI NN O O
22 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unstable NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
baseline NN O O
PlGF NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
through NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
Q1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Q5 NN O O
: NN O O
18.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
PlGF NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Q1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Q5 NN O O
: NN O O
7.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
elevated NN O O
baseline NN O O
PlGF NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted-HR NN O O
for NN O O
Q5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Q1 NN O O
1.45 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.16-1.83 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
PlGF NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Adjusted NN O O
HR NN O O
Q5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Q1 NN O O
2.79 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.37-5.68 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O O
Adjusted NN O O
HR NN O O
Q5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Q1 NN O O
1.78 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.26-2.51 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
PlGF NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
ACS NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
traditional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
association NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
ACS NN O O
and NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
stronger NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2245435)

[ NN O I-INT
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
studies NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
levels NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
many NN O O
hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
suffer NN O O
from NN O O
arterial NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
drugs NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
thiazide NN O I-INT
diuretics NN O I-INT
cause NN O O
an NN O O
imbalance NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
HGM-CoA NN O O
reductase NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
fibric NN O O
acid NN O O
derivative NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
VLDL NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared 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
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
hypolipidemic NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
od NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
still NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
250 NN O I-PAR
mg/100 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
od NN O O
, NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
continuing NN O O
dietetic NN O O
and NN O O
diuretic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
APO-A1 NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
APO-B NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
parameters NN O O
monitored NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
significantly NN O O
increasing NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Simvastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
than NN O O
gemfibrozil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22456820)

Are NN O O
prenatal NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
phenotype NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
Follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
existing NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
phenotype NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O I-PAR
2,834 NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1,415 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
studies NN O I-INT
at NN O O
five NN O O
points NN O O
throughout NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
Intensive NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1,419 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
at NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
Regular NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
further NN O O
scans NN O O
only NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
grounds NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Spectrum NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
Regular NN O O
( NN O O
9/1,125 NN O O
, NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Intensive NN O O
( NN O O
7/1,167 NN O O
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autistic-like NN O I-OUT
traits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
early NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
clear NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
timing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prenatal NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
phenotype NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22459310)

Relation NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
with NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalizations NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Treating NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Targets NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
TNT NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Impaired NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
often NN O O
accompanies NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
worse NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Treating NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Targets NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TNT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
hospitalizations NN O O
with NN O O
high- NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
low-dose NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
10,001 NN O I-PAR
TNT NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9,376 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
year-1 NN O O
eGFR NN O O
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
HF NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
218 NN O O
participants NN O O
developed NN O O
subsequent NN O O
HF NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
eGFR NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
eGFR NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80-mg NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
1.48 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.29 NN O O
to NN O O
1.67 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
HF NN O O
was NN O O
preceded NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
eGFR NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
modest NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
subsequent NN O O
HF NN O O
( NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
? NN O O
7.89 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.81 NN O O
? NN O O
6.90 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
eGFR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
each NN O O
5-ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
eGFR NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
year NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
HF NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.85 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.77 NN O O
to NN O O
0.94 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
relation NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
or NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
high- NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
low-dose NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
eGFR NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
atorvastatin NN O O
on NN O O
HF NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22465608)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
dual-axis NN O I-INT
rotational NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
XPERSWING NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Coronary NN O O
angiography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
technique NN O O
requires NN O O
several NN O O
orthogonal NN O O
projections NN O O
. NN O O

Rotational NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
technique NN O O
which NN O O
involves NN O O
pre-set NN O O
rotation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
X-ray NN O O
tube NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
allows NN O O
visualization NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
views NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
contrast NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
rotational NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
radiation NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
procedure NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A NN O O
vs NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
93.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
41.7 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
50.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
14.7 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
27.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
11.5 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
18 NN O O
[ NN O O
6.4 NN O O
] NN O O
mGycm NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rotational NN O O
angiography NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
procedure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operators NN O O
. NN O O

Angioplasty NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rotational NN O O
angiography NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
technique NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
vs NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
335.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
192.1 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
238.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
114.4 NN O O
] NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
rotational NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
radiation NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
for NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
procedures NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
contrast NN O O
reduction NN O O
remains NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22471381)

Temporal NN O O
discounting NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
differential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
and NN O O
distal NN O O
consequences NN O O
on NN O O
confession NN O I-INT
decisions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drawing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
psychological NN O O
principle NN O O
that NN O O
proximal NN O O
consequences NN O O
influence NN O O
behavior NN O O
more NN O O
strongly NN O O
than NN O O
distal NN O O
consequences NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
criminal NN O I-PAR
suspects NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O O
a NN O O
short-sightedness NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
police NN O I-PAR
interrogation NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
increases NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
confession NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
altered NN O O
how NN O O
frequently NN O O
they NN O O
admitted NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
criminal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unethical NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
an NN O O
interview NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
a NN O O
proximal NN O O
consequence NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
doing NN O O
so NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
incurring NN O O
a NN O O
distal NN O I-OUT
consequence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Experiment NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
143 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yielded NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pattern NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
procedure NN O O
that NN O O
reversed NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
ruling NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
unique NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
proximity NN O O
that NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
admission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
authors NN O O
discuss NN O O
the NN O O
supported NN O O
psychological NN O O
process NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
several NN O O
well-established NN O O
findings NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
on NN O O
confessions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22475864)

Pre-vaccination NN O O
immunity NN O O
and NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
cell NN O O
culture-derived NN O O
whole-virus NN O O
H1N1 NN O O
vaccine NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
seasonal NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Immune NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
novel NN O O
pandemic NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccines NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
previous NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
antigenically NN O O
similar NN O O
seasonal NN O O
strains NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
I/II NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
non-adjuvanted NN O O
, NN O O
inactivated NN O I-INT
whole-virus NN O I-INT
H1N1 NN O I-INT
A/California/07/2009 NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
408 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18-59 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
two NN O O
vaccinations NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
3.75 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
hemagglutinin NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
apart NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Safety NN O O
, NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccination NN O O
and NN O O
antibody NN O O
cross-reactivity NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
seasonal NN O O
H1N1 NN O O
strain NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
vaccination NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
induced NN O O
substantial NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
H1N1 NN O I-OUT
A/California/07/2009 NN O I-OUT
hemagglutination NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
adult NN O O
and NN O O
elderly NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
7.5 NN O O
?g NN O O
dose NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
seroprotection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
86.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
75.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
7.5 NN O O
?g NN O O
vaccinations NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
seroprotection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adult NN O O
and NN O O
elderly NN O O
subjects NN O O
of NN O O
90.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
89.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
robust NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
vaccination NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
antibody NN O O
titers NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-OUT
HI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MN NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
? NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
post-vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
seroprotective NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H1N1 NN O I-OUT
A/California/07/2009 NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Higher NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
HI NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2008-09 NN O O
or NN O O
2009-10 NN O O
seasonal NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
A/California/07/2009 NN O I-OUT
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
baseline NN O O
titers NN O O
against NN O O
A/New NN O O
Caledonia/20/99 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
seasonal NN O O
H1N1 NN O O
strain NN O O
which NN O O
circulated NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
seasonal NN O O
vaccine NN O O
from NN O O
2000-01 NN O O
to NN O O
2006-07 NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-adsorption NN O O
with NN O O
A/H1N1/New NN O O
Caledonia/20/99 NN O O
antigen NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
A/H1N1/California/07/2009 NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
55 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
of NN O O
tested NN O O
sera NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
whole-virus NN O O
H1N1 NN O O
A/California/07/2009 NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
induced NN O O
substantial NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
seasonal NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccines NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
immunological NN O O
priming NN O O
by NN O O
previous NN O O
seasonal NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccines NN O O
or NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22476876)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flavonoid NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fruits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
on NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
FLAVURS NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Limited NN O O
robust NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
investigating NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exist NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
validate NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
flavonoid-rich NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
flavonoid-poor NN O I-INT
F NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
nutrient NN O O
biomarker NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CVD NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1.5 NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
habitual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high-flavonoid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
low-flavonoid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
While NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
57 NN O O
) NN O O
consumed NN O O
their NN O O
habitual NN O O
diet NN O O
throughout NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
HF NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
58 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LF NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
59 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
sequentially NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
daily NN O O
F NN O O
& NN O O
V NN O O
intake NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
portions NN O O
for NN O O
6-week NN O O
periods NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
18-week NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compliance NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
numbers NN O O
and NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
F NN O O
& NN O O
V NN O O
was NN O O
broadly NN O O
met NN O O
and NN O O
verified NN O O
by NN O O
dietary NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
portions/day NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
HF NN O O
and NN O O
LF NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
3.4 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
5.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
7.0 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
6.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
7.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
8.1 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
yet NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
3.9 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
4.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
4.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
, NN O O
4.5 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flavonoids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
HF NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
non-starch NN O I-OUT
polysaccharides NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
carotenoids NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
broadly NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
nutrient NN O O
biomarker NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
nutrient NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
encouragement NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
implies NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
hands-on NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22485232)

Procalcitonin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
single-center NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
procalcitonin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCT NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
guiding NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Critical NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Huizhou NN O I-PAR
Municipal NN O I-PAR
Central NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Guangdong NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Procalcitonin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
semi-quantitative NN O I-INT
immunoassay NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
PCT-guided NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
signs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
infection NN O I-INT
appeared NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCT NN O I-INT
value NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
0.5ng/ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

We NN O O
discontinued NN O O
the NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
if NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
PCT NN O O
was NN O O
< NN O O
0.5ng/ml NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
days 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
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
administrated NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
continued NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
confirmed NN O O
infection NN O O
until NN O O
clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
disappeared NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
10.89+/-2.85 NN O O
versus NN O O
16.06+/-2.48 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16.66+/-4.02 NN O O
days NN O O
versus NN O O
23.81+/-7.56 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Procalcitonin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
helpful NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
guiding NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22488107)

A NN O O
potent NN O O
oral NN O O
P-selectin NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
marker NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Abnormal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
morbidity NN O O
of NN O O
sickle NN O O
cell NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
SCD NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
1,2 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
notably NN O O
, NN O O
occlusion NN O O
of NN O O
flow NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
microvasculature NN O O
causes NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
pain NN O O
crises NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
] NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
commonest NN O O
cause NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
seek NN O O
medical NN O O
attention NN O O
[ NN O O
4 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
major NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
quality NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
[ NN O O
5 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
endothelial NN O O
P-selectin NN O O
is NN O O
central NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SCD NN O I-OUT
we NN O O
provide NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
germane NN O O
to NN O O
microvascular NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
in NN O O
SCD NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
proof-of-principle NN O O
study NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
lower NN O O
than NN O O
what NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
but NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
block NN O O
P-selectin NN O O
improved NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
inpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
Pentosan NN O I-INT
Polysulfate NN O I-INT
Sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
had NN O O
greater NN O O
P-selectin NN O O
blocking NN O O
activity NN O O
than NN O O
heparin NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Phase NN O O
I NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
PPS NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SCD NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
completed NN O O
documented NN O O
that NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
PPS NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
lowered NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sVCAM-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SCD NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
P-selectin NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
microvascular NN O O
endothelium NN O O
is NN O O
critical NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
occlusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronically NN O I-OUT
impaired NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SCD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
PPS NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
to NN O O
microvascular NN O O
sickle NN O O
cell NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
efficacious NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
SCD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22490110)

A NN O O
web-based NN O O
computer-tailored NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
smokers NN O O
has NN O O
declined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
decade NN O O
, NN O O
smoking NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
among NN O O
youngsters NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
this NN O O
reason NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
smoking NN O O
prevention NN O O
programmes NN O O
targeting NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
web-based NN O O
computer-tailored NN O O
feedback NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
stimulate NN O O
youngsters NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increase NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
attitudes NN O O
and NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
regarding NN O O
non-smoking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
& NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
out-of-school NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entitled NN O I-PAR
'Fun NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
Smokes NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
transformation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
postal NN O O
mailed NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Besides NN O O
this NN O O
transformation NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
prompts NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
c-RCT NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
+ NN O O
prompt NN O O
condition NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
no NN O O
information NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Information NN O O
about NN O O
pupils NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
smoking NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
web-based NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
pupils NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
conditions NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
three NN O O
computer-tailored NN O O
feedback NN O O
letters NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
personal NN O O
e-mail NN O O
box NN O O
. NN O O

Attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
influences NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
expectations NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
personalised NN O O
feedback NN O O
letters NN O O
. NN O O

Pupils NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
+ NN O O
prompt NN O O
condition NN O O
will NN O O
- NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
personalised NN O O
feedback NN O O
letters NN O O
- NN O O
receive NN O O
e-mail NN O O
and NN O O
SMS NN O O
messages NN O O
prompting NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
revisit NN O O
the NN O O
'Fun NN O O
without NN O O
Smokes NN O O
' NN O O
website NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
ever NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
utilisation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
'Fun NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
Smokes NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
website NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Measurements NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
'Fun NN O O
without NN O O
Smokes NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

Expectations NN O O
are NN O O
that NN O O
pupils NN O O
receiving NN O O
tailored NN O O
advice NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
smoke NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
pupils NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
tailored NN O O
feedback NN O O
letters NN O O
and NN O O
prompting NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
providing NN O O
tailored NN O O
feedback NN O O
letters NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR3116 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22492697)

Laryngeal NN O O
preservation NN O O
with NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hypopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
10-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
EORTC NN O O
trial NN O O
24891 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
10-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
trial NN O O
24891 NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
larynx-preservation NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
hypopharynx NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
epilarynx NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
approach NN O O
( NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
laryngectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
pharyngectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
+ NN O O
5-FU NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
1-5 NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
complete NN O O
responders NN O O
by NN O O
irradiation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
otherwise NN O O
by NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
OS NN O O
, NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
: NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
preservation/surgery NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
1.428 NN O O
, NN O O
one-sided NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
larynx NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SFL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
10.5 NN O O
years NN O O
on NN O O
194 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
evolution NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
54 NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
SFL NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
strategy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
compromise NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
poor NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
allowed NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
survivors NN O O
to NN O O
retain NN O O
their NN O O
larynx NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22496207)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inflammation NN O O
is NN O O
critical NN O O
for NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
risk-reduction NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experimental NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
regulator NN O O
, NN O O
nuclear NN O O
factor NN O O
kappa NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
NFlB NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
endothelial NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
NF?B NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
6-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
all NN O O
the NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
NF?B-regulated NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
?-stimulated NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD69 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NFlB NN O I-OUT
subunit NN O I-OUT
p50 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
blunted NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
after NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
vasodilator NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Short-term NN O I-INT
sulfasalazine NN O I-INT
inhibited NN O I-INT
NFlB NN O O
activity NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
poorly NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
sulfasalazine NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
reversing NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
NFlB NN O O
inhibition NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22502844)

Kata NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
consistently NN O O
decreases NN O O
stereotypy NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
Kata NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
whom NN O O
they NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
n=15 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
no-exercise NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
Kata NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
four NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
sessions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stereotypy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
Kata NN O O
techniques NN O O
training NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
Kata NN O O
techniques NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
M NN O O
of NN O O
42.54 NN O O
% NN O O
across NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
pre-intervention NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Teaching NN O O
martial NN O O
arts NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
consistently NN O O
decreased NN O O
their NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22510874)

Osteopontin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Osteopontin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
glycoprotein NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
secreted NN O O
by NN O O
osteoblasts NN O O
and NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

OPN NN O I-INT
suppresses NN O O
the NN O O
proliferation NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
regulate NN O O
the NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
pool NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
serum NN O O
OPN NN O O
concentrations NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acute NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukemia NN O O
( NN O O
AML 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
we NN O O
analyzed NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
OPN NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
by NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relevance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Dutch-Belgian NN O I-PAR
Hematology NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IHC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ELISAs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood/BM NN O I-OUT
sera NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
41 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
microarray NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
261 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
patients NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
BM NN O O
blasts NN O O
( NN O I-INT
IHC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
BM NN O O
serum NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ELISA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
expressing NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
BM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IHC NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
shortened NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OS NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
karyotype NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blast NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
day NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
prompted NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
microarray NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
261 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
analysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
OPN NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
OPN NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
decreased NN O O
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
OS 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
prognostic NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
OPN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
most NN O O
prominent NN O O
in NN O O
intermediate-risk NN O O
AML NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
OPN NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22511135)

Right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
during NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
mean NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
under NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
hrs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mainly NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
After NN O O
a NN O O
6-hr-period NN O O
of NN O O
protective NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O I-INT
1-hr NN O I-INT
periods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
+5 NN O O
, NN O O
+10 NN O O
, NN O O
+15 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
level NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
cm NN O I-INT
H2O NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
conventional NN O O
mechanical NN O O
ventilation NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18?3 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
during NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
until NN O O
33?3 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
at NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation+15 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
transesophageal NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area/left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area NN O O
ratio NN O O
> NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area/left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area NN O O
ratio NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
High-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation+10 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
+15 NN O O
further NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
area/left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
eccentricity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation+5 NN O I-INT
periods NN O I-INT
. NN O O

At NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
oscillatory NN O O
ventilation+15 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nine NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
High-frequency NN O O
oscillatory NN O O
ventilation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
whatever NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
mean NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
redistribution NN O O
of NN O O
tidal NN O O
variation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lung NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
electrical NN O O
impedance NN O O
tomography NN O O
measurements NN O O
when NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
redistribution NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area/left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
area NN O O
increase NN O O
> NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation+15 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mainly NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
high NN O O
mean NN O O
airway NN O O
pressure NN O O
under NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
can NN O I-OUT
worsen NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
protective NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
notably NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
oscillatory NN O O
ventilation NN O O
produced NN O O
less NN O O
alveolar NN O O
recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lungs NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
interest NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
during NN O I-INT
high-frequency NN O I-INT
oscillatory NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22525955)

Longitudinal NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
targeted NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
5-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
targeted NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
original NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
5-year NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
achieved NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
play NN O O
level NN O O
predicting NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
using NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
several NN O O
baseline NN O O
behaviors NN O O
predicted NN O O
their NN O O
later NN O O
ability NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
earlier NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
initiating NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
baseline NN O O
play NN O O
diversity NN O O
predicted NN O O
cognitive NN O O
scores NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
aimed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
targeting NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
play NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
models NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22526891)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intraseptal NN O O
and NN O O
periodontal NN O O
ligament NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
computer-controlled NN O I-INT
articaine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
main 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
dose-dependent NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intraseptal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
periodontal NN O I-INT
ligament NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
volumes NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
articaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ar NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Ep NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
human NN O O
mandibular NN O O
premolars NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
computer-controlled NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCLADS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Ar NN O O
+ NN O O
Ep NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
stability NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
the NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
32 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Ar NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Ep NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
volumes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ISA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-OUT
Success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
profound NN O I-OUT
pulpal NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-OUT
pulp NN O I-OUT
tester NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
width NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
soft NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pinprick NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
monitor NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
dose-dependent NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulpal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soft NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
only NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ISA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-OUT
Success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
pulpal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soft NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ISA NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PLA NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
0.6 NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
Ar NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
Ep NN O I-INT
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
CCLADS NN O O
, NN O O
offer NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ISA NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
It NN O O
seems NN O O
that NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
requiring NN O O
profound NN O O
pulpal NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
soft NN O O
tissue NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safely NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
mentioned NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22527308)

Successful NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Posiformin? NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O I-INT
Bibrocathol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-established NN O I-INT
antiseptic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
eyelid NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
like NN O I-PAR
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
its NN O O
frequent NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
ointment NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
until NN O O
now 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
investigate NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Posiformin? NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
eye NN O O
ointment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O I-PAR
multi-center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-masked NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
parallel-group NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
sum NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
blepharitis NN O O
in NN O O
197 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intention-to-treat-group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
vehicle NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
97:100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
showed NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
, NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.73 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
further NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
single NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
VAS 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
supported NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
and NN O O
investigators NN O O
provided NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
preferring NN O I-OUT
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
issues NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Blepharitis NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
antiseptic NN O I-INT
bibrocathol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
highly NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22531825)

Breaking NN O O
it NN O O
down NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
: NN O O
haptic NN O I-INT
decomposition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
aids NN O O
in NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
haptic NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
learning NN O O
complex NN O O
movements NN O O
in NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
and NN O O
sports NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
best NN O O
deliver NN O O
guidance-based NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
breaking NN O O
down NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
movement NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
tennis NN O O
backhand NN O O
, NN O O
into NN O O
simpler NN O O
parts NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
using NN O O
haptic NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
robotic NN O I-INT
exoskeleton NN O I-INT
would NN O O
help NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
system NN O O
learn NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
particular NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
decomposition NN O O
affected NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unimpaired NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
movement NN O I-PAR
broken NN O I-PAR
down NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
ways NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-INT
flexion/extension NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
unified NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
independently NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
anatomical NN O I-INT
decomposition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
shoulder NN O I-INT
motions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Euler NN O I-INT
coordinates NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
elbow NN O I-INT
flexion/extension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Euler NN O I-INT
decomposition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tip NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
elbow NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
respect NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
elbow NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
independently NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
decomposition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
practiced NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
experienced NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
achieving NN O O
eight NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
this NN O O
motion NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
less NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
motion NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
part NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
arm NN O O
trajectory NN O O
was NN O O
decomposed NN O O
into NN O O
anatomical NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

Varying NN O O
robotic NN O O
movement NN O O
training NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
simpler NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
anatomically-isolated NN O I-INT
motions NN O I-INT
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22537359)

Placebo-controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
possible NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nAChR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
based NN O O
on NN O O
postmortem NN O O
observation NN O O
of NN O O
nAChR NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
( NN O O
deficient NN O O
?4?2 NN O O
nAChRs NN O O
, NN O O
excess NN O O
?7 NN O O
nAChRs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
brains NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O I-INT
Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
because NN O I-INT
of NN O O
its NN O O
safety NN O O
record NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
chosen NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
first NN O O
exploration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=8 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
or NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=12 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
in NN O O
ascending NN O O
fixed NN O O
doses NN O O
: NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
independent NN O O
evaluator NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
descriptive NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
completed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
doses NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
note NN O O
was NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
children NN O O
had NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
nonsignificant NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
QT NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
modest NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
negligible NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Ohio NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
at NN O O
some NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
sustained NN O O
it NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-INT
the NN O O
four NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.13-0.15 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
regressed NN O O
had NN O O
doses NN O O
?0.18 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Graphed NN O O
means NN O O
suggested NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
medication NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
parents NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
reported NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
verbalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
continued NN O I-INT
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
own NN O O
expense NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
appeared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
suggestion NN O O
of NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
at NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
exposure NN O O
warrants NN O O
consideration NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
next NN O O
step NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
?4?2 NN O I-INT
nAChR NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
varenicline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22550938)

B-type NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
peptide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
dyspnoea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
accurate NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
unmet NN O O
clinical NN O O
need NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
coordinated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
Basel NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
323 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspnoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Assignment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
point-of-care NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BNP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
163 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
BNP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
160 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end-point NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end-points NN O O
were NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
certainty NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
appropriate NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
final NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
adjudicated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
BNP NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
median NN O O
$ NN O O
1655 NN O O
, NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
850-3331 NN O O
vs. NN O O
$ NN O O
1541 NN O O
, NN O O
IQR NN O O
859-2827 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

BNP NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
certainty NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
work-up NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
accelerated NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 NN O O
days 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
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
receiver-operating NN O O
characteristics NN O O
curve NN O O
for NN O O
BNP NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
heart NN O O
failure 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
0.81-0.93 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
BNP NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
total NN O O
medical NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
improved NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end-points NN O O
including NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
certainty NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
appropriate NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22565161)

Once-daily NN O O
MMX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
ulcerative NN O I-PAR
colitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
mucosal NN O O
healing NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
ulcerative NN O O
colitis NN O O
( NN O O
UC NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
first-line NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
improve NN O O
treatment NN O O
adherence NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
formulation NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
once-daily NN O O
, NN O O
MMX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Lialda NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Shire NN O I-INT
Pharmaceuticals NN O I-INT
LLC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Wayne NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. 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
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
MMX NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
twice-daily NN O I-INT
delayed-release NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Asacol NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Warner NN O I-INT
Chilcott NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Dublin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Ireland NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
maintaining NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
active-control NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
MMX NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
2.4 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O I-INT
delayed-release NN O I-INT
mesalamine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1.6 NN O I-INT
g/day NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
in NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
per-protocol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
826 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dosed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
( NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
met NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
month NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
83.7 NN O O
and NN O O
77.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
MMX NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PP NN O O
and NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
maintained NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
81.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
76.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
delayed-release NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
: NN O O
-3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
-5.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
6.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.5116 NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.5455 NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
37.1 NN O O
and NN O O
36.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
MMX NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
and NN O O
delayed-release NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Once-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
MMX NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
2.4 NN O O
g/day NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
delayed-release NN O O
mesalamine NN O O
1.6 NN O O
g/day NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22565413)

Internet-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
hematologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Psychosocial NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
oncology NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
inpatient NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Outpatient NN O O
services NN O O
are NN O O
in NN O O
demand NN O O
. NN O O

Internet-based NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
could NN O O
aid NN O O
in NN O O
optimizing NN O O
service NN O O
delivery NN O O
across NN O O
disciplines NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
hematologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
under NN O O
field NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
4-week NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
with NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
hematologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
online NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-six NN O I-PAR
registrants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
105 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
'mental NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
'psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
registration NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
( NN O O
ZUF-8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
complete-cases NN O O
and NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
registration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
displayed NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
distress NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
BSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lacked NN O O
alternative NN O O
access NN O O
concerning NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
filled NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
post NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
waiting NN O O
list NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fighting NN O I-OUT
spirit NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0.04 NN O O
to NN O O
0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
CI NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0.04 NN O O
to NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Otherwise NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
programs NN O O
while NN O O
highlighting NN O O
their NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
and NN O O
optimize NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
taking NN O O
different NN O O
program NN O O
components NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
into NN O O
particular NN O O
consideration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22572567)

Roles NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adapalene NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Ketoconazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O O
treatment NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
tretinoin NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
too NN O O
. NN O O

Adapalene NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
derivative NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
irritation NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
topical NN O O
retinoid NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
adapalene NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adapalene NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
adapalene NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
topically NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
adapalene NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
either NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Adapalene NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
favorable NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pityriasis NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
probable NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
adapalene NN O I-INT
is NN O O
also NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22582764)

Teacher-implemented NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
vast NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
attend NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
preschools NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
some NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
childhood NN O O
. NN O O

Community NN O O
preschool NN O O
practices NN O O
often NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
evidence NN O O
based NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
almost NN O O
none NN O O
target NN O O
the NN O O
prelinguistic NN O O
core NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
public NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
implementing NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Joint NN O I-INT
Attention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Symbolic NN O I-INT
Play/Engagement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Regulation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
deficit NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
initiating NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
worked NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
classroom NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
teachers NN O O
used NN O O
more NN O O
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
strategies NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
preschoolers NN O O
used NN O O
more NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
classroom NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
JASP/ER NN O I-INT
children NN O O
spent NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
supported NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
control NN O O
preschoolers NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
taped NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
context NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22583459)

Mapping NN O O
from NN O O
disease-specific NN O O
measures NN O O
to NN O O
health-state NN O O
utility NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
empirical NN O O
algorithms NN O O
that NN O O
estimate NN O O
health-state NN O O
utility NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O O
disease-specific NN O O
quality-of-life NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
, NN O O
multicountry NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
episodic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
training NN O O
or NN O O
validation NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

Spearman NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
coefficients NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
paired NN O O
EuroQol NN O I-INT
five-dimensional NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EQ-5D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
utility NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
Headache NN O I-OUT
Impact NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HIT-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
and NN O O
Migraine-Specific NN O I-OUT
Quality-of-Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
2.1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
role NN O O
restrictive NN O O
, NN O O
role NN O O
preventive NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
function NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
constructed NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
utility NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
HIT-6 NN O O
score NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
MSQ NN O O
domain NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Preferred NN O O
algorithms NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
validation NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
episodic NN O O
migraine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
HIT-6 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MSQ NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O I-INT
explained NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
samples NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
prediction NN O O
errors NN O O
( NN O O
root NN O O
mean NN O O
square NN O O
errors NN O O
of NN O O
0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
chronic NN O O
migraine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
HIT-6 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MSQ NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O I-INT
explained NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
samples NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
prediction NN O O
errors NN O O
( NN O O
root NN O O
mean NN O O
square NN O O
errors NN O O
0.31 NN O O
and NN O O
0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
episodic NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
migraine 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
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
preferred NN O O
HIT-6 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MSQ NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
validation NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
HIT-6 NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
MSQ NN O O
is NN O O
adequate NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
regression NN O O
equations NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
utility NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preferred NN O O
HIT-6 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MSQ NN O I-INT
algorithms NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
estimating NN O O
health-state NN O O
utilities NN O O
in NN O O
migraine NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
preference-based NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22583635)

Long-term NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
hexaminolevulinate NN O I-INT
enabled NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
hexaminolevulinate NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
cystoscopic NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
papillary NN O O
, NN O O
nonmuscle NN O O
invasive NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Long-term NN O I-PAR
followup NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
551 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fluorescence NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Ta NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
urothelial NN O I-INT
bladder NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
study NN O O
280 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
271 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fluorescence NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
resection NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
study NN O O
extension NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
followup NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Followup NN O O
information NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
261 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
280 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
255 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
271 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fluorescence NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O O
followup NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fluorescence NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
was NN O O
53.0 NN O O
and NN O O
55.1 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
( NN O O
31.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
97 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
tumor NN O O
free NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
9.4 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
16.4 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intravesical NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cystectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
of NN O O
280 NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
271 NN O O
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fluorescence NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Hexaminolevulinate NN O I-INT
fluorescence NN O I-INT
cystoscopy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improves NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O O
bladder NN O O
preservation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22585469)

Effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Levitan NN O I-INT
FPS NN O I-INT
Scope? NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
simulated NN O I-PAR
difficult NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Studies NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Levitan NN O I-INT
FPS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
pass NN O I-INT
success NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Scope? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LFS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
analogous NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
bougie NN O O
in NN O O
simulated NN O O
difficult NN O O
airways NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LFS NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
laryngoscope NN O O
utilizing NN O O
manual NN O O
in-line NN O O
stabilization NN O O
( NN O O
MILS NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
simulate NN O O
difficult NN O O
airways NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Ninety-four NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
successfully NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
in-line NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O O
spine NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
laryngoscopy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
LFS NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
conjunction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Macintosh NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O I-INT
the NN O O
initial NN O O
grading NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
laryngoscopy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
repeated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
randomized NN O O
technique NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cormack-Lehane NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glottic NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
POGO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intubate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alternate NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
anesthesiologist NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
using NN O O
each NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
laryngoscopic NN O I-OUT
views NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cormack-Lehane NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O I-OUT
laryngoscopic NN O I-OUT
views NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cormack-Lehane NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
LFS NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
POGO NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
LFS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
translate NN O O
to NN O O
easier NN O O
intubations NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
alternate NN O O
intubation NN O O
technique NN O O
or NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
intubate NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
< NN O O
60 NN O O
sec NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
trauma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sore NN O I-OUT
throat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
LFS NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Macintosh NN O I-INT
laryngoscope NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
or NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O I-PAR
difficult NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22585532)

Immunologic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
within NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O O
recovery NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
colon NN O O
operation NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
fast-track NN O O
( NN O O
FT NN O O
) NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
technique NN O O
can NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
accelerate NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
reports NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
FT NN O O
colon NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
technique NN O O
on NN O O
humoral NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-three NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
traditional NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
FT NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
FT NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
FT NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
FT NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=40 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
operation NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as 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
and NN O O
5 NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Post-operative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
readmission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
open NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
colon NN O O
operation NN O O
effectively NN O O
inhibited NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
yielded NN O O
good NN O O
protection NN O O
via NN O O
post-operative NN O O
cell NN O O
immunity NN O O
. NN O O

FT NN O O
surgery NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
protective NN O O
role NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
post-operative NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
peri-operative NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Inflammatory NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
intense NN O O
following NN O O
FT NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
operation NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
FT NN O O
open NN O O
operation NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD3+ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CD4+/CD8+ NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Post-operative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
FT NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Post-operative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
FT NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
treatment 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
readmission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
FT NN O O
surgery NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
effectively NN O O
inhibited NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peri-operative NN O I-OUT
trauma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
together NN O O
played NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
role NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
post-operative NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Combining NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
measures NN O O
during NN O O
colon NN O O
operation NN O O
produced NN O O
better NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
beneficial NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
better-preserved NN O O
post-operative NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
FT NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22586827)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PostureJac NN O I-INT
on NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
flexor NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
implications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
cervicogenic NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
convergence NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O O
and NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
afferents NN O O
on NN O O
second-order NN O O
neurons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trigeminocervical NN O O
nucleus NN O O
may NN O O
refer NN O O
pain NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
cervical NN O O
spine NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
face NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
bi-directional NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
and NN O O
upper NN O O
cervical NN O O
afferents NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
explain NN O O
neck NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
origin NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
migraine NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
that NN O O
cervicogenic NN O O
headache NN O O
sufferers NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
several NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
changes NN O O
including NN O O
poor NN O O
endurance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
deep NN O O
cervical NN O O
flexor NN O O
muscles NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
muscles NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neck NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
stabilization NN O O
and NN O O
protection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O O
spine NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
critical NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
intervertebral NN O O
motion NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cervical NN O O
lordosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PostureJac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SomatoCentric NN O O
Systems NN O O
, NN O O
Inc. NN O O
, NN O O
Toronto NN O O
, NN O O
Ontario NN O O
, NN O O
Canada NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
posture NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
jacket NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
no-treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment-control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
table NN O I-INT
stabilization NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PostureJac NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
flexor NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Flexor NN O I-OUT
Endurance NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
seconds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
PostureJac NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
no-treatment NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p=.001 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment-control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p=.004 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
flexors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PostureJac NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
cervicogenic NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22587862)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mobile NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
alarm NN O I-INT
on NN O O
going NN O I-OUT
outside NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fear NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
community-living NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22588377)

The NN O O
Coping NN O O
Cat NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anxiety 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
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Coping NN O I-INT
Cat NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
8-14 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with 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 I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Coping NN O I-INT
Cat NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O O
16-week NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O O
condition NN O O
evidenced NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
gains NN O O
were NN O O
largely NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
two-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
provide NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Coping NN O I-INT
Cat NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
a NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22588803)

Ambient NN O I-INT
temperature NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
biomarkers NN O I-INT
of NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Extreme NN O O
temperatures NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
outdoor NN O O
temperature NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Boston NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Massachusetts NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
area NN O O
( NN O O
1- NN O O
to NN O O
4-day NN O O
moving NN O O
averages NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
myocyte NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
completed NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
randomized NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tai NN O I-INT
chi NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
time-matched NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
fixed NN O O
effects NN O O
models NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
temperature NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
time-varying NN O O
covariates NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Higher NN O O
apparent NN O O
temperature NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
BNP NN O I-OUT
beginning NN O O
with NN O O
2-day NN O O
moving NN O O
averages NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
for NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
4-day NN O O
moving NN O O
averages NN O O
. NN O O

CRP NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
followed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
delayed NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
5?C NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
4-day NN O O
moving NN O O
averages NN O O
of NN O O
apparent NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
22.5 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
11.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.2 NN O O
, NN O O
22.5 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
5?C NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
4-day NN O O
moving NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
apparent NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
21.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
44.2 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
clear NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
TNF NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
endothelin-1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
observed NN O O
positive NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CRP-predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22608375)

Healthcare NN O O
costs NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Affordable NN O O
Care NN O O
Act NN O O
mandates NN O O
that NN O O
new NN O O
insurance NN O O
plans NN O O
cover NN O O
smoking-cessation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
without NN O O
cost-sharing NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
cost NN O O
difference NN O O
estimates NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
spike NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
cessation NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
premiums NN O O
might NN O O
rise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
covering NN O O
these NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
RCT NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
cessation NN O I-PAR
differed NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
healthcare NN O O
costs NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
cessation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
healthcare NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
who NN O O
successfully NN O O
quit NN O O
were NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
matched NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
smokers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Generalized NN O I-INT
linear NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
analyze NN O I-INT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-INT
individuals NN O I-INT
enrolled NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comparative NN O I-INT
effectiveness NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1346 NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
1338 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
requisite NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cost NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
preceding NN O O
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cessation NN O O
attempt NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
trial NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
12-month NN O O
sustained NN O O
quit NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Healthcare NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
sustained NN O O
quitters NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
community-dwelling NN O O
smokers NN O O
, NN O O
matched NN O O
to NN O O
these NN O O
quitters NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
services NN O O
use NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
trial NN O O
participant NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
2011 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
spike NN O O
in NN O O
cost NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
little NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
healthcare NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
quit NN O O
status NN O O
for NN O O
trial NN O O
participants NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
quarter NN O O
post-quit NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
that NN O O
quarter NN O O
, NN O O
continuous NN O O
sustained NN O O
quitters NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
$ NN O O
541 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
continuing NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O O
sustained NN O O
quitters NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
matched NN O O
community- NN O O
dwelling NN O O
smokers NN O O
in NN O O
almost NN O O
every NN O O
quarter NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O O
difference NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
$ NN O O
270 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
quarter NN O O
of NN O O
quit NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
$ NN O O
490 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6th NN O O
quarter NN O O
after NN O O
quitting NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
smoking-cessation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
raise NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
By NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
quarter NN O O
post-quit NN O O
, NN O O
sustained NN O O
quitters NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
costly NN O O
than NN O O
trial NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
continued NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22610128)

Study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hippotherapy NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
stratified NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
hippotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
postural NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
balance NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Stratified NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
assessor NN O O
. NN O O

Stratification NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
gross NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
allocation NN O O
was NN O O
concealed NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
ON NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
OFF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
after NN O O
getting NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Gross NN O I-OUT
Motor NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
Measure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
dimension NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Sitting NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Sitting NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
dimension NN O O
B NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Gross NN O O
Motor NN O O
Function NN O O
Measure NN O O
) NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.01-0.71 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severely NN O O
disabled NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.13-1.47 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Gross NN O I-OUT
Motor NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
Measure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Sitting NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Hippotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
simulator NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
sitting NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
Gross NN O O
Motor NN O O
Function NN O O
Classification NN O O
System NN O O
level NN O O
V NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22616853)

Controlled-release NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
singly NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
have NN O O
shown NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
sleep NN O I-PAR
disorders 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
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
relative NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty 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 I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
insomnia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
controlled-release NN O I-INT
melatonin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
controlled-release NN O I-INT
melatonin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
studied 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

Treatment NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
1-week NN O O
actigraphic NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
diary NN O O
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
derived NN O O
actigraphically NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wake NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
awakenings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
all NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improvements NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
moderate-to-large NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Melatonin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
insomnia NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
cognitive-behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
light NN O O
positive NN O O
impact NN O O
mainly NN O O
on NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
behavioural NN O O
aspects NN O O
might NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
outperform NN O O
other NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
dropouts NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
achieving NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
( NN O O
63.38 NN O O
% NN O O
normative NN O O
sleep NN O O
efficiency NN O O
criterion NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84.62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
sleep NN O O
onset NN O O
latency NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
adding NN O O
behavioural NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22617130)

Phase NN O O
II NN O O
multi-institutional NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O I-INT
with NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
S-1 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
safety NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
far-advanced NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
Japan NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O O
with NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
S-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1-14 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4-week NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S-1+paclitaxel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
S-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1-21 NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5-week NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S-1+cisplatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
included NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
RRs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
52.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
48.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
PFS NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
vs NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.50 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O O
and NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
vs NN O O
17 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
19.0 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O O
and NN O O
19.5 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
non-haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14.2 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O O
and NN O O
17.1 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
S-1+cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
S-1+paclitaxel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
non-platinum-based NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22617366)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O I-INT
nurse-based NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
long NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
in NN O O
irritable NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Structured NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
has NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
disease-related NN O O
knowledge NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IBS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
different NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim 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
long NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O I-INT
nurse-based NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
IBS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IBS NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Rome NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
short NN O I-INT
nurse-based NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
long NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary-based NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
self-administered NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
between-group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
version NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
short NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nurse-based NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-INT
multidisciplinary NN O I-INT
version NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
well-being NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
contribute NN O O
toward NN O O
an NN O O
optimized NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
IBS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22631032)

Evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O O
acid NN O O
81 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
aspirin NN O O
, NN O O
ASA NN O O
; NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
low-dose NN O O
ASA NN O O
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
ASA NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
two-period NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-INT
volunteers NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pre-screen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
aspirin NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ARU NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VerifyNow NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
550 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Day NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
After NN O I-INT
pre-screening NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
eligible NN O I-INT
volunteers NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
81 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
14-day NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
ARU NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
VerifyNow NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O I-OUT
assay NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TXB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
comparisons NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
models 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
29 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
volunteers NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
ARU NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
550 NN O O
at NN O O
Day NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
Day NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.70 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
0.68 NN O O
, NN O O
0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
0.71 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.69 NN O O
, NN O O
0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O O
+ NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O O
+ NN O O
esomeprazole/ASA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
1.02 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.99 NN O O
, NN O O
1.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ASA NN O O
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
TXB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
99.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
TXB NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O O
+ NN O O
esomeprazole/ASA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
1.06 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
1.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
ASA NN O O
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
low-dose NN O O
ASA NN O O
and NN O O
esomeprazole NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials NN O O
. NN O O

gov NN O O
as NN O O
NCT01199328 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22638779)

Propofol NN O I-INT
sedation NN O O
with NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
monitoring NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
submucosal NN O I-INT
dissection NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Endoscopic NN O O
submucosal NN O O
dissection NN O O
( NN O O
ESD NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
time NN O O
tends NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
relatively NN O O
long NN O O
and NN O O
insufflation NN O O
and NN O O
manipulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
endoscope NN O O
can NN O O
increase NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
discomfort NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
ESD NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
ESD NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sedation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
midazolam NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
consciousness NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
bispectral NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BIS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
parameters NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
during NN O O
ESD NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ward NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
registration NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UMIN NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
Registry NN O O
( NN O O
UMIN NN O O
000001497 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
institutional NN O O
trial NN O O
number NN O O
was NN O O
KDOG NN O O
0801 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O O
June NN O O
2008 NN O O
through NN O O
June NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
178 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
90 NN O O
midazolam NN O O
, NN O O
88 NN O O
propofol NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
ESD NN O O
, NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
group NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ward 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
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
supply NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
returning NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ward NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
midazolam NN O O
18 NN O O
; NN O O
propofol NN O O
6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Though NN O O
propofol NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, 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
for NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Propofol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
BIS NN O O
monitoring NN O O
improved NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
ESD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
though NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
underpowered NN O O
to NN O O
prove NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22648717)

Oral NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
improves NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Magnesium NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
minerals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
some NN O O
studies NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
cystic NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
( NN O O
CF NN O O
) NN O O
lack NN O O
magnesium NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
international NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
magnesium NN O O
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
CF NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
using NN O O
manuvacuometry NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Shwachman-Kulczycki NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
CF NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7-19 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
magnesium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
4-wk NN O I-PAR
washout NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
undergoing NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
CF NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
protocol NN O O
included NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
manuvacuometric NN O O
measurements NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MIP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

MIP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Urinary NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O O
( NN O O
change NN O O
: NN O O
36.38 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
after NN O O
magnesium NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.72 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
MIP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MEP NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
MIP NN O O
: NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
after NN O O
magnesium NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
MEP NN O O
: NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
after NN O O
magnesium NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
predicted NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Magnesium NN O O
administration NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
SK NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
change NN O O
: NN O O
4.48 NN O O
points NN O O
after NN O O
magnesium NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
-1.30 NN O O
points NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Oral NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
helped NN O O
improve NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
SK NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CF NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22659656)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
probucol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O O
and NN O O
superoxide NN O O
dismutase NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
probucol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O O
( NN O O
MDA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
superoxide NN O O
dismutase NN O O
( NN O O
SOD NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
levamlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
probucol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
levamlodipine NN O I-INT
besylate NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
benazepril NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
probucol NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
n=20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Lipids NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic/renal NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
activity NN O O
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
by NN O O
chemical NN O O
colorimetry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic/renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
probucol NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
exaggerated NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
probucol NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
contributing NN O O
agreater NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22669453)

Tumor NN O I-OUT
budding NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
AJCC/UICC NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
morphology NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O O
tumor NN O O
margin NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
aggressiveness NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
growth NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
providing NN O O
important NN O O
prognostic NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tumor NN O O
growth NN O O
pattern NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Jass NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O I-INT
budding NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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/Union NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
International NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AJCC/UICC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Tumors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AJCC/UICC NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
retrospectively NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
tumor NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
expanding NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
infiltrating NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O I-INT
budding NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
high-grade NN O O
budding NN O O
reflecting NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
budding NN O O
foci NN O O
scattered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
invasive NN O O
tumor NN O O
margin NN O O
. NN O O

Progression-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer-specific NN O I-OUT
survivals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
multivariable NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Cox NN O O
's NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
infiltrating NN O O
growth NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
histological NN O O
subtype NN O O
and NN O O
lymphovascular NN O O
invasion NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
high-grade NN O O
budding NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymphovascular NN O I-OUT
invasion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
High-grade NN O I-INT
budding NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
infiltrating NN O O
growth NN O O
pattern NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
univariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
's NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
proved NN O O
tumor NN O I-INT
budding NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
3.91 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.3-11.77 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
5.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.62-21.51 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
infiltrating NN O O
growth NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
high-grade NN O O
budding NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
budding NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tumor NN O O
budding NN O O
independently NN O O
predicted NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AJCC/UICC NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
accurate NN O O
prognostication NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
counseling NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
integrated NN O I-INT
multimodal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22678947)

The NN O O
memory NN O O
support NN O O
system NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amnestic NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
few NN O O
empirically NN O O
based NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
combating NN O O
their NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought 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
calendar/notebook NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amnestic NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
domain NN O I-PAR
amnestic NN O I-INT
MCI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
partners NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
MSS NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
training NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
controls NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
intervention NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Training NN O O
in NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
notebook/calendar NN O O
system NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
calendars NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
MSS NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention 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
out NN O O
to NN O O
8-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Care NN O O
partners NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improved NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
8-week NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
control NN O O
care NN O O
partners NN O O
reported NN O O
worse NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Memory NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
MCI NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
future NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
booster NN O O
sessions NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
extend NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
out NN O O
even NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O

Improved NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
care NN O O
partners NN O O
of NN O O
trained NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
partners NN O O
of NN O O
untrained NN O O
individuals NN O O
further NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MSS NN O O
for NN O O
MCI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22682024)

Effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
Interceptor? NN O I-INT
long-lasting NN O I-INT
insecticidal NN O I-INT
nets NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
Interceptor? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
long-lasting NN O I-INT
polyester NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
denier NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bursting NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
minimum NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
kPa NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
alpha-cypermethrin NN O I-INT
@ NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/m? NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
mosquito NN O O
density NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
feeding NN O O
inhibition NN O O
and NN O O
malaria NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tribal NN O I-PAR
dominated NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chhattisgarh NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Its NN O I-PAR
durability NN O O
, NN O O
washing NN O O
practices NN O O
and NN O O
usage NN O O
pattern NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
phases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
villages NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
Kanker NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
viz NN O O
. NN O I-INT
Interceptor NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
untreated NN O I-INT
polyester NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
denier NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Malaria NN O I-INT
cases NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
undertaking NN O O
fortnightly NN O O
surveillance NN O O
by NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
as NN O O
per NN O O
the NN O O
national NN O O
drug NN O O
policy NN O O
. NN O O

Mosquito NN O O
collections NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
hand NN O O
catch NN O O
and NN O O
pyrethrum NN O O
space NN O O
spray NN O O
methods NN O O
from NN O O
human NN O O
dwellings NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Slide NN O O
positivity NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
SPR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
malaria NN O O
incidence NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
PI NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Interceptor NN O O
nets NN O O
. NN O O

Simultaneously NN O O
, NN O O
wash NN O O
resistance NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
by NN O O
doing NN O O
cone NN O O
bioassays NN O O
on NN O O
Interceptor NN O I-INT
LNs NN O I-INT
washed NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

Activities NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
second NN O O
Phase NN O O
( NN O O
April NN O O
2008 NN O O
to NN O O
October NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
post-net NN O O
distribution NN O O
included NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
based NN O O
surveys NN O O
at NN O O
every NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

18 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
durability NN O O
, NN O O
usage NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
LNs NN O O
and NN O O
washing NN O O
practices NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
36 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
field NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
nets NN O O
were NN O O
retrieved NN O O
and NN O O
sampled NN O O
destructively NN O O
for NN O O
chemical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-INT
Interceptor NN O I-INT
nets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
found NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
density NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
vector NN O I-OUT
Anopheles NN O I-OUT
culicifacies NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
net NN O I-INT
villages NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SPR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LN NN O O
villages NN O O
was NN O O
3.7 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
net NN O O
villages NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
LN NN O O
villages NN O O
was NN O O
16.4 NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
24.8 NN O O
and NN O O
44.2 NN O O
in NN O O
untreated NN O O
polyester NN O O
net NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
net NN O O
villages NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
surveys NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
distribution NN O O
, NN O O
78.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
737/936 NN O O
) NN O O
nets NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
in NN O O
possession NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
households NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
every NN O O
night NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
. NN O O

culicifacies NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
cone NN O O
bioassays NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
LNs NN O O
washed NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
alpha-cypermethrin NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
43.5 NN O O
? NN O O
31.7 NN O O
mg/m? NN O O
on NN O O
Interceptor NN O O
LNs NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
household NN O O
use NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
specification NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/m? NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
gradual NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
holed NN O I-OUT
nets NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
usage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Interceptor NN O I-INT
nets NN O I-INT
were NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
vector NN O O
densities NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
malaria NN O O
incidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
villages NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Availability NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
nets NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
households NN O O
in NN O O
usable NN O O
condition NN O O
clearly NN O O
indicated NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
Interceptor NN O O
LNs NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rural NN O O
setting NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
nets NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
contain NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
alpha-cypermethrin NN O O
against NN O O
malaria NN O O
vector NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
household NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22686292)

Can NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Erectile NN O O
Dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
Statins NN O O
Trial NN O O
[ NN O O
ISRCTN66772971 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
ED NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
aged NN O O
?40 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
impacts NN O O
upon NN O O
their NN O O
overall NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
partners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
lipid NN O I-PAR
lowering NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anti-hypertensive NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O I-PAR
173 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
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

Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
points NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Erectile NN O I-OUT
Function-5 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
male NN O I-OUT
ED-specific NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MED-QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
generic NN O I-OUT
Euroqol NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
1.28 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MED-QoL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
2.09 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-OUT
10-year NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
-3.67 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
low-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
, NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
-5.46 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
consistent NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
encounters NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
erectile NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QALY NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
indicates NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
willingness-to-pay NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O O
of NN O O
?20,000 NN O O
and NN O O
?30,000 NN O O
is NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Identifying NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
provides NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
future NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
MED-QoL NN O O
by NN O O
treating NN O O
them NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
analysis NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
QALY NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
high NN O O
probability NN O O
that NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
ED NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
urological NN O O
and NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
practice NN O O
by NN O O
including NN O O
questions NN O O
on NN O O
ED NN O O
during NN O O
routine NN O O
consultations NN O O
and NN O O
relevant NN O O
clinical NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
impart NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
advice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22690882)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-PAR
reports NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
iQuit NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
web-based NN O O
tailored NN O O
cessation NN O O
advice NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
social NN O O
cognitive NN O O
theory NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
perspectives NN O O
on NN O O
change NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
aiding NN O O
a NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
than NN O O
broadly NN O O
similar NN O O
web-based NN O O
advice NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
tailored NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
progress NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
individual-level NN O I-INT
characteristics NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
advice NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
non-tailored NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tailoring NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
beliefs NN O O
, NN O O
personal NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
patterns NN O O
, NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
expectations NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Participant NN O O
enrolment NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
assessments NN O I-INT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
remotely NN O O
online NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
website NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
advice NN O O
reports NN O O
presented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
website NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1758 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
visitors NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
QUIT NN O I-PAR
website NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
cigarettes NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hand-rolled NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASUREMENTS NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
interview 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
self-reported NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
1 NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
7-day NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FINDINGS NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
9.1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
versus NN O O
9.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
1.02 NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.73-1.42 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intervention NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-PAR
gave NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
positive NN O O
evaluations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
materials NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
tailored NN O O
content NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
beliefs NN O O
, NN O O
personal NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
patterns NN O O
, NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
expectations NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
web-based NN O O
materials NN O O
presenting NN O O
broadly NN O O
similar NN O O
non-tailored NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22690994)

Pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
dosing NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
cranberry NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
bacteriuria NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
pyuria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22692114)

The NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluid NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
urine NN O O
specific NN O O
gravity NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O O
retention NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
dehydrated NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
athletes NN O I-PAR
arrive NN O O
at NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
competitions NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mildly NN O I-PAR
hypohydrated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HYPO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
are NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
drink NN O O
fluids NN O O
before NN O O
exercise NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
a NN O O
euhydrated NN O O
( NN O O
HYD NN O O
) NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
recreational NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
71.9 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.6 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
day-to-day NN O O
variability NN O O
of NN O O
morning NN O O
urine NN O O
specific NN O O
gravity NN O O
( NN O O
USG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
consuming NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O O
hydration NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
HYD NN O O
and NN O O
HYPO NN O O
( NN O O
USG NN O O
> NN O O
1.020 NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
consuming NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
W NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
salt-water NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SW NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mM NN O O
Na NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
carbohydrate-electrolyte NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CES-L NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mM NN O O
Na NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
CES NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CES NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mM NN O O
Na NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hydration NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
HYPO NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hydration NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
USG NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
measures NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
volume NN O O
collections NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
day-to-day NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
morning NN O O
USG NN O O
( NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
? NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
W NN O O
ingestion NN O O
were NN O O
repeatable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pretrial NN O I-OUT
USG NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
1.022 NN O O
? NN O O
0.001 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HYPO NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
< NN O O
1.020 NN O O
by NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
1.013 NN O O
? NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
CES NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
HYPO NN O O
subjects NN O O
reached NN O O
HYD NN O O
status NN O O
at NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
W NN O O
1.013 NN O O
? NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
SW NN O O
1.013 NN O O
? NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
CES-L NN O O
1.011 NN O O
? NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
CES NN O O
1.017 NN O O
? NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
because NN O O
salt NN O O
or NN O O
CES NN O O
ingestion NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
W NN O I-OUT
68 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SW NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CES-L NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CES NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
HYPO NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
reach NN O O
euhydration NN O O
within NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
600 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
W NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
salt NN O O
and NN O O
CES NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
this NN O O
practice NN O O
will NN O O
minimize NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
a NN O O
practice NN O O
or NN O O
competition NN O O
hypohydrated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22692116)

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
intensities NN O O
and NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-INT
warm-up NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
press NN O I-OUT
1RM NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
precision NN O O
of NN O O
maximum NN O O
strength NN O O
assessments NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
repetition NN O O
maximum NN O O
; NN O O
1RM NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
capacity NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
prescribe NN O O
and NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
factors NN O O
can NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
precision NN O O
of NN O O
1RM NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
warm-up NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
warm-up NN O O
routines NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
warm-up NN O O
have NN O O
already NN O O
been NN O O
acknowledged NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O I-INT
warm-up NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GWU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
unclear NN O O
but NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
muscle NN O O
temperature NN O O
while NN O O
avoiding NN O O
fatigue NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
temperature NN O O
elevation NN O O
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
eventually NN O O
affect NN O O
1RM NN O O
performance 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
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
intensities NN O O
and NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
GWU NN O O
on NN O O
1RM NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
strength-trained NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
1RM NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
press NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
4 NN O O
GWU NN O O
conditions NN O O
after NN O O
specific NN O O
warm-up NN O O
: NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
SDLI NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
V NN O O
[ NN O O
Combining NN O O
Dot NN O O
Above NN O O
] NN O O
O2max NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
long NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
LDLI NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
V NN O O
[ NN O O
Combining NN O O
Dot NN O O
Above NN O O
] NN O O
O2max NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
moderate NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
SDMI NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
at NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
V NN O O
[ NN O O
Combining NN O O
Dot NN O O
Above NN O O
] NN O O
O2max NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
long NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
moderate NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
LDMI NN O O
; NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
at NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
V NN O O
[ NN O O
Combining NN O O
Dot NN O O
Above NN O O
] NN O O
O2max NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
CTRL NN O O
) NN O O
no-GWU NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Leg NN O I-OUT
press NN O I-OUT
1RM NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
LDLI NN O O
( NN O O
367.8 NN O O
? NN O O
70.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
4 NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
LDMI NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
1RM NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
-4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
4 NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
345.6 NN O O
? NN O O
70.5 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
SDMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SDLI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CTRL NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
359.4 NN O O
? NN O O
69.2 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
359.1 NN O O
? NN O O
69.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
359.4 NN O O
? NN O O
70.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
long-duration NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
general NN O O
warm-up NN O O
seems NN O O
be NN O O
appropriately NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
1RM NN O O
performance NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
strength-trained NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22696144)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
femoral NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
ACL NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetics NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
VAS NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
opioid NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
rescue NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
arthroscopic NN O O
ACL NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
107 NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anaesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
crucial NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hamstring NN O I-PAR
autografts NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
Groups NN O O
L NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
LM NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
closed-envelope NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
LM NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
19 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
Group NN O I-INT
L NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
femoral NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
using NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
airway NN O O
masks NN O O
following NN O O
neural NN O O
blockade NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
, NN O O
4th NN O O
, NN O O
6th NN O O
, NN O O
12th NN O O
and NN O O
24th NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VRS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
LM NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
LM NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
mobilisation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Likert NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
completely NN O O
comfortable NN O O
; NN O O
quite NN O O
comfortable NN O O
; NN O O
slight NN O O
discomfort NN O O
; NN O O
painful NN O O
; NN O O
very NN O O
painful NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
block NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
LM NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.014 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.012 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
terms NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
to NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O O
prolongs NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
and NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
duration NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O O
delays NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
rescue NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22696626)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
vibration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
case NN O O
was NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acute NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
vibration NN O O
exposure NN O O
on NN O O
stereotyped NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
4-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
during NN O O
downtimes NN O O
stood NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
vibration NN O I-INT
platform NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
machine NN O O
turned NN O O
off NN O O
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
on NN O O
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
s NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
frequency=28 NN O O
Hz NN O O
; NN O O
amplitude NN O O
0.97 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
standing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
vibration NN O O
platform NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
vibration NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
uniformly NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
while NN O O
others NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Subjectively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
enjoyed NN O O
whole NN O O
body NN O O
vibration NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
easy NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
integrate NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
behavioural NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22698563)

Comparing NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
minimal NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Minimal NN O I-INT
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MECC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CABG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
offering NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
hemodilution NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
blood-air NN O O
interface NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MECC NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
microvascular NN O O
perfusion NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CECC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
alterations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
predefined NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
T1-T4 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
on-pump NN O O
CABG NN O O
using NN O O
orthogonal NN O O
polarization NN O O
spectral NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
being NN O O
operated NN O O
on NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
MECC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CECC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
capillary NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FCD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vessel NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
investigator NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
circulation NN O O
( NN O O
ECC NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
aortic NN O O
crossclamping NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
FCD NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
FCD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
MECC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
206.8 NN O O
? NN O O
33.6 NN O O
cm/cm? NN O O
in NN O O
CECC NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
217.8 NN O O
? NN O O
35.3 NN O O
cm/cm? NN O O
in NN O O
MECC NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ECC NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
FCD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
MECC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
already NN O O
recovered NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O I-OUT
FCD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CECC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
still NN O O
significantly NN O O
depressed NN O O
( NN O O
223.1 NN O O
? NN O O
35.6 NN O O
cm/cm? NN O O
in NN O O
MECC NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.100 NN O O
vs NN O O
T1 NN O O
; NN O O
211.1 NN O O
? NN O O
36.9 NN O O
cm/cm? NN O O
in NN O O
CECC NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.017 NN O O
vs NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
ECC NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
FCD NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
tended NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MECC NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
intergroup NN O O
difference NN O O
after NN O O
aortic NN O O
crossclamping NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Orthogonal NN O O
polarization NN O O
spectral NN O O
imaging NN O O
data NN O O
reveal NN O O
an NN O O
impairment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
on-pump NN O O
CABG NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
FCD NN O I-OUT
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
microvascular NN O O
perfusion NN O O
in NN O O
MECC NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
microvascular NN O O
organ NN O O
perfusion NN O O
could NN O O
partly NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
advantages NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
MECC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22709810)

Dietary NN O O
patterns NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Older NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
comorbidities NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
prevented NN O O
through NN O O
improved NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tertiary NN O O
prevention NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
rural-dwelling NN O O
survivors NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
even NN O O
greater NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
rural NN O O
and NN O O
urban NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
factors NN O O
among NN O O
this NN O O
high-risk NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
patterns NN O I-INT
of NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Reach NN O I-OUT
Out NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Enhance NN O I-OUT
Wellness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RENEW NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
among NN O O
overweight NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
( NN O O
?5 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
older NN O O
survivors NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
, NN O O
breast NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Survivors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=729 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
45- NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
60-minute NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
surveys NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
24-hour NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
recalls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Principal NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multivariable NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
linear NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Principal NN O O
components NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
three NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
rural NN O O
dwellers NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
sweets NN O O
and NN O O
starches NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
reduced-fat NN O O
dairy NN O O
, NN O O
cereal NN O O
, NN O O
nuts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fruits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mixed NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
among NN O O
urban NN O O
dwellers NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
fruits NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
meat NN O O
and NN O O
refined NN O O
grains NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
sugar-sweetened NN O O
beverages NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
greater NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
reduced-fat NN O O
dairy NN O O
, NN O O
cereal NN O O
, NN O O
nuts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fruits NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
trend NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mixed NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
trend NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
fruits NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
pattern NN O O
among NN O O
urban NN O O
survivors NN O O
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
trend NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Urban NN O O
and NN O O
rural NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
behavior NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
designing NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
interventions NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
older NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
targeting NN O O
overall NN O O
dietary NN O O
patterns NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
among NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22712208)

[ NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
safety NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
high-priority NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
great NN O O
social NN O O
import NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
most NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
are NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
errors NN O O
of NN O O
hospital NN O O
staff NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
emphasized NN O O
the NN O O
necessity NN O O
of NN O O
promoting NN O O
countermeasures NN O O
against NN O O
medical NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

Root NN O O
cause NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
RCA NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
implemented NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
such NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
retrospective NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
RCA NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
limitation NN O O
in NN O O
scientific NN O O
analyses NN O O
examining NN O O
causal NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
prospective NN O O
design NN O O
path NN O O
analysis NN O O
using NN O O
structural NN O I-INT
equation NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SEM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
model NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
direct NN O O
and NN O O
indirect NN O O
effects NN O O
enabled NN O O
statistical NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
root NN O O
causes NN O O
and NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggested NN O O
such NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
devising NN O O
countermeasures NN O O
against NN O O
medical NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SEM NN O O
model NN O O
constructed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
root NN O O
causes NN O O
was NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
brief NN O O
bright NN O O
light NN O O
( NN O I-INT
BL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
on NN O O
workday NN O O
mornings NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
health NN O O
, NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
nurses NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rapidly NN O I-PAR
rotating NN O I-PAR
shifts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BL NN O O
periods NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-BL NN O O
periods NN O O
for NN O O
self-assessed NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
10 NN O O
: NN O O
00 NN O O
on NN O O
day-shift NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
day-shift NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
psychomotor NN O O
vigilance NN O O
task NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
PVT NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BL NN O O
periods NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-BL NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
near NN O I-OUT
misses NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BL NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-BL NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
one-month NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
short NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
's NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
effectively NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
medical NN O O
error NN O O
risk NN O O
among NN O O
night-shift NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22721596)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
symptoms 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
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
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
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
97 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
1.2 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks 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
ADHD NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD-RS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADHD-Improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale-Revised NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTRS-R NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
mean NN O O
ADHD-RS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
for NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
40.7 NN O O
and NN O O
38.6 NN O O
; NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
mixed-effect NN O O
model NN O O
repeated-measure NN O O
means NN O O
were NN O O
31.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
29.2-33.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
38.3 NN O O
( NN O O
36.0-40.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
least NN O O
square NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
-6.7 NN O O
( NN O O
-10.0 NN O O
to NN O O
-3.4 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
CTRS-R NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O O
subscore NN O O
also NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
for NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
CTRS-R NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
subscores NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
improved NN O O
much NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CGI-I NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
mostly NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
65.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. 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 I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Atomoxetine NN O I-INT
moderately NN O O
improved NN O O
ADHD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
information-A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Double-Blind NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Atomoxetine NN O I-INT
Versus NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ADHD NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
; NN O O
NCT00380692 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22723176)

The NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
verbascoside NN O I-INT
on NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
platelet NN O I-PAR
aggregation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preliminary NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
verbascoside NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
phenolic NN O O
compound NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
several NN O O
favourable NN O O
biological NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
verbascoside NN O I-INT
, NN O O
biotechnologically NN O O
produced NN O O
from NN O O
plant NN O O
cell NN O O
cultures NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
human NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
( NN O O
PA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O O
from NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
aspirin-na?ve NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
preincubated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
with NN O I-INT
verbascoside NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
?M NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
assuming NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
preincubated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
with NN O O
verbascoside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PA NN O O
is NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
light NN O O
transmission NN O O
aggregometry NN O O
and NN O O
multiplate NN O O
analyzer NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
reference NN O O
, NN O O
preincubation NN O O
with NN O O
verbascoside NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adenosine NN O I-OUT
diphosphate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Verbascoside NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/dL NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O O
effect NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
verbascoside NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
PA 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
but NN O O
not NN O O
that NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
ADP NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
verbascoside NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
ensured NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
ADP NN O I-OUT
stimulus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Verbascoside NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vitro NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
PA NN O O
by NN O O
mildly NN O O
inhibiting NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triggered NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
by NN O O
ADP NN O O
and NN O O
AA NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
intriguing NN O O
, NN O O
require NN O O
confirmation NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
verbascoside NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22727707)

Rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
clozapine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

Peroxisome NN O I-INT
proliferator-activated NN O I-INT
receptor-? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPAR-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rosiglitazone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
PPAR-? NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O O
in NN O O
clozapine-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
eight-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
clozapine-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
neuropsychological NN O O
battery NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Digit NN O I-OUT
Span NN O I-OUT
subtest NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wechsler NN O I-OUT
Adult NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Scale-III NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WAIS-III NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
fluency NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Hopkins NN O I-OUT
Verbal NN O I-OUT
Learning NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HVLT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Trail-Making NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Wisconsin NN O I-OUT
Card NN O I-OUT
Sorting NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WCST NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
When NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
controlled 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
change NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
no NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clozapine-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O I-PAR
studies NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
improving NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22728026)

Phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in 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
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
first-line NN O O
MBC NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
superior NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Final NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
updated NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
nab-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
q3w NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nab-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
qw NN O I-INT
3/4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
q3w NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
powered NN O O
for NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
qw NN O O
3/4 NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
33.8 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
22.2 NN O O
, NN O O
27.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26.6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
qw NN O O
3/4 NN O O
, NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
q3w NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
overall NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
had NN O O
prolonged NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.575 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.688 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
arms NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
efficacy NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
qw NN O O
3/4 NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
clinically NN O O
efficacious NN O O
nab-paclitaxel NN O O
dosing NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
confirming NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
and NN O O
prudent NN O O
before NN O O
widespread NN O O
adoption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22740508)

Pentraxin-3 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
CORONA NN O O
and NN O O
GISSI-HF NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Pentraxin-3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTX3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
humoral NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
innate NN O O
immunity NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
regulate NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
debated NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
PTX3 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
PTX3 NN O I-INT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
1457 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Controlled NN O I-PAR
Rosuvastatin NN O I-PAR
Multinational NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CORONA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1233 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
GISSI-Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GISSI-HF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O I-INT
PTX3 NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
or NN O O
their NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
multivariable NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazard NN O O
models NN O O
including NN O O
clinical NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
N-terminal NN O O
pro NN O O
brain NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
NT-proBNP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PTX3 NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
Q1-Q3 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
5.34 NN O O
( NN O O
3.55-7.64 NN O O
) NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2690 NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
females NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-INT
elevated NN O I-INT
PTX3 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
759 NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
SD NN O O
increase NN O O
1.20 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
1.12-1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
587 NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
1.27 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.17-1.38 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
worsening NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
720 NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
HR NN O O
1.21 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.12-1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
marginally NN O O
improved NN O O
discrimination NN O O
. NN O O

Three-month NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
PTX3 NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
or NN O O
NT-proBNP NN O O
. NN O O

Rosuvastatin NN O O
lowered NN O O
hsCRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
raised NN O O
PTX3 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
two NN O O
independent NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
that NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
PTX3 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
consistently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
opposite NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hsCRP NN O O
and NN O O
PTX3 NN O I-INT
call NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT00336336 NN O O
( NN O O
GISSI-HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00206310 NN O O
( NN O O
CORONA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22743137)

Early NN O O
versus NN O O
late NN O O
hCG NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
to NN O O
trigger NN O O
ovulation NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O O
stimulated NN O O
IUI NN O O
cycles NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
verify NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
Early NN O I-INT
hCG NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
leading NN O O
follicle NN O O
sizes NN O O
within NN O O
16.0-16.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Late NN O I-INT
hCG NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
leading NN O O
follicle NN O O
sizes NN O O
within NN O O
18.0-18.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
intrauterine NN O I-PAR
insemination NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IUI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
HP-hMG NN O I-INT
75 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
SC NN O O
from NN O O
cycle NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
as NN O O
per NN O O
ovarian NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Ovulation NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
triggered NN O O
( NN O O
hCG NN O O
5000 NN O O
IU NN O O
, NN O O
IM NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
follicle NN O O
diameter NN O O
ranged NN O O
between NN O O
either NN O O
16.0 NN O O
and NN O O
16.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
Early NN O O
hCG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
n=227 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
18.0 NN O O
and NN O O
18.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
Late NN O O
hCG NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n=207 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IUI NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
approximately NN O O
36 NN O O
h NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Whereas NN O O
population NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sperm NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
14 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
diameter NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
hCG NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
Late NN O I-INT
hCG NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
( NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ongoing NN O O
( NN O O
11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
8.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
randomized NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ongoing NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated 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 I-INT
hCG NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
when NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
follicle NN O O
size NN O O
reaches NN O O
16.0-16.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
similar NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
ongoing NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rates NN O O
as NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
reaches NN O O
18.0-18.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
IUI NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22750958)

Modified NN O I-INT
constraint-induced NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
upper NN O O
limb NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
subacute NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
small-scale NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Constraint-induced NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CIMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
advocated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
facilitating NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
poststroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
is NN O O
controversial 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
modified NN O O
CIMT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
improving NN O O
paretic NN O O
arm NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
poststroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
subacute NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Loewenstein NN O I-PAR
Rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Israel NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
subacute NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
paresis NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
CIMT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
1:2 NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
modified NN O O
CIMT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
1-hour NN O O
daily NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
unaffected NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
restrained NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
wear NN O O
a NN O O
restrictive NN O I-INT
mitten NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
similar NN O O
intensive NN O O
regular NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
upper NN O O
limb NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
hand NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
seconds NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
transfer NN O O
pegs NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
saucer NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
pegboard NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
grasp NN O O
, NN O O
carry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
release NN O O
a NN O O
hard NN O O
rubber NN O O
ball NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
eating NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
spoon NN O O
to NN O O
remove NN O O
the NN O O
jelly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
plate NN O O
, NN O O
bring NN O O
it NN O O
towards NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
place NN O O
it NN O O
on NN O O
another NN O O
plate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
modified NN O O
CIMT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
tests NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
additional NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
CIMT NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
subacute NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
poststroke NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CIMT NN O I-INT
may NN O O
facilitate NN O O
functional NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
plegic NN O O
hand NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22752489)

Effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fragile NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fragile NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fragile NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
donepezil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
next NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intelligence NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Stanford-Binet NN O I-OUT
Intelligence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hindi NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Kulshrestha NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
donepezil NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
intelligence NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
donepezil NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2276106)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
well-being NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
collaborative NN O O
team NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
well-being NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-five NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
communicate NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Speilberger NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Trait NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Side NN O I-OUT
Effects NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Coping NN O I-OUT
Strategies NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
telephone NN O O
survey NN O O
to NN O O
collect NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
helpfulness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
calls NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
cared NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
provided NN O O
an NN O O
opportunity NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
talk NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
concerns NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
investigators NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
collaboration NN O O
, NN O O
caring NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
essence NN O O
of NN O O
exemplary NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22768793)

Reaching NN O O
out NN O O
, NN O O
inviting NN O O
back NN O O
: NN O O
using NN O O
Interactive NN O I-INT
voice NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
to NN O O
recycle NN O O
relapsed NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
back NN O O
to NN O O
Quitline NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Tobacco NN O O
dependence NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
relapsing NN O O
condition NN O O
that NN O O
typically NN O O
requires NN O O
multiple NN O O
quit NN O O
attempts NN O O
and NN O O
extended NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
offered NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
, NN O O
relapsed NN O O
smokers NN O O
are NN O O
interested NN O O
in NN O O
recycling NN O O
back NN O O
into NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
assisted NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
manuscript NN O O
presents NN O O
the 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
testing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
voice NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
recycling NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
quitline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
back NN O O
to NN O O
QL NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2985 NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
QL NN O I-PAR
callers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
receive NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
smoking NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
IVR NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
consists NN O O
of NN O O
automated NN O O
questions NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
and NN O O
address NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
re-cycling NN O O
in NN O O
QL NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
offer NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
QL NN O O
and NN O O
reinitiate NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Re-enrollment NN O O
in NN O O
QL NN O O
services NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
successfully NN O I-OUT
reached NN O I-OUT
715 NN O O
( NN O O
23.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
former NN O O
QL NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
those NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
194/715 NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
therefore NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
's NN O O
final NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
composed NN O O
of NN O O
521 NN O O
current NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
re-enrollment NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
28.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
an NN O O
11.2 NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
odds NN O O
for NN O O
re-enrollment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
vary NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
race NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ethnicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
recycled NN O I-OUT
smokers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
older NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Mean NN O O
= NN O O
45.2 NN O O
; NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
11.7 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
smokers NN O O
who NN O O
declined NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O O
Mean NN O O
= NN O O
41.8 NN O O
; NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
13.2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
barriers NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
not NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
quitting NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
delivering NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
messages NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
these NN O O
reported NN O O
barriers NN O O
, NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
smokers NN O O
reporting NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
reporting NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
quitting NN O O
re-engaged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
QL NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Proactive NN O I-INT
IVR NN O I-INT
outreach NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
low NN O O
income NN O O
, NN O O
relapsed NN O O
smokers NN O O
back NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
cycle NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Integration NN O O
of NN O O
IVR NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
recycling NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
QL NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
tobacco-related NN O O
disparities NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01260597 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22782459)

Celecoxib NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RATIONAL NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
cyclooxygenase-2 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
celecoxib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fourth NN O I-PAR
edition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
text NN O I-PAR
revision NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
time NN O O
? NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1.658 NN O O
, NN O O
63.021 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
13.580 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Lethargy/Social NN O I-OUT
Withdrawal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O O
( NN O O
1.948 NN O O
, NN O O
74.032 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
16.811 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1.742 NN O O
, NN O O
66.198 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
12.104 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
Hyperactivity/Noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2.564 NN O O
, NN O O
97.424 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
1.469 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.232 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
Inappropriate NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1.607 NN O O
, NN O O
61.075 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.173 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.794 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
celecoxib NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Lethargy/Social NN O I-OUT
Withdrawal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Stereotypic NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.00 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity/Noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.202 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Inappropriate NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.802 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
celecoxib 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
1 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
5.227 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Frequency NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Combination NN O O
of NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
celecoxib NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
superior NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Registration NN O O
, NN O O
www.irct.ir NN O O
; NN O O
IRCT138711091556N2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22789149)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
mediated NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
reported NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
parallel NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
computer-mediated NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
skill NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Separate NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clinician NN O I-INT
web-tools NN O I-INT
comprised NN O O
of NN O O
over NN O O
500 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10-s NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
demonstrating NN O I-INT
patient-centered NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
various NN O O
ways NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
clinician NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Academy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Family NN O I-PAR
Physicians NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
enrolling NN O I-PAR
194 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
non-randomized NN O I-PAR
clinician NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
respective NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
self-report NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
visit NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Intervention NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
more NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
skill NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
identification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problems/concerns NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shared NN O I-OUT
decision-making NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
rapport NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
more NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
5 NN O O
areas NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
controls NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
domains NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Communication NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O O
mediated NN O O
format NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parallel NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
both NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
clinician NN O O
reported NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
patient-centered NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PRACTICE NN O O
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Computer-mediated NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
thereby NN O O
increasing NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
clinician NN O O
willingness NN O O
to NN O O
undertake NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22800470)

A NN O O
six-month NN O O
crossover NN O O
chemoprevention NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tea NN O I-INT
in NN O O
smokers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-smokers NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
methodological NN O O
issues NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Chemoprevention NN O O
crossover NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
tea NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
than NN O O
parallel NN O O
designs NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
attrition NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
rates NN O O
with NN O O
such NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Attrition NN O O
( NN O O
dropouts NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
25-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
feasibility NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-INT
tea NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
investigate NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tea NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
biomarkers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
lasted NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
washout NN O O
in NN O O
between NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
non-smokers NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
premalignant NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
packets NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
tea NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
black NN O I-INT
tea NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
caffeinated NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
drink NN O O
five NN O O
packets NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
while NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dropout NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
?85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prescribed NN O O
treatment NN O O
packets NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
non-smokers NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
compliance NN O O
was NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
highest NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dropouts NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
treatment NN O O
visits NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
dropout NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
non-smokers NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
dropout NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
smokers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
non-smokers NN O O
. NN O O

Black NN O O
tea NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
smokers NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
non-smokers NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
four-treatment NN O O
crossover NN O O
tea NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
dropout NN O O
among NN O O
smokers NN O O
and NN O O
non-smokers NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Multi-arm NN O O
crossover NN O O
tea NN O O
trials NN O O
might NN O O
pose NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
burden NN O O
on NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
compliance NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ISRCTN70410203 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22808053)

Promoting NN O I-INT
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Physical NN O O
activity NN O O
decreases NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
colon NN O O
polyps NN O O
and NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

Focusing NN O O
on NN O O
recent NN O O
calls NN O O
for NN O O
translation NN O O
of NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
evidence NN O O
into NN O O
clinical NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
delivered NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polyps NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
thus NN O O
at NN O O
elevated NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
steps NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
moderate/vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minutes/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
minutes/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
via NN O O
blinded NN O I-INT
pedometer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
accelerometer NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O O
messages NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
self-monitoring NN O O
using NN O O
pedometers NN O O
and NN O O
overcoming NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
objectively NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
moderate/vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity 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

Both NN O O
arms NN O O
exceeded NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
goal NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
pedometer NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
overall NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
steps/day NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
between NN O O
arm NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Simple NN O O
interventions NN O O
of NN O O
minimal NN O O
contact NN O O
time NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
walking NN O O
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT01476631 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22810989)

Margarines NN O I-INT
fortified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
?-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
alter NN O O
the NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O I-INT
?-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
incorporated NN O I-INT
into NN O O
a NN O O
food NN O O
matrix NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
composition NN O O
of NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
oxidant/antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
this NN O O
end NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
dietary NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O I-INT
margarines NN O I-INT
fortified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
replaced NN O I-INT
their NN O O
normal NN O O
spread NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O O
intakes NN O O
of NN O O
ALA NN O O
, NN O O
EPA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
DHA NN O O
were NN O O
4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
2.2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.3 NN O O
g/d NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Consuming NN O O
EPA NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
394 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
omega-3 NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sum NN O O
of NN O O
EPA NN O O
and NN O O
DHA NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Consumption NN O O
of NN O O
DHA NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
137 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
omega-3 NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

ALA NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
omega-3 NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
EPA NN O O
and NN O O
DHA NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
3 NN O O
interventions NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
linoleic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
hydroperoxides NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
MDA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
isolated NN O O
EPA NN O O
and NN O O
DHA NN O O
incorporated NN O O
into NN O O
margarine NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
incorporation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
erythrocytes NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
DHA NN O O
is NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
EPA NN O O
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
EPA+DHA NN O O
tissue NN O O
incorporation NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
that NN O O
4 NN O O
g/d NN O O
ALA NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
index NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-wk NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22818151)

[ NN O I-PAR
Localised NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
PREFERE NN O O
trial NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
holds NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranking NN O O
of NN O O
cancer-specific NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
are NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
die NN O O
from NN O O
intercurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
PSA NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
stage NN O O
migration NN O O
towards NN O O
early NN O O
tumour NN O O
stages NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
prognostically NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
and NN O O
require NN O O
differentiated NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
discussions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Joint NN O O
Federal NN O O
Committee NN O O
( NN O O
G-BA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
conceptual NN O O
work NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MDS NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Competence NN O O
Centre NN O O
Oncology NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MDK NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
IQWIG NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Association NN O O
of NN O O
Statutory NN O O
Health NN O O
Insurance NN O O
Funds NN O O
( NN O O
GKV-Spitzenverband NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
multicentre NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
treatments NN O O
actually NN O O
recommended NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
German NN O O
and NN O O
European NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
localised NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
prostatectomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percutaneous NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
permanent NN O I-OUT
seed NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
surveillance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
allowing NN O O
a NN O O
rejection NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
options 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
start NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
next NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22821273)

Different NN O O
cardiac NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
peri-procedural NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
in NN O O
contemporary NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
reporting NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
differential NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
biomarker NN O O
type NN O O
on NN O O
peri-procedural NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
PMI NN O O
) NN O O
reporting NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Resolute NN O I-PAR
'All-Comers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
creatine NN O O
kinase NN O O
( NN O O
CK NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CK-myoband NN O O
( NN O O
CK-MB NN O O
) NN O O
mass NN O O
or NN O O
cardiac NN O O
troponin NN O O
( NN O O
cTn NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
optional NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PMIs NN O O
were NN O O
adjudicated NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
2007 NN O O
universal NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O O
( NN O O
type-4a NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
extended NN O O
historical NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
2121/2292 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
92.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
analysable NN O I-PAR
dataset NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
biomarker NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
890/2121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
coronary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
ACS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

267/890 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
ST-segment NN O O
elevation NN O O
MI NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Type-4a NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
208/2121 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
cTn NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
CK-MB NN O O
mass NN O O
if NN O O
cTn NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
93/2121 NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
CK-MB NN O O
mass NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
cTn NN O O
if NN O O
CK-MB NN O O
mass NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
extended NN O O
historical NN O O
CK-based NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
MI NN O O
, NN O O
PMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
65/2121 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjudication NN O O
of NN O O
type-4a NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ACS NN O O
was NN O O
problematic NN O O
with NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
type-4a NN O O
MI NN O O
being NN O O
confirmed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
approximately NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
stable NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
elective NN O O
PCI NN O O
. NN O O

Type-4a NN O O
MI NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
hazard NN O O
for NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
adjudicated NN O O
PMI NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
driven NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
MI-definition NN O O
criteria NN O O
and NN O O
biomarker NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

Type-4a NN O O
MI NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
composite NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O O
stent NN O O
investigations NN O O
which NN O O
recruit NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ACS NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
; NN O O
Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00617084 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22825926)

A NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
responsive NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Longitudinal NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
responsive NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
reliably NN O O
predict NN O O
subsequent NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
causal NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Focused NN O I-INT
Playtime NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FPI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
that NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
responsive NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
FPI NN O I-INT
on NN O O
responsive NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
conditional NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
FPI NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
language NN O O
skills NN O O
below NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
FPI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
require NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
go NN O O
beyond NN O O
FPI NN O O
's NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
responsive NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22834767)

Direct NN O I-INT
renin NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
The NN O O
renin-angiotensin-aldosterone NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAAS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
regulate NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Blockade NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAAS NN O O
may NN O O
slow NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
end-organ NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O I-INT
renin NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
for NN O O
blocking NN O O
the NN O O
RAAS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
renin NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
autonomic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
aliskiren NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
autonomic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Autonomic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
power NN O O
spectral NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
RR-variation NN O O
during NN O O
deep NN O O
breathing NN O O
[ NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

mean NN O O
circular NN O O
resultant NN O O
( NN O O
MCR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
expiration/inspiration NN O O
( NN O O
E/I NN O O
) NN O O
ratio NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MCR NN O O
and NN O O
E/I NN O O
ratio NN O O
assess NN O O
parasympathetic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
e.g NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
autonomic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
analytes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mixed NN O O
effects NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
aliskiren NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
plasma NN O O
renin NN O O
activity NN O O
[ NN O O
from NN O O
2.4 NN O O
? NN O O
3.8 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
?g/l/h NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
) NN O O
for NN O O
MCR NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
E/I NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
indicating NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
MCR NN O O
and NN O O
E/I NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MCR NN O I-INT
means NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
vs. NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
41.8 NN O O
? NN O O
19.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
50.8 NN O O
? NN O O
26.1 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
38.2 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
23.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
37.5 NN O O
? NN O O
24.1 NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Parasympathetic NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

MCR NN O O
and NN O O
E/I NN O O
ratio NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
downregulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RAAS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22838229)

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
biocompatibility NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
glass NN O O
ionomer NN O O
cements NN O O
impregnated NN O O
with NN O O
collagen NN O O
or NN O O
bioactive NN O O
glass NN O O
to NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
biocompatibility NN O O
of NN O O
glass NN O I-PAR
ionomer NN O I-PAR
cement NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
GIC NN O O
) NN O O
impregnated NN O O
with NN O O
collagen NN O O
or NN O O
bioactive NN O O
glass NN O O
to NN O O
BHK-21 NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

Mineral NN O O
Trioxide NN O O
Aggregate NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instrumented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rotary NN O O
NiTi NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
filled NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
3mm NN O O
, NN O O
root NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
cavities NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
and NN O O
restored NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
GIC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
GIC NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.01 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bioactive NN O I-INT
glass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Mineral NN O I-INT
Trioxide NN O I-INT
Aggregate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
root NN O I-PAR
slices NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
incubated NN O O
in NN O O
tissue NN O O
culture NN O O
plates NN O O
with NN O O
BHK-21 NN O O
fibroblast NN O O
cell NN O O
line NN O O
. NN O O

Phase NN O O
contrast NN O O
and NN O O
scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
microscopes NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
quantity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
analyzed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
one NN O O
way NN O O
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Post NN O I-OUT
Hoc NN O I-OUT
Tukey NN O I-OUT
HSD 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
AND NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Group NN O O
5 NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
scores NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
all NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
except NN O O
group NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no 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

Glass NN O O
ionomer NN O O
cement NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
bioactive NN O O
glass NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spreading NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
glass NN O O
ionomer NN O O
cement NN O O
with NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
collagen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
biocompatibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
collagen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bioactive NN O I-OUT
glass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
concentration NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
bioactive NN O O
glass NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
biocompatibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glass NN O I-OUT
ionomer NN O I-OUT
cement NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
collagen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22843280)

Adjunctive NN O O
perampanel NN O I-INT
for NN O O
refractory NN O O
partial-onset NN O O
seizures NN O O
: NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
304 NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
perampanel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
noncompetitive NN O O
?-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
AMPA NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
concomitant NN O O
antiepileptic NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
AEDs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
drug-resistant NN O O
partial-onset NN O O
seizures NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00699972 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
1-3 NN O I-PAR
AEDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
perampanel NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O I-INT
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
19-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
6-week NN O I-INT
titration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/week NN O I-INT
increments NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
13-week NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Percent NN O I-INT
change NN O O
in NN O O
seizure NN O O
frequency NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
; NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
responder NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
for NN O O
EU NN O O
registration NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
387 NN O I-PAR
provided NN O I-PAR
seizure NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O I-PAR
this NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
double-blind NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
-21.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
-26.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-34.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perampanel NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0261 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0158 NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O O
percent NN O O
responder NN O O
rates NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
period NN O O
were NN O O
26.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
37.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
36.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
perampanel NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perampanel NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
; 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
for NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0760 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0914 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
discontinued NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Most NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O O
treatment-emergent NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
somnolence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ataxia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
once-daily NN O O
, NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
perampanel NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
partial-onset NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
perampanel NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
was NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O

CLASSIFICATION NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
Class NN O O
I NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
once-daily NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
perampanel NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
effective NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
partial-onset NN O O
seizures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22845070)

Development NN O O
, NN O O
awareness NN O O
and NN O O
inductive NN O O
selectivity NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
studies NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
learn NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
context-dependent NN O O
inferences NN O O
about NN O O
novel NN O O
stimuli NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
context NN O O
cues NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
trained NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
match NN O I-INT
probes NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
shape NN O O
or NN O O
color NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
dimension NN O O
shifting NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
item NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
selective NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
then NN O O
examined NN O O
context-dependent NN O O
responding NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
complex NN O O
matching NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Awareness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
context NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
and NN O O
explicit NN O I-INT
questions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
described NN O O
by NN O O
Sloutsky NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
( NN O O
2008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
context-dependent NN O O
responding NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
induction NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
that NN O O
promoted NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
context NN O O
cues NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
reliable NN O O
selective NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sizeable NN O I-PAR
proportion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
6-year-olds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Crucially NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
learn NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
selective NN O O
inferences NN O O
about NN O O
novel NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
aware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
context NN O O
cues NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
challenge NN O O
previous NN O O
claims NN O O
that NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
implicit NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22847319)

Assessing NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
retinoid NN O O
products NN O O
by NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
assay NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
topically NN O O
applied NN O O
retinoid NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Daily NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
tretinoin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
adapalene NN O I-INT
were NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
forearms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Percutaneous NN O O
absorption NN O O
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
polyethylene NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacologic NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
responses NN O O
intimately NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
retinoid-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
epidermal NN O O
differentiation NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
exfoliation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
scaling/peeling NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
transepidermal NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
PD NN O O
model NN O O
exhibited NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
to NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
surrogate NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
three NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O O
cream NN O O
product NN O O
line NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
two NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
commercial NN O O
gel NN O O
product NN O O
line NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
different NN O O
vehicles NN O O
( NN O O
gel NN O O
vs. NN O O
cream NN O O
) NN O O
containing NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
and NN O O
adapalene NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
applicability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
by NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
sufficient NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
that NN O O
three NN O O
test NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
cream NN O O
products NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
approved NN O O
generic NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
gel NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
corresponding NN O O
reference NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
surrogate NN O O
PD NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
retinoid NN O I-OUT
bioequivalence NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22850220)

Errors NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
infusions NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
dose NN O O
errors NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
delays NN O O
made NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
preparing NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bedside NN O I-INT
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
using NN O O
pre-filled NN O I-INT
syringes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
volunteered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
simulation NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
assisted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
shock NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Vasopressor NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
diluting NN O I-INT
concentrated NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
ampoules NN O I-INT
or NN O O
were NN O O
provided NN O O
in NN O O
syringes NN O I-INT
pre-filled NN O I-INT
beforehand NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
resident NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
time NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
started NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infusions NN O I-OUT
prepared NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
company NN O O
. NN O O

Nurses NN O O
took NN O O
156 NN O O
s NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
infusions NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
pre-filled NN O I-INT
syringes NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
276 NN O O
s NN O O
when NN O O
preparing NN O O
them NN O O
de NN O O
novo NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
delay NN O O
of NN O O
106 NN O O
s 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
73-140 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
infusion NN O O
prepared NN O O
from NN O O
ampoules NN O O
contained NN O O
one-fifth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
another NN O O
contained NN O O
none NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
. NN O O

Medication NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
17.0 NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
when NN O O
pre-filled NN O I-INT
syringes NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
5.2-55.5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
infusions NN O I-INT
prepared NN O O
by NN O O
pharmacy NN O O
and NN O O
industry NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
contain NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
norepinephrine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Providing NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
syringes NN O O
pre-filled NN O I-INT
by NN O O
pharmacists NN O O
or NN O O
pharmaceutical NN O O
companies NN O O
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
medication NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
delays NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
substantial NN O O
financial NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
healthcare NN O O
providers NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
developed NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2285166)

[ NN O I-OUT
Photoplethysmographic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vascular NN O I-INT
tonic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2285871)

[ NN O O
Does NN O O
urapidil NN O I-INT
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tracheal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2286596)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amoxycillin/clavulanate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
amoxycillin/clavulanate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
comparator NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
intravenously NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
preparations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
seven NN O O
to NN O O
ten NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Ofloxacin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
usually NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
bd NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
comparator NN O O
group NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
improved NN O O
clinically NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
or NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
clinical NN O O
failures NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
bacteriologically NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparator NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
bacteriological NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
judged NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
suffered NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
, NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
our NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
occurred NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparator NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
parenteral NN O O
forms NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22884754)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Imaging NN O O
evidence NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
brain NN O O
alterations NN O O
are NN O O
primary NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
full-blown NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
and NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
progress NN O O
across NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antipsychotic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
brain NN O O
structure NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
understanding NN O O
brain NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
psychosis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N=18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
during NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heterogeneous NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
longitudinally NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
brain NN O O
scans NN O O
( NN O O
1.5T NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
and NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
BRAINS2 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1,47 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
1.66 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.204 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2,47 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
1.47 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.242 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interaction NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2,47 NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
1.82 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.174 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
note NN O O
that NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interaction NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
result NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
frontal NN O O
lobe NN O O
at NN O O
trend NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
3,81 NN O O
) NN O O
=2.686 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.052 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
Bonferroni NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
multiple NN O O
comparisons NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Low NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
seem NN O O
to NN O O
equally NN O O
affect NN O O
gray NN O I-OUT
matter NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lobes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
medium-term NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22892323)

Long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe-plus-statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
LDL-C-lowering NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe-plus-statin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
LDL-C NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
mg/dL NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rosuvastatin NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
78 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
72 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Greater NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
until NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
ezetimibe-plus-statin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
re-increased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
double-dose NN O O
statin NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O I-OUT
lathosterol/TC NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
campesterol/TC NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
in NN O O
ezetimibe-plus-statin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lathosterol/TC NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
campesterol/TC NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
campesterol/lathosterol NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
PCSK9 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
double-dose NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ezetimibe-plus-statin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
PCSK9 NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
transient NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
campesterol NN O O
and NN O O
lathosterol NN O O
persisted NN O O
until NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
synthesis NN O O
provides NN O O
stable NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22903518)

Is NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
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
trial NN O O
. NN O O

EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of 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 O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
succeeded NN O O
in NN O O
influencing NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
EEG NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
overcome NN O O
these NN O O
methodological NN O O
shortcomings NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pretest-posttest NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
blinded NN O O
active NN O O
comparator NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
conductance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-biofeedback NN O I-INT
or NN O O
waiting NN O O
list NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

EEG- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SC-biofeedback NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
feedback NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
included NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
19-channel NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-four NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
delta NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
theta NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
EEG-regulators NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
these NN O O
EEG-regulators NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
managed NN O O
to NN O O
regulate NN O O
SC NN O O
. NN O O

EEG-biofeedback NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
applicable NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
regulate NN O O
EEG NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
specific NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
important NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
EEG-biofeedback NN O I-INT
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22904179)

Adult NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
height NN O O
in NN O O
short NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-INT
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
limited NN O O
effect NN O O
when NN O O
started NN O O
during NN O O
adolescence NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
short NN O O
SGA NN O O
children NN O O
when NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
during NN O O
adolescence NN O O
; NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
? NN O O
d NN O O
during NN O O
puberty NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
adult NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
d NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
2-yr NN O O
postponement NN O O
of NN O O
puberty NN O O
by NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRHa NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-INT
AH NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
short NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
puberty NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
140 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
AH NN O O
expectation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
GH NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
performed NN O I-PAR
intention-to-treat NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
uncensored NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
reached NN O I-PAR
AH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Besides NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
yr NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
GH/GnRHa NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
subsequent NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
AH NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
pubertal NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
height NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
140 NN O O
cm NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Short NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
started NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
11.2 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
already NN O O
started NN O O
puberty NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
-2.9 NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
to NN O O
-1.7 NN O O
sd NN O O
score NN O O
( NN O O
SDS NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
AH NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
? NN O O
d NN O O
during NN O O
puberty NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
AH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
after NN O O
correction NN O O
for NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
SDS NN O O
at NN O O
start NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
years NN O O
before NN O O
puberty NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
height NN O O
SDS NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
AH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
started NN O O
puberty NN O O
at NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
140 NN O O
cm NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O I-INT
GH/GnRHa NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
started NN O O
puberty NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
140 NN O O
cm NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
= NN O O
0.795 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
started NN O O
in NN O O
adolescence NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-OUT
AH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
short NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
particularly NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
When NN O I-PAR
SGA NN O O
children NN O O
are NN O O
short NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
puberty NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
GH/GnRHa NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22906113)

Emotion NN O I-INT
regulation NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
that NN O O
promote NN O O
learning NN O O
: NN O O
reappraisal NN O O
enhances NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
regulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
academic NN O I-OUT
achievement NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
well NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

Less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
specific NN O O
emotion NN O I-INT
regulation NN O I-INT
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
promote NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O

Six- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
13-year-olds NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
viewed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sad NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
instructed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reappraise NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
importance NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
reappraise NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ruminate NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sad NN O I-INT
events NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
regulation NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
viewed NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
memory NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
later NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
predicted NN O O
, NN O O
reappraisal NN O O
strategies NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
attenuated NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reappraisal NN O O
enhanced NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
details NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

Rumination NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
memory NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

Memory NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
effective NN O O
instructions NN O O
were NN O O
pronounced NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
reappraisal NN O O
in NN O O
learning NN O O
contexts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22906338)

Irrigation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
irrigated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
bed NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
20cc NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
installed NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
gallbladder NN O O
bed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=30 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
20cc NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P=.018 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
irrigated NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
bed NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22917554)

Effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
treprostinil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
prostanoid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
revolutionized NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
arterial NN O O
hypertension NN O O
( NN O O
PAH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
prostacyclin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
poses NN O O
significant NN O O
risks NN O O
and NN O O
challenges NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inhaled NN O O
treprostinil NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
treprostinil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PAH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
treprostinil NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
?6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
treprostinil NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
functional NN O O
class NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
and NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
breaths NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
?g/breath NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
treprostinil NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
times/day NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
were NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
background NN O I-INT
PAH NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
had NN O O
previously NN O O
received NN O O
parenteral NN O O
prostanoid NN O O
. NN O O

Inhaled NN O I-INT
treprostinil NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
discontinued NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchospasm NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PAH NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sore NN O I-OUT
throat NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
19 NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
; NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
6-minute NN O O
walk NN O O
distance NN O O
, NN O O
improving NN O O
on NN O O
follow-up NN O O
from NN O O
455.7 NN O O
? NN O O
71.5 NN O O
to NN O O
498 NN O O
? NN O O
70 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
25.5 NN O O
? NN O O
10.2 NN O O
to NN O O
27.4 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
inhaled NN O O
treprostinil NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
background NN O O
targeted NN O I-PAR
PAH NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
early NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
treprostinil NN O I-INT
appears NN O I-INT
warranted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PAH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22920273)

Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
copper NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
available NN O O
in NN O O
Canada NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Is NN O O
FlexiT NN O I-INT
non-inferior NN O O
to NN O O
NovaT NN O I-INT
when NN O O
inserted NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
first-trimester NN O I-PAR
abortion NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
Flexi-T380 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
intrauterine NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IUD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
expulsion NN O O
rates NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
Canadian NN O O
IUD NN O O
currently NN O O
in NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
NovaT-200 NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
placed NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
first-trimester NN O O
abortion NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Consenting NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
choosing NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
IUD NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
abortion NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
device-type NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
immediate NN O O
post-abortion NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
Flexi-T380 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
IUD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
current NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
expulsion NN O O
or NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
rates NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
Nova-T200 NN O I-INT
IUD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
other NN O O
brand NN O O
of NN O O
copper NN O O
IUD NN O O
available NN O O
in NN O O
Canada NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
initiation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
IUD NN O I-OUT
expulsion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
: NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
continuation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perforation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
contraceptive NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
non-intervention NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
consenting NN O O
women NN O O
choosing NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
post-abortion NN O O
contraception NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
no NN O O
contraception NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Web-based NN O O
contraception NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
government-linked NN O O
health NN O O
administrative NN O O
databases NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
RCT NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
records NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
provincial NN O O
abortion NN O O
clinics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
provincial NN O O
single-payer NN O O
linked NN O O
administrative NN O O
health NN O O
databases NN O O
, NN O O
birth NN O O
registry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
unique NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
IUD NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
expulsion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
standard NN O O
IUD NN O O
in NN O O
Canada NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
post-abortion NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
choosing NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
post-abortion NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
highlight NN O O
considerations NN O O
of NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
implementation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
rigorous NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
Canadian NN O O
IUDs NN O O
when NN O O
inserted NN O O
after NN O O
first-trimester NN O O
abortion NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
NCT01174225 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22921159)

Interventional NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
strengthen NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
promoting NN O O
behaviours NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
anaemia NN O O
in NN O O
southern NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
empowering NN O O
the NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
modify NN O O
their NN O O
health-care NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
take NN O O
appropriate NN O O
action NN O O
to NN O O
combat NN O O
anaemia NN O O
in NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conceptualized NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Rosenstock NN O O
and NN O O
Becker NN O O
's NN O O
health NN O O
belief NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
pretest-posttest NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
225 NN O I-PAR
anaemic NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=75 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
health NN O O
seeking NN O O
behaviour NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
included NN O O
knowledge NN O O
regarding NN O O
anaemia NN O O
, NN O O
food NN O O
selection NN O O
ability NN O O
, NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
to NN O O
iron NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O I-INT
planned NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
FINDINGS NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
comparatively NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
F NN O O
ratio NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2,190 NN O O
) NN O O
=11.910 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
learned NN O O
more NN O O
about NN O O
anaemia NN O O
prevention NN O O
than NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
food NN O O
selection NN O O
ability NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
the NN O O
F NN O O
ratio NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
2,190 NN O O
) NN O O
=20.92 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nearly NN O O
61.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
became NN O O
non-anaemic NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
inspite NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
received NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
health NN O O
education NN O O
contributed NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
modifying NN O O
their NN O O
health NN O O
seeking NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
perception NN O O
about NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
anaemia NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
still NN O O
face NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
anaemia NN O O
in NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
socio-cultural NN O O
priority NN O O
problems NN O O
that NN O O
demand NN O O
immediate NN O O
attention NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
policy NN O O
makers NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
national NN O O
anaemia NN O O
control NN O O
programme NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
iron NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
nutritional NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
supervision NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
supplementation NN O O
has NN O O
failed NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
regions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
implies NN O O
that NN O O
economic NN O O
empowerment NN O O
; NN O O
strengthening NN O O
health NN O O
literacy NN O O
through NN O O
planned NN O O
educational NN O O
programs NN O O
will NN O O
definitely NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
behaviour NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
at NN O O
large NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22923209)

Links NN O O
between NN O O
multisensory NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
typically NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
specifically NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
difficulty NN O O
with NN O O
processing NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
socially NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Emerging NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
basic NN O O
perceptual NN O O
abilities NN O O
including NN O O
multisensory NN O O
processing NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
processing NN O O
visual NN O O
and NN O O
auditory NN O O
inputs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
multisensory NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
simultaneity NN O I-INT
judgment NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
wherein NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
report NN O I-INT
whether NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
occurred NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-INT
Spectrum NN O I-INT
Quotient NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
over NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
factors NN O O
as NN O O
multisensory NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
stronger NN O O
bias NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
perceive NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
visual NN O O
stimuli NN O O
as NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
analyses NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
relationship NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
multisensory NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
multisensory NN O O
processing NN O O
while NN O O
also NN O O
revealing NN O O
a NN O O
continuum NN O O
over NN O O
which NN O O
perceptual NN O O
abilities NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
continuum NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
just NN O O
specific NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
populations NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22924950)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bexarotene NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
psoralen-ultraviolet NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stage NN O O
IB-IIA NN O O
mycosis NN O O
fungoides NN O O
: NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
EORTC NN O O
Cutaneous NN O I-PAR
Lymphoma NN O I-PAR
Task NN O I-PAR
Force NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
NCT00056056 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Psoralen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ultraviolet NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mycosis NN O I-PAR
fungoides NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
adequate NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
sufficient NN O O
power NN O O
comparing NN O O
this NN O O
modality NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PUVA NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
PUVA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bexarotene NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
EORTC NN O O
21011 NN O O
( NN O O
NCT NN O O
00056056 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
bexarotene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Targretin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
mycosis NN O I-PAR
fungoides NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
prematurely NN O O
closed NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O O
accrual NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
145 NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
started NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
bexarotene NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Total NN O I-OUT
UVA NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
received NN O O
were NN O O
107 NN O O
J NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1?4-489?9 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUVA NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
101?7 NN O O
J NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
0?2-529?9 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
few NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3-4 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
drop-outs NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
PUVA-alone NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
best NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?57 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
9?7 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
for NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
5?8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CCR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
10 NN O O
received NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
22 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
received NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
31 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
fewer NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
27?5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
lower NN O O
UVA NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
55?8 NN O O
J NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
117?5 NN O O
J NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
-2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?5 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
PUVA NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
UVA NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O I-INT
PUVA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
bexarotene NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
insufficient NN O O
power NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22926008)

Computer-delivered NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
colon NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
health NN O O
beliefs NN O O
of NN O O
African-Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
among NN O O
African-American NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary-care NN O I-PAR
provider NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
computer-delivered NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
increase NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
273 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-tailored NN O I-INT
print NN O I-INT
material-an NN O I-INT
American NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
brochure NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
283 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Health NN O O
Belief NN O O
Model NN O O
constructs NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
tailored NN O O
messages NN O O
and NN O O
examined NN O O
as NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
changes NN O O
between NN O O
CRC NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
belief NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
computer-delivered NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
had NN O O
greater NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
CRC NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.005 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FOBT NN O I-OUT
barriers NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.034 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
computer-delivered NN O O
tailored NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
encounter NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
necessary NN O O
precursors NN O O
to NN O O
behavior NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22940159)

Psychological NN O I-INT
adjustment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self NN O I-INT
esteem NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
visual-motor NN O I-PAR
integration NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
influences NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
how NN O O
much NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
are NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
pre-existing NN O I-PAR
psychological NN O I-PAR
adjustment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
self-esteem NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
kindergarten NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
visual-motor NN O I-PAR
integration NN O I-PAR
skills NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
socioeconomic NN O I-PAR
backgrounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixteen NN O I-PAR
mainstream NN O I-PAR
kindergarten NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
first-grade NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
socioeconomic NN O I-PAR
backgrounds NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scoring NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
25th NN O I-PAR
percentile NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
measure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
visual-motor NN O I-PAR
integration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
directive NN O I-INT
visual-motor NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DVMI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
non-directive NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NDSI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tests NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
visual-motor NN O O
integration NN O O
skills NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
adjustment NN O O
and NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
responded NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
NDSI NN O I-INT
while NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
baseline NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
psychological NN O O
adjustment NN O O
and NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
responded NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
DVMI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
from NN O O
low NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
backgrounds NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
VMI NN O O
performance NN O O
scores NN O O
will NN O O
benefit NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
if NN O O
clinicians NN O O
choose NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
psychological NN O O
adjustment NN O O
and NN O O
self-esteem NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22946606)

Working NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
disability NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
employment NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE/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
test NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Working NN O I-INT
Well NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Disability NN O I-INT
health-promotion NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O O
vocational NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
VR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Health-promotion NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
limitation NN O O
from NN O O
secondary NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
barrier NN O O
to NN O O
labor NN O O
force NN O O
participation NN O O
among NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
federal NN O O
VR NN O O
system NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
access NN O O
point NN O O
for NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
health-promotion NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
METHOD/DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
297 NN O I-PAR
VR NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
Working NN O I-INT
Well NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Control NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
participants NN O O
provided NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
waves NN O O
of NN O O
quarterly NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Intervention-group NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
who NN O O
attended NN O O
over NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Working NN O I-INT
Well NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
study NN O O
span NN O O
, NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
124 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
4.11 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
. NN O O

Control-group NN O I-INT
participants NN O O
also NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
limitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
pre- NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
postdifferences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
dramatic NN O O
, NN O O
F NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
308 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
4.19 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Working NN O I-INT
Well NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
helpful NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
VR NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
one NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
overcoming NN O I-OUT
barriers NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (22951426)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
dummy NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
cefditoren NN O I-INT
pivoxil NN O I-INT
400mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
as NN O O
switch NN O O
therapy NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
pyelonephritis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
cefditoren NN O I-INT
pivoxil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
pyelonephritis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
presumptive NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pyelonephritis NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
2g NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
initially NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
satisfied NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
switch NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cefditoren NN O I-INT
pivoxil NN O I-INT
400mg NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
39 NN O O
of NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
95.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
of NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
-0.12 NN O O
to NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.18 NN O O
to NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
IV NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
cefditoren NN O I-INT
pivoxil NN O I-INT
is NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
pyelonephritis NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
for NN O O
uropathogens NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
quinolone-resistant NN O O
strains NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2295911)

The NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
testicular NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Childrens NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
Childrens NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
CCSG NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
141 NN O O
( NN O O
CCG-141 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
occult NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
retreat NN O O
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
occult NN O I-PAR
TL NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
prolong NN O O
their NN O O
subsequent NN O O
DFS NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
494 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
255 NN O O
( NN O O
51.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O O
continuous NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
CCR NN O O
) NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
entering NN O O
remission NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
eight NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
CCR NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
localized NN O O
extramedullary NN O O
relapse NN O O
and NN O O
retreatment NN O O
; NN O O
263 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
testicular NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Elective NN O I-PAR
testicular NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
235 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
89.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
204 NN O O
( NN O O
86.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
boys NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O O
biopsies NN O O
, NN O O
175 NN O O
( NN O O
85.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
CCR NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
12.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
relapsed NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

Isolated NN O O
overt NN O O
TL NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
CCR NN O O
22+ NN O O
to NN O O
60+ NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
re-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
boys NN O O
with NN O O
occult NN O O
TL NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
CCR NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
local NN O I-INT
testicular NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
re-treatment NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
boys NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
undergo NN O O
biopsy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
21 NN O O
( NN O O
80.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
CCR NN O O
; NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O I-OUT
isolated NN O I-OUT
overt NN O I-OUT
TL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
boys NN O O
without NN O O
occult NN O O
TL NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Occult NN O O
TL NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
CCR NN O O
represents NN O O
aggressive NN O O
minimal-residual NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
carries NN O O
a NN O O
worse NN O O
prognosis NN O O
than NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
TL NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
directed NN O O
at NN O O
obviating NN O O
occult NN O O
and NN O O
overt NN O O
testicular NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

Conventional NN O O
therapy NN O O
as NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
If NN O O
occult NN O O
TR NN O O
is NN O O
identified NN O O
during NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
planned NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
salvage NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
require NN O O
intensified NN O O
alternate NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
such NN O O
, NN O O
testicular NN O I-INT
biopsies NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
investigation NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
rarity NN O O
of NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
identifying NN O O
features NN O O
in NN O O
boys NN O O
with NN O O
occult NN O O
TL NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22964266)

Mindfulness-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
disorders NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
concern NN O O
in 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
. NN O O

Mindfulness-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
MBT NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MBT-AS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
9-week NN O O
MBT-AS NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rumination NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Concluding NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
MBT-AS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (22965298)

Preschool NN O O
based NN O O
JASPER NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O I-INT
JASPER NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Joint NN O I-INT
Attention NN O I-INT
Symbolic NN O I-INT
Play NN O I-INT
Engagement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Regulation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
non-public NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ABA-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
JASPER NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
baseline NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
JASPER NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
diversity NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effects NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
generalized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
classroom NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
initiated NN O O
more NN O O
gestures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
unengaged NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
provide NN O O
further NN O O
support NN O O
that NN O O
even NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
targeted NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
play NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22967497)

Clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antazoline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
cardioversion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paroxysmal NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
AnPAF NN O O
Study NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Rapid NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
class NN O I-INT
IA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
IC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vernakalant NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
potential NN O O
pro-arrhythmia NN O O
, NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
exceptionally NN O O
high NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
compound NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Antazoline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
generation NN O O
antihistaminic NN O O
agent NN O O
with NN O O
chinidin-like NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
antazoline NN O I-INT
exerts NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O I-OUT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
supraventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
on NN O O
AF NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
facilitating NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
published NN O O
data NN O O
antazoline NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
marketed NN O O
in NN O O
Poland NN O O
and NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
cardiology NN O O
wards NN O O
and NN O O
emergency NN O O
rooms NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
within NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
superiority NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antazoline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rapid NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
AF NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
. NN O O

Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
lasting NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
cardio-pulmonary NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
valvular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Long-term NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
exclusion NN O O
criterion NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
fulfill NN O O
selection NN O O
criteria NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenously NN O O
either NN O O
antazoline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
conversion NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

bolus NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
comprised NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Special NN O O
consideration NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
calculated NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
assumptions NN O O
: NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
antazoline NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
drop-out NN O O
rate NN O O
to NN O O
fulfill NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
of NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presumed NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
statistical NN O O
power NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
endpoints NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
exploratory NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIALS NN O O
REGISTRY NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01527279 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22968615)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
cytokines NN O I-INT
in NN O O
prophylactics NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
infectious NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
prevention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
infectious NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
superlimf NN O I-INT
promotes NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
monotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
substantiate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
superlimf NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
oral NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
infectious NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
complications NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22972771)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
self-directed NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
exercise NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
distress NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
how NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
stress NN O O
management NN O O
( NN O O
SM NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
separately NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
SM NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
perceived NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
391 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UCO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SM NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SMEX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Measure NN O O
of NN O O
Current NN O O
Status NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
receiving NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
condition NN O O
would NN O O
report NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
getting NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
met NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
UCO NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interactions NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
SM NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
awareness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
SMEX NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
and NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
EX NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
getting NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
met NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
SMEX NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.020 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Measure NN O O
of NN O O
Current NN O I-OUT
Status NN O I-OUT
total NN O O
score NN O O
( NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
SMEX NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
UCO NN O O
versus NN O O
EX NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interactions NN O O
for NN O O
coping NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p-values NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
including NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
SM NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00740038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22982948)

Take NN O O
a NN O O
walk NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
park NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
cross-over NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
brisk NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
environments NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
park NN O O
and NN O O
urban NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
differences NN O O
exist NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
minute NN O I-INT
brisk NN O I-INT
walk NN O I-INT
taken NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
environments NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
which NN O O
environment NN O O
best NN O O
facilitates NN O O
current NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
guidelines NN O O
: NN O O
park NN O O
or NN O O
urban NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
cross-over NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
self-timed NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minute NN O I-INT
brisk NN O I-INT
walk NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
environments NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
park NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
urban NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
Glasgow NN O O
, NN O O
Scotland NN O O
( NN O O
October NN O O
2009 NN O O
to NN O O
January NN O O
2010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cadence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
activPAL? NN O O
activity NN O O
monitor NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
cadence NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
moderate-to-vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
accumulated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bouts NN O I-OUT
lasting NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
breaks NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
convenience NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
22.9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5.5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-OUT
cadence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
whole NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
park NN O O
: NN O O
119.3 NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
110.9 NN O O
( NN O O
8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
steps/min NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
accumulated NN O I-PAR
more NN O O
moderate-to-vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
bouts NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
park NN O O
walks NN O O
: NN O O
25.5 NN O O
( NN O O
9.6 NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
14.0 NN O O
( NN O O
20.3 NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-timed NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
locations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Participants NN O O
accumulated NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
moderate-to-vigorous NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bouts NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
park NN O O
walks NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
interruptions NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
the NN O O
park NN O O
environment NN O O
better NN O O
facilitated NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
sample NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22983407)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
stepwise NN O I-INT
caries NN O I-PAR
removal NN O O
: NN O O
3-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
deep NN O I-PAR
caries NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
partial NN O I-INT
caries NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stepwise NN O I-INT
excavation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SW NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
pulp NN O O
vitality NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
3-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
permanent NN O I-PAR
molars NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
caries NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
lesion NN O I-PAR
affecting NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1/2 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dentin NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
absence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
percussion NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
absence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
periapical NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Teeth NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
PCR NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
incomplete NN O O
caries NN O O
removal NN O O
and NN O O
filling NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
success NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
pulp NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
determined NN O O
by NN O O
pulp NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
cold NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
periapical NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
Weibull NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
shared NN O O
frailty NN O O
term NN O O
( NN O O
survival NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
299 NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
executed NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
PCR NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
152 NN O O
and NN O O
SW NN O O
, NN O O
147 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
213 NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adjusted NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
91 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
PCR NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
SW NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
re-open NN O O
a NN O O
cavity NN O O
and NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
excavation NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
pulp NN O I-OUT
vitality NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
preserved NN O O
( NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
registration NN O O
NCT00887952 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22985336)

Manuka NN O I-INT
honey-impregnated NN O I-INT
dressings NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
manuka NN O I-INT
honey-impregnated NN O I-INT
dressings NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MHID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NDFU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
Caucasians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
MHID NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
dressings NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
weekly NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
versus NN O O
43 NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0?05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
78?13 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
ulcers NN O O
became NN O O
sterile NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
versus NN O O
35?5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
percentages NN O O
for NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
were NN O O
15?62 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
38?7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
6?25 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
12?9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
12?9 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
healed NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
MHID NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-INT
CD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MHID NN O I-INT
represent NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
NDFU NN O I-PAR
leading NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
disinfection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22987106)

Junctional NN O I-OUT
ectopic NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
congenital NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
surgical NN O O
era NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
junctional NN O I-OUT
ectopic NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
JET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
modern NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
evaluate NN O O
possible NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
JET NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
JET NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
JET NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
after NN O O
congenital NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

JET-related NN O O
mortality NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
rare NN O O
event NN O O
at NN O O
our NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
previous NN O O
reports NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
reviewed NN O O
records NN O O
for NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
arrhythmias NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
tertiary-care NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
matched NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
JET NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
matched-cohort NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
outcomes NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Whenever NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
JET NN O O
case NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
matched NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
controls NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
lesion NN O O
, NN O O
repair NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
identified NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
JET NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
incidence NN O O
= NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
100 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
JET NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
JET NN O I-INT
had NN O O
longer NN O O
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CICU NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
JET NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference 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

JET NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
common NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
than NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

JET NN O O
occurs NN O O
more NN O O
commonly NN O O
in NN O O
smaller NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
runs NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acidosis NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mortality NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
JET NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
historically NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
remains NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22987897)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
group NN O O
comparison NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
'preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young 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
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive/language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young 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
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
group NN O O
comparison NN O O
design NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
sample NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
metropolitan NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Parent NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
behaviour NN O O
management NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
behaviour NN O O
management NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
counselling NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
20-week NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
programme NN O O
including NN O O
skills NN O O
training NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
provides NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
low-functioning NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (22989372)

Airway NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
four NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O I-INT
high-single-dose NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Both NN O O
standard NN O O
and NN O O
low-dose NN O O
allergen NN O O
provocations NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
asthma NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
induced NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
repetitive NN O O
high-dose NN O O
bronchial NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenges NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
skin-prick NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
allergen NN O I-INT
challenges NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
household NN O I-INT
dust NN O I-INT
mites NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exhaled NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
every NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Induced NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenges NN O O
for NN O O
cell NN O O
counts NN O O
, NN O O
ECP NN O O
, NN O O
IL-5 NN O O
, NN O O
INF-? NN O O
, NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
transcription NN O O
factor NN O O
Foxp3 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
increased NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eNO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Th-2 NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Repeated NN O I-OUT
provocation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
feasible NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
nocturnal NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Repeated NN O O
high-dose NN O O
bronchial NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenges NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O O
asthma NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
Th-2-mediated NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
high-dose NN O O
challenge NN O O
model NN O O
is NN O O
suitable NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
attenuated NN O O
form NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
diseased NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
proof-of-concept NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
asthma NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.govNCT00677209 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (22999292)

Memantine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
that NN O O
causes NN O O
significant NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
socialization NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ritualistic NN O O
and NN O O
stereotypical NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
propose NN O O
both NN O O
hyper-and NN O O
hypoglutamatergic NN O O
ideologies NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
memantine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
memantine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
10-wk NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O I-INT
memantine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
starting NN O O
medication NN O O
protocol 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 I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O I-INT
memantine NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eight NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
25 NN O O
side-effects NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
checklist NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
side-effects NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O I-INT
memantine NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Iranian NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
( NN O O
IRCT1138901151556N10 NN O O
; NN O O
www.irct.ir NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23001240)

Iron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Alpha-tocopherol NN O O
, NN O O
Beta-carotene NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Iron NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
micronutrient NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
carcinogenic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
low NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
assessed NN O O
subtype-specific NN O O
relationships NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
Alpha-Tocopherol NN O O
, NN O O
Beta-Carotene NN O O
( NN O O
ATBC NN O O
) NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Prevention NN O O
Study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
iron NN O O
metrics NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
cardia NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GCC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
noncardia NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GNCC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
selected NN O O
341 NN O I-PAR
incident NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
cardia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
172 NN O I-PAR
noncardia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
nonspecified NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
accrued NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
341 NN O I-PAR
individually NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
measured NN O O
prediagnostic NN O O
serum NN O O
iron NN O O
, NN O O
ferritin NN O O
, NN O O
unsaturated NN O O
iron NN O O
binding NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C-reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
iron-binding NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TIBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
transferrin NN O O
saturation NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
metrics NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
exposures NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
food NN O O
frequency NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariable NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
metrics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
GCC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
n NN O O
-shaped NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
TIBC NN O O
( NN O O
global NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GNCC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
global NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
global NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.060 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
, NN O O
transferrin NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TIBC NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
share NN O O
a NN O O
u NN O O
-shaped NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
GNCC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
global NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
exposures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
subsite NN O O
. NN O O

Adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
atrophy NN O O
had NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
observed NN O O
associations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
little NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
GCC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GNCC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
profile NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
deficiency NN O O
. NN O O

IMPACT NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
inverse NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
iron NN O O
metrics NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
are NN O O
driven NN O O
by NN O O
associations NN O O
with NN O O
GNCC NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
elucidation NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23016708)

Improving NN O O
RBC NN O O
K NN O O
transport NN O O
and NN O O
hemoglobin-O2 NN O O
binding NN O O
by NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
A NN O O
novel NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
reversion NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
and NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CHD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
world NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
reversion NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
or NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
ECG NN O O
remains NN O O
an NN O O
unrealistic NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
microvascular NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
or NN O O
impaired NN O O
oxygen NN O O
delivery NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
critical NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
CHD NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
research NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
innovation NN O O
addressing NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
( NN O O
RBC NN O O
) NN O O
H/K NN O O
and NN O O
O2/CO2 NN O O
exchanges NN O O
in NN O O
CHD NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Amiloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Optimal NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
OMT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n=35 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
OMT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=35 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ST-T NN O I-PAR
alteration NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
defective NN O I-PAR
RBC-K NN O I-PAR
transport NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
serial NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ion NN O I-PAR
Transport NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ECGs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-invasive NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
waveform NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
hemodynamic NN O I-PAR
recordings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
SAS NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Amiloride NN O O
rapidly NN O O
improved NN O O
RBC-K NN O O
( NN O O
93.5 NN O O
?4 NN O O
vs NN O O
84.5 NN O O
?4 NN O O
mmol/lc NN O O
, NN O O
p= NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
angina NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
?0.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
CI:1.72 NN O O
to NN O O
1.45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CCS NN O O
Class NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
?0.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.1 NN O O
?0.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
OMT NN O O
alone NN O O
CCS NN O O
Class NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
=0.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reversion NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
6-months NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
OMT NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
6.31 NN O O
, NN O O
Pearson NN O O
x2 NN O O
34.6 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
at NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
OMT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6-months NN O O
of NN O O
amiloride NN O O
, NN O O
ECG NN O O
became NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
? NN O O
uncalculated-time NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
? NN O O
, NN O O
Pearson NN O O
x2 NN O O
42.4 NN O O
at NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
RR2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
3.16 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
unchanged NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
OMT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1-year NN O O
, NN O O
seven NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
amiloride NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
exhibited NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
electrical NN O O
regeneration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
IN NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
therapeutical NN O O
innovation NN O O
of NN O O
amiloride NN O O
improves NN O O
RBC NN O O
H/K NN O O
and NN O O
O2/CO2 NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reverses NN O O
angina NN O O
, NN O O
ST-T NN O O
alterations NN O O
while NN O O
inducing NN O O
electrical NN O O
regeneration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
optimal NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
article NN O O
has NN O O
short NN O O
discussion NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
relevant NN O O
patents NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
topic NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23017624)

A NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Exercise NN O O
benefits NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O O
approaches NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
remain NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
exploratory NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
conduct NN O O
an NN O O
adequately NN O O
powered NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
facilely NN O O
integrated NN O O
into NN O O
established NN O O
delivery NN O O
and NN O O
reimbursement NN O O
structures NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
eight-week NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
incremental NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
exercising NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
visit NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
exercised NN O O
four NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
; NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
step-count NN O O
goals NN O O
were NN O O
advanced NN O O
during NN O O
bimonthly NN O O
telephone NN O O
calls 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
mobility NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Ambulatory NN O I-OUT
Post NN O I-OUT
Acute NN O I-OUT
Care NN O I-OUT
Basic NN O I-OUT
Mobility NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Ambulatory NN O O
Post NN O O
Acute NN O O
Care NN O O
Daily NN O O
Activities NN O O
Short NN O O
Form NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Functional NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Therapy-General NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Functional NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Therapy-Fatigue NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
dropped NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
five NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23019005)

Sensitivity NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
musical NN O I-PAR
structure NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evidence NN O O
from NN O O
brain-damaged NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
regions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
lobes NN O O
, NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
lower-level NN O O
auditory NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
process NN O O
the NN O O
pitch NN O O
and NN O O
rhythmic NN O O
structure NN O O
in NN O O
music NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
neuroimaging NN O O
studies NN O O
targeting NN O O
the NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O O
structure NN O O
have NN O O
primarily NN O O
implicated NN O O
regions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inferior NN O O
frontal NN O O
cortices NN O O
. NN O O

Combining NN O O
individual-subject NN O I-INT
fMRI NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
scrambling NN O O
method NN O O
that NN O O
manipulated NN O O
musical NN O O
structure NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
regions NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
musical NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
bilaterally NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
lobes NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
reconciling NN O O
the NN O O
neuroimaging NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
further NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
regions NN O O
are NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
scrambling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
pitch NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rhythmic NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
are NN O O
insensitive NN O O
to NN O O
high-level NN O I-OUT
linguistic NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
with NN O O
representations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
musical NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
are NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
high-level NN O O
linguistic NN O O
representations NN O O
and NN O O
lower-level NN O O
acoustic NN O O
representations NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
regions NN O O
provide NN O O
targets NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
investigating NN O O
possible NN O O
neural NN O O
specialization NN O O
for NN O O
music NN O O
or NN O O
its NN O O
associated NN O O
mental NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23020253)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
saxagliptin NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
sub-maximal NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
uptitration NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
PROMPT NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
PROMPT NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
intensification NN O O
strategies NN O O
: NN O O
adding NN O O
saxagliptin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
uptitrating NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T2D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
glycaemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sub-maximal NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
24-week NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
metformin-tolerant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2D NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
fixed-dose NN O I-INT
metformin NN O I-INT
1500 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
add-on NN O I-INT
saxagliptin NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SAXA-MET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
two-step NN O I-INT
metformin NN O I-INT
uptitration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MET-UP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2500 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CLINICAL NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT01006590 NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
: NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glycated NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
: NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Exploratory NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O O
comprised NN O O
three NN O O
patient-related NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
validated NN O O
5-dimension NN O O
Digestive NN O O
Health NN O O
Status NN O O
Index NN O O
( NN O O
DHSI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
286 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
: NN O O
147 NN O O
; NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
: NN O O
139 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
7.71 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.85 NN O O
; NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
7.80 NN O O
( NN O O
0.82 NN O O
; NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adjusted NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Week NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
-0.47 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
-0.38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
-0.10 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-0.26 NN O O
, NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.260 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
achieving NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
43.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
34.8 NN O O
, NN O O
49.6 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
35.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29.0 NN O O
, NN O O
43.8 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
DHSI NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea-predominant NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+0.8 NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
-2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
4.0 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
+7.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
4.6 NN O O
, NN O O
11.2 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
dysmotility NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
-2.0 NN O O
, NN O O
1.0 NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
+1.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
3.4 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
and NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
: NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
MET-UP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
metformin-tolerant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2D NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
sub-maximal NN O I-PAR
metformin NN O I-PAR
monotherapy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
saxagliptin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
HbA NN O O
( NN O O
1c NN O O
) NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SAXA-MET NN O O
group NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
saxagliptin NN O O
add-on NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
metformin NN O O
uptitration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23021898)

Insular NN O O
and NN O O
anterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
circuits NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SZ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
resting NN O O
state NN O O
functional NN O O
connectivity NN O O
( NN O O
rsFC NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
dorsal NN O O
anterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
( NN O O
dACC NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
striatum NN O O
is NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
nicotine NN O O
addiction NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
insula NN O O
is NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
nicotine NN O O
dependence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
SZ NN O O
smokers NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
greater NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
insular NN O O
and NN O O
dACC NN O O
circuits NN O O
than NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
independent NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
inherent NN O O
disease-related NN O O
weakening NN O O
of NN O O
smoking-related NN O O
circuits NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O O
challenge NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
decreased NN O O
rsFC NN O O
in NN O O
identified NN O O
circuits NN O O
reflects NN O O
addiction NN O O
trait NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
NC NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SZ NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
nicotine NN O I-PAR
addiction NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
resting NN O I-INT
state NN O I-INT
fMRI NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
scanned NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
anatomically NN O O
defined NN O O
anterior NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
insula NN O O
and NN O O
dACC NN O O
as NN O O
regions NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
( NN O O
ROI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whole NN O O
brain NN O O
rsFC NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
each NN O O
ROI NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
seed NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
negative NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rsFC NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
insula NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
dACC NN O O
and NN O O
striatum NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SZ NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
additive NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
circuit NN O O
strength NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
dACC NN O O
and NN O O
insula NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
NC NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
independent NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O I-OUT
challenge NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O I-OUT
rsFC NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
insula-dACC-striatal NN O I-OUT
circuits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduced NN O O
rsFC NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
insula NN O O
, NN O O
dACC NN O O
and NN O O
striatum NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
nicotine NN O O
addiction NN O O
severity NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
non-psychiatrically NN O O
ill NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
SZ NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

Decreased NN O O
insula-dACC NN O O
rsFC NN O O
may NN O O
index NN O O
overlapping NN O O
circuitry NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
smoking NN O O
and NN O O
SZ NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23027887)

Multiple NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
produce NN O O
sustained NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
radiographic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety 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
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
5-year NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
REFLEX NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
5-year NN O O
observational NN O O
posthoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
REFLEX NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
assessed NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
radiographic NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TNF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
REFLEX NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
originally NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
PBO-randomized NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RTX NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTX-randomized NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PBO-randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
rescued NN O O
with NN O O
RTX NN O O
as NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
initial NN O O
RTX NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
could NN O O
receive NN O O
further NN O O
RTX NN O I-INT
courses NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
PBO-randomized NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
re-baselined NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
RTX NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
with NN O O
RTX-randomized NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
outcomes NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
course NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
RTX NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Radiographic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
randomization NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
PBO-randomized NN O O
and NN O O
RTX-randomized NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
480 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
RTX NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
American NN O I-OUT
College NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Rheumatology NN O I-OUT
20/50/70 NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
62.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
30.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
at NN O O
course NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
400 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
70.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
41.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
22.0 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
course NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
91 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
European NN O I-OUT
League NN O I-OUT
Against NN O I-OUT
Rheumatism NN O I-OUT
good/moderate NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
77.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84.4 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
courses NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
390 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
generally NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PJD NN O O
; NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
Total NN O O
Sharp NN O O
Score NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-INT
PBO-randomized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
79 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
RTX-randomized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
105 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PJD NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
PBO-randomized NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
RTX-randomized NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5.51 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.21 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
RTX NN O I-INT
re-treatment NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
years NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
maintained NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
continued NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
PJD NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
delay NN O O
in NN O O
initiating NN O I-INT
RTX NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
result NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
PJD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23039709)

Implementing NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O I-INT
neonatal NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
protocol-helping NN O I-INT
babies NN O I-PAR
breathe NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
HBB NN O O
) NN O O
- NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
level NN O O
hospital NN O O
in NN O O
Nepal NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
perinatal NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Reducing NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
an NN O O
emerging NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
decade NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
effective NN O O
delivery NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
birth NN O O
asphyxia NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
simplified NN O I-INT
neonatal NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
by NN O O
Helping NN O O
Babies NN O O
Breathe NN O O
( NN O O
HBB NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Nepal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Perinatal NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
skilled NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
attendants NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intrapartum-related NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
maternity NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Nepal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort-study NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
a NN O O
six-month NN O O
baseline NN O O
a NN O O
six NN O O
month NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
three-month NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
quality NN O O
improvement NN O O
process NN O O
cycle NN O O
will NN O O
introduce NN O O
the NN O O
neonatal NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
surveillance NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
CCD NN O I-INT
cameras NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
oximeters NN O I-INT
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
set NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
workers NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
generate NN O O
evidence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
gap NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
simplified NN O O
neonatal NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
protocol NN O O
on NN O O
intrapartum NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
will NN O O
generate NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
interest NN O O
and NN O O
inform NN O O
policymaking NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
delivery NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
income NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN97846009 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23045243)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
coexisting NN O O
patellofemoral NN O O
disease NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
impairments NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
limitations NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
coexisting NN O O
patellofemoral NN O O
( NN O O
PF NN O O
) NN O O
disease NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
impairments NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
limitations NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tibiofemoral NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Radiographic NN O I-INT
views NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PF NN O I-INT
compartments NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
strength NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
range NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
167 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
knee-specific NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Daily NN O I-OUT
Living NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADLS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Moderate/severe NN O O
PFOA NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
1.4 NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
Nm/body NN O O
weight NN O O
[ NN O O
BW NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
PFOA NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
1.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
Nm/BW NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderate/severe NN O O
PFOA NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
120.8? NN O O
? NN O O
14.4? NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O O
PFOA NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
133.5? NN O O
? NN O O
10.7? NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
PFOA NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
125.8? NN O O
? NN O O
13.0? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moderate/severe NN O O
PFOA NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
PFOA NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
0.2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
0.1-0.7 NN O O
and NN O O
OR NN O O
0.2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.1-0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
WOMAC NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
moderate/severe NN O O
PFOA NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
difficulty NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
going NN O I-OUT
downstairs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
2.9 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.0-8.1 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ADLS NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
knees NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
coexisting NN O O
PF NN O O
disease NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
features NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
TFOA NN O O
in NN O O
isolation NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O O
PF NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
targeting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PF NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
mitigate NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
impairments NN O O
and NN O O
functional NN O O
problems NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23045537)

Patient NN O I-INT
navigation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
cancer NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
resolution NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
individually NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
underserved NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Barriers NN O O
to NN O O
timely NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
tests NN O O
add NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O O
health NN O O
disparities NN O O
among NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
uninsured NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
lay NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
navigators NN O I-INT
on NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
resolution NN O O
and NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
testing NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medically NN O I-PAR
underserved NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Denver NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
safety-net NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
serving NN O I-PAR
Denver NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-PAR
Navigation NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
993 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
navigation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
no-navigation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
arms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
628 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
screens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
examinations NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
304 NN O I-PAR
BIRADS NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
BIRADS NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
BIRADS NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
whereas NN O I-PAR
235 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
screens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
navigated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
stratified NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-INT
navigation NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
presenting NN O O
with NN O O
mammographic NN O O
BIRADS NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
BIRADS NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
BIRADS NN O O
4/5 NN O O
or NN O O
abnormal NN O O
breast NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

Navigation NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0017 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participant NN O I-PAR
demographics NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
annual NN O I-PAR
household NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
$ NN O I-PAR
10,000 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
uninsured NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Patient NN O I-INT
navigation NN O I-INT
positively NN O O
impacts NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
screening NN O O
tests NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
, NN O O
colorectal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancers NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
medically NN O I-PAR
underserved NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IMPACT NN O O
By NN O O
shortening NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
resolution NN O O
patient NN O O
navigation NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
disparities NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
cancer NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23046525)

Dalteparin NN O I-INT
low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LMWH NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Low NN O O
molecular NN O O
weight NN O O
heparin NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
( NN O O
VTE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
antineoplastic NN O O
effects NN O O
by NN O O
interfering NN O O
with NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
tumor NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
metastasis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multicentre NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
antineoplastic NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
OC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly-diagnosed NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
150 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
) NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
CT NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
for NN O O
CA125 NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
substudy NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
coagulation NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
angiogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
CA125 NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
early NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
poor NN O O
recruitment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
CA125 NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
cycle NN O O
3 NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
100 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
150 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
VTE NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
VTE NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
days NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
on NN O O
dalteparin NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombin-antithrombin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Dalteparin NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
newly-diagnosed NN O I-PAR
epithelial NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
dose-response NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
precluded NN O O
any NN O O
inference NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
antineoplastic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dalteparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23052635)

Computer-navigated NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
literature NN O O
lacks NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
confirm NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
improved NN O O
radiographic NN O O
alignment NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
computer-navigated NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
patients? NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
knee NN O O
prostheses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O I-INT
computer-navigated NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-INT
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
alignment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survivorship NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
520 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
computer-navigated NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
assignment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
to NN O O
navigation NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
randomly NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O I-PAR
452 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
904 NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
136 NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
forty-nine NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
10.8 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
ten NN O O
to NN O O
twelve NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
radiographically NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Knee NN O I-OUT
Society NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Western NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
McMaster NN O I-OUT
Universities NN O I-OUT
Osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
annually NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WOMAC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Alignment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
survivorship NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
Kaplan-Meier NN O I-OUT
survivorship NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
revision NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
at NN O O
10.8 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
98.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.96 NN O O
to NN O O
1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
computernavigated NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
99.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.96 NN O O
to NN O O
1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
function NN O O
or NN O O
alignment NN O O
and NN O O
survivorship NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
knees NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
computer-navigated NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
those NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
arthroplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23061531)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prethrombolytic NN O I-INT
cyclosporine-A NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
ST-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
therapies NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
STEMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cyclosporine-A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
opening NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
permeability NN O O
transition NN O O
pore NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
myocardial NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
STEMI NN O O
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TLT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
candidate NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
TLT NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
TLT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TLT-related NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
demographics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
23.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
38.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.83 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
LVEF NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
34.7 NN O O
? NN O O
9.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
33.5 NN O O
? NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.50 NN O O
] NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
37.7 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.1 NN O O
? NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.43 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.74 NN O O
] NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
9 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
19.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.99 NN O O
] NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
CsA NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prethrombolytic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
CsA NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
any NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23065117)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
melodic NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
eliciting NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
melodic NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MBCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
eliciting NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
made NN O O
significant NN O O
progress NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MBCT NN O O
group NN O O
progressed NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
through NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
group NN O O
progressed NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
correct NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
heard NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
environment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
MBCT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MBCT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
imitative NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MBCT NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
form NN O O
of 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
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23065684)

Potential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ROCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Prostate NN O O
, NN O O
Lung NN O O
, NN O O
Colorectal NN O O
and NN O O
Ovarian NN O O
( NN O O
PLCO NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colorectal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ovarian NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PLCO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
no NN O O
mortality NN O O
benefit NN O O
for NN O O
annual NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CA-125 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transvaginal NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TVU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Currently NN O O
ongoing NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Ovarian NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Screening NN O O
( NN O O
UKCTOCS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
utilizes NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ROCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
tool NN O O
that NN O O
considers NN O O
current NN O O
and NN O O
past NN O O
CA125 NN O O
values NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
PLCO NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
cutoff NN O O
for NN O O
CA125 NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
current NN O O
levels NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
having NN O O
had NN O O
used NN O O
ROCA NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
PLCO NN O I-INT
could NN O O
have NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
optimal NN O O
assumptions NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
applying NN O O
ROCA NN O O
to NN O O
PLCO NN O O
CA125 NN O O
screening NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
best-case NN O O
scenario NN O O
assumed NN O O
that NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
screen NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
earlier NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ROCA NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PLCO NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
avoided NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
a NN O O
stage-shift NN O O
scenario NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
survival NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
Stage NN O O
I/II NN O O
screen-detected NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Updated NN O O
PLCO NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
132 NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
deaths NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
1.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-three NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
fatal NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
detected NN O O
earlier NN O O
with NN O O
ROCA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
minimum NN O O
) NN O O
advance NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
344 NN O O
( NN O O
147 NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Best-case NN O O
and NN O O
stage-shift NN O O
scenarios NN O O
gave NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
prevented NN O O
with NN O O
ROCA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
RRs NN O O
of NN O O
0.90 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.69-1.17 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.95 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.74-1.23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Having NN O O
utilized NN O O
ROCA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
PLCO NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
ROCA NN O I-INT
could NN O O
still NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
screening NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
UKCTOCS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23073171)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
linoleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
post-heparin NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
lipase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
butyrylcholinesterase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
linoleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training-induced NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
post-heparin NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
lipase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PH-LPL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
butyrylcholinesterase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BChE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
along NN O O
with NN O O
leptin NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
divided NN O O
into NN O O
CLA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
underwent NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
3g NN O I-INT
CLA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3g NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30-40 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
VO2 NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
workload NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BChE NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
PH-LPL NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
50 NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
iv NN O O
heparin NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
BChE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
leptin 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
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
levels 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

Exercise NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
CLA NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PH-LPL NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
displaying NN O O
increased NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
mobilization NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
though NN O O
CLA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
can NN O O
affect NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
CLA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
exercise NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prolonged NN O O
supplementation NN O O
regime NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
together NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
small NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
display NN O O
that NN O O
BChE NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
synthetic NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
, NN O O
fat NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
obesity NN O O
marker NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
long NN O O
overlooked NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23075031)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vigorous NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exercise NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
sleep NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
claim NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
belief NN O O
that NN O O
sleep NN O O
need NN O O
- NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
sleep NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
depth NN O O
- NN O O
is NN O O
increased NN O O
post-exercise NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
tissue NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O O
studies NN O O
investigating NN O O
exercise-sleep NN O O
responses NN O O
have NN O O
produced NN O O
mixed NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
disparity NN O O
in NN O O
results NN O O
between NN O O
studies NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and/or NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
emphasising NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
carefully NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
exercise NN O O
mode NN O O
, NN O O
timing NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
Vdot NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
O NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
max NN O I-PAR
35.4 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
8.8 NN O I-PAR
ml? NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
no-exercise NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bout NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
Vdot NN O O
] NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
max NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
no-exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
nights NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
polysomnography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-INT
spent NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
+ NN O O
stage NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
both NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
Vdot NN O O
] NN O O
O NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
max NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
no-exercise NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.067 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
sleep NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
findings NN O O
emerged NN O O
: NN O O
vigorous NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
level NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23076431)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
synthase NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cutaneous NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
following NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
stimulation NN O O
by NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
roles NN O O
of NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
axon NN O O
reflex NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
NO NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
N NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-nitro-l-arginine NN O I-INT
methyl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L-NAME NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
NO NN O I-INT
synthase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
site NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
via NN O O
intradermal NN O O
microdialysis NN O O
( NN O O
protocol NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
n=7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
axon NN O O
reflex NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O O
sensory NN O O
neurones NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
at NN O O
sites NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
'eutectic NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anaesthetics NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
site NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
protocol NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
recording NN O O
, NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
PC4 NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
site NN O O
in NN O O
proximity NN O O
to NN O O
PC4 NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
scanning NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Skin NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SkBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cutaneous NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
conductance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CVC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
SkBF NN O O
to NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
sites NN O O
administered NN O O
L-NAME NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
CVC NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
stimulation NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
administered NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CVC NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
stimulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
treated NN O O
sites NN O O
with NN O O
EMLA NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
sites 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
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
stimulation NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
axon NN O O
reflex NN O O
as NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Rather NN O O
, NN O O
NO NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23084254)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
six-week NN O O
supervised NN O O
multimodal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cancer-related NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
Cancer NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
physical NN O O
inactivity NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O O
functional NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
RCT NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
have NN O O
included NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
six-week NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
multimodal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adjunct NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
CRF NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
'The NN O O
Body NN O O
& NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Trial NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

213 NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Functional NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Cancer NN O I-OUT
Therapy-Anaemia NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FACT-An- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FACT-G NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
FACT-An NN O I-OUT
Anemia NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERVENTION NN O O
Supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
comprising NN O I-INT
high-intensity NN O I-INT
cardiovascular NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
heavy NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relaxation- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
awareness NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
massage NN O I-INT
, NN O O
9 NN O O
h NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
CRF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3.04 NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.17-0.72 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
FACT-An NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
5.40 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
FACT-An NN O I-OUT
Toi NN O I-OUT
score NN O O
by NN O O
5.22 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Anaemia-ANS NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
3.76 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
General NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
FACT-G NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
wellbeing NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.13 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Emotional NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.87 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.83 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Functional NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.26 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
six-week NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
multimodal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
can NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
CRF NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23092665)

Is NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
intravenous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
perioperative NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Mortality NN O O
from NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
( NN O O
GI NN O O
) NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
quite NN O O
high NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
indispensable NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
postoperative NN O O
GI NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

PPIs NN O I-INT
are NN O O
usually NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
intravenous NN O O
PPI NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
than NN O O
oral-only NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
PPIs NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
upper NN O O
GI NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
evaluations NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
GI NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
gastritis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hiatal NN O I-OUT
hernia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
incidences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stays NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PPI NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
additional NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
PPIs NN O O
over NN O O
oral NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
PPIs NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
were NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
economical NN O O
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
GI NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Intravenous NN O O
PPIs NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
in NN O O
selected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23095369)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
to NN O O
support NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
WHO NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
anovulation NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
evidences NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH/human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
LH NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
and NN O O
highly NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
menopausal NN O I-INT
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
World NN O O
Helath NN O O
Organization NN O O
( NN O O
WHO NN O O
) NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
anovulation NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hypogonadotropic NN O O
hypogonadism NN O O
( NN O O
HH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
reduced NN O O
hypothalamic/pituitary NN O O
activity NN O O
which NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
abnormally NN O O
low NN O O
serum NN O O
FSH NN O O
and NN O O
LH NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
negligible NN O O
estrogen NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FSH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
r-hFSH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
LH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
r-hLH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
with NN O O
highly NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
menopausal NN O I-INT
gonadotropin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hMG-HP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
urinary NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
, NN O O
containing NN O O
LH-like NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
two-arm NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
HH NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
25-36 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
hMG-HP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-PAR
FSH NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
IU NN O I-PAR
LH-like NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
150IU NN O I-INT
r-hFSH/75IU NN O I-INT
rhLH NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Ovulation NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
hCG NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
hMG-HP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
r-hFSH/r-hLH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
follicle NN O I-OUT
?17 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
pre-ovulatory NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?400 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
and NN O O
mid-luteal NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?25 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
levels/follicle NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
mid-cycle NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicles NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
mid-cycle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
r-hFSH/r-hLH NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
vs NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
hMG-HP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PR NN O O
in NN O O
r-hFSH/r-hLH NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
55.6 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
23.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O I-INT
hMG-HP NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
achievement NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
PR NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LH NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
hCG NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
supporting NN O I-INT
FSH-induced NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HH NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23101741)

Early NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
normalized NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
A NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O O
Start NN O O
Denver NN O O
Model NN O O
( NN O O
ESDM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
IQ NN O O
, NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adaptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
report NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measurement NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
18- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
30-month-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ESDM NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
referral NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
age NN O O
48 NN O O
to NN O O
77 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
event-related NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spectral NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
objects NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Age-matched NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
ESDM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
exhibited NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ESDM NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
typical NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
Nc NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O O
faces NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
pattern NN O O
( NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
event-related NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O O
objects NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Greater NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
viewing NN O O
faces NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23101743)

Research NN O I-PAR
Units NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
Psychopharmacology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RUPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
network NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
: NN O O
one-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
three-site NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
24-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O O
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MED NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
COMB NN O O
) NN O O
of 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
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
COMB NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
shown NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
irritability NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.48 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hyperactivity/noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
medication NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
One NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
's NN O O
termination NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
mailed NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
packet NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
return-addressed NN O I-INT
envelope NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
alerted NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Failure NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
packets NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
elicited NN O O
another NN O O
contact NN O O
and NN O O
offers NN O O
to NN O O
resend NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty-seven NN O O
of NN O O
124 NN O O
families NN O O
( NN O O
70.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
attenuated NN O O
from NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
noncompliance NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
to NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
irritability NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 NN O O
to NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
follow-up NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
noncompliance NN O O
difference NN O O
also NN O O
was NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
87 NN O O
families NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-seven NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MED NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
taking NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
needed NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustments NN O O
or NN O O
additional NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
group NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
COMB NN O O
families NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
MED NN O O
families NN O O
reported NN O O
seeking NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
predicted NN O O
noncompliance NN O O
improvement NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
COMB NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
noncompliance NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
especially NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity/noncompliance NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
MED NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
treatment NN O O
experience/familiarity NN O O
greatly NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
reported NN O O
seeking NN O O
it NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
received NN O O
it NN O O
tended NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
seek NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
COMB NN O O
over NN O O
MED NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
attenuated NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23102530)

End-expiratory NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
recovers NN O O
more NN O O
slowly NN O O
after NN O O
closed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-OUT
suctioning NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O I-INT
suctioning NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Endotracheal NN O O
suctioning NN O O
causes NN O O
significant NN O O
lung NN O O
derecruitment NN O O
. NN O O

Closed NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
minimizes NN O O
lung NN O O
volume NN O O
loss NN O O
during NN O O
suction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
volumes NN O O
are NN O O
presumed NN O O
to NN O O
recover NN O O
more NN O O
quickly NN O O
postsuctioning NN O O
. NN O O

Conflicting NN O O
evidence NN O O
exists NN O O
regarding NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
loss NN O O
during NN O O
suctioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
end-expiratory NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EELV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postsuction NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
examining NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
postcardiac NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

Lung NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
suction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
end-expiratory NN O O
lung NN O O
impedance NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
postsuctioning NN O O
using NN O O
electrical NN O O
impedance NN O O
tomography NN O O
. NN O O

Oximetry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
alveoli/fraction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inspired NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
impedance NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
suctioning NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
for NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
than NN O O
for NN O O
OS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-905 NN O O
impedance NN O O
units 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
-1234 NN O O
to NN O O
-587 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
points NN O O
postsuctioning NN O O
, NN O O
EELV NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O O
more NN O O
slowly NN O O
after NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
OS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
respiratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Closed NN O I-INT
suctioning NN O I-INT
minimized NN O O
lung NN O O
volume NN O O
loss NN O O
during NN O O
suctioning NN O O
but NN O O
, NN O O
counterintuitively NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
slower NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
EELV NN O O
postsuction NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
OS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
assumed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
protective NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
volumes NN O O
postsuctioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Consideration NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
restoring NN O O
EELV NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
suction NN O O
method NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
recruitment NN O O
maneuver NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23102821)

Dysfunctional NN O O
attitudes NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
moderator NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Important NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
exist NN O O
within NN O O
this NN O O
particularly NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
population NN O O
that NN O O
act NN O O
as NN O O
moderators NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
dysfunctional NN O O
attitudes NN O O
( NN O O
DA NN O O
) NN O O
moderated NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Research NN O O
Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
Value NN O O
of NN O O
Augmenting NN O O
Medication NN O O
with NN O O
Psychotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
REVAMP NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
study NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
multi-site NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
augmentation NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
808 NN O I-PAR
chronically NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
REVAMP NN O O
comprised NN O O
two NN O O
phases NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
non-remitters NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
491 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULT NN O O
In NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
DA NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
DA NN O O
scores NN O O
was NN O O
steeper NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
leveled NN O O
off NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
DA NN O O
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
only NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
only NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
DA NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
DA NN O O
scores NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
DA NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
complex NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
greater NN O O
DA NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
steeper NN O O
reduction NN O O
and/or NN O O
better NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23104718)

ARIX NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
v NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
xerostomia NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Radiation NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
cause NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
xerostomia NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
impairs NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
reported NN O O
here NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
in NN O O
alleviating NN O O
xerostomia NN O O
symptoms NN O O
especially NN O O
dry NN O O
mouth NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
145 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
xerostomia NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
employed NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
participants NN O O
receiving NN O O
two NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
standardised NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patient-reported NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PROs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
weeks NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
saliva NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Acupuncture NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
produced NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.01 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
sticky NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.67 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
needing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sip NN O I-OUT
fluids NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
swallow NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
2.08 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
waking NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
night NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
drink NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
1.71 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
stimulated NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
unstimulated NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Eight NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
weekly NN O O
group NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
oral NN O O
care NN O O
education NN O O
provide NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
xerostomia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23104956)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
unfractionated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
OPG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sRANKL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
marker NN O O
, NN O O
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vWF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
is NN O O
physically NN O O
connected NN O O
with NN O O
osteoprotegerin NN O O
( NN O O
OPG NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Weibel-Palade NN O O
bodies 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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
unfractionated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMWH NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
used NN O O
as NN O O
anticoagulants NN O O
during NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
relationships NN O O
of NN O O
OPG NN O O
, NN O O
soluble NN O O
receptor NN O O
activator NN O O
of NN O O
nuclear NN O O
factor NN O O
?B NN O O
Ligand NN O O
( NN O O
sRANKL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vWF NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
prospectively NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
crossing NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
OPG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
RANKL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vWF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
T0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
T10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
T180 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HD NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
sRANKL NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
under NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O I-OUT
over-HD NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
behave NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
under NN O O
enoxaparin NN O O
and NN O O
UFH NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
OPG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
expressly NN O O
changed NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
[ NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
31.13 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
UFH NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
= NN O O
8.26 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.016 NN O O
) NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
increment NN O O
at NN O O
T10 NN O O
and NN O O
T180 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
heparins NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
negative NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
OPG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
-.51 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.025 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
stable NN O O
during NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
constant NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
increments NN O O
were NN O O
noticed NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O O

After NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
HD NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
under NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
OPG NN O O
and NN O O
vWF NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
noticed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
, NN O O
R NN O O
= NN O O
.45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Impact NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
endothelial NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
on NN O O
OPG/RANK/RANKL NN O O
axis NN O O
reinforces NN O O
the NN O O
presumption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
linkage NN O O
between NN O O
bone NN O O
mineralization NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
end-stage NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23107353)

Acceleration NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
profile NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
warming NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Subcutaneously NN O O
injected NN O O
rapid-acting NN O O
insulin NN O O
analogs NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
replicate NN O O
physiologic NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O O
action NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
postprandial NN O O
glucose NN O O
excursions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
InsuPatch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
site NN O O
warming NN O O
device NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
accelerate NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T1D NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IP NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
0.2 NN O O
unit/kg NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aspart NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
euglycemic NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESEARCH NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Each NN O O
subject NN O O
underwent NN O O
two NN O I-INT
euglycemic NN O I-INT
clamp NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
occasions NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
with NN O O
IP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
IP NN O I-INT
activation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
bolus NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
IP NN O O
activation NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
without NN O O
IP NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GIRmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
50 NN O O
% NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
GIRmax NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
35 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
min NN O O
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
125 NN O O
? NN O O
8 NN O O
min NN O O
vs. NN O O
90 NN O O
? NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

vs. NN O O
40 NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GIR NN O O
0-90 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
glucodynamic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IP NN O O
activation NN O O
also NN O O
accelerated NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
bolus 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
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O I-INT
show NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
site NN O O
warming NN O O
with NN O O
IP NN O O
activation NN O O
accelerates NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aspart NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
current NN O O
open-loop NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
closed-loop NN O O
insulin NN O O
delivery NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T1D NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23108780)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
strontium NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
apatite NN O I-OUT
crystals NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
paired NN O O
biopsy NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporotic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
In NN O O
paired NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
osteoporotic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
strontium NN O I-INT
ranelate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
apatite NN O O
crystals NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
strontium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
substitutions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
by NN O O
strontium NN O O
ions NN O O
was NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
potential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
strontium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Sr NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
apatite NN O O
crystals NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
paired NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
osteoporotic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
strontium NN O I-INT
ranelate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SrRan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
crystallinity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apparent NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
width/thickness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crystals NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interplanar NN O I-OUT
distances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lattice NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
X-ray NN O O
diffraction NN O O
and NN O O
selected NN O O
area NN O O
electron NN O O
diffraction NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
reflecting NN O O
crystal NN O O
and NN O O
unit NN O O
cell NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
influenced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Sr NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
SrRan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
after NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
substitutions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Sr NN O I-OUT
ions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
apatite NN O I-OUT
crystals NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
after NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
SrRan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23111617)

Social NN O O
robots NN O O
as NN O O
embedded NN O O
reinforcers NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
behaviors NN O O
of NN O O
4- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
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
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
three NN O O
tradic NN O O
interactions NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
adult NN O I-INT
confederate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
partner NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
where NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
partner NN O O
varied NN O O
randomly NN O O
among NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
adult NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
touchscreen NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
dinosaur NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
spoke NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
directed NN O O
more NN O O
speech NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
confederate NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
partner NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
robot NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
or NN O O
computer NN O O
game NN O O
interaction NN O O
partner NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
spoke NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
robot NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adult NN O O
interaction NN O O
partner NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
human-robot NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
social NN O O
robots NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
into NN O O
useful NN O O
tools NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
communication NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
by NN O O
embedding NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
into NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
reinforcers NN O O
and NN O O
motivators NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23113962)

Assessing NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
slice NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
on NN O O
unidimensional NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bidimensional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volumetric NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
solid NN O O
tumours NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
unidimensional NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bidimensional NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volumetric NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
determined NN O O
from NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
images NN O O
reconstructed NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
and NN O O
1.25 NN O O
mm NN O O
slice NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
reconstructed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
slice NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
image NN O I-INT
acquisition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Lesions NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
semi-automatically NN O I-INT
segmented NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
image NN O I-INT
series NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
radiologist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VOL NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
final NN O I-INT
segmentation NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Average NN O O
measurement NN O O
differences NN O O
across NN O O
different NN O O
slice NN O O
intervals NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed-effects NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lesion NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
6.1 NN O O
to NN O O
80.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
18.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
largest NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
1.25 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
1D NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
13.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
2D NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
-5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
VOL NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
1.25 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
within NN O O
?3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
?6 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O I-OUT
VOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
average NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
slice NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
smaller NN O O
lesions NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
larger NN O O
lesions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Different NN O O
slice NN O O
intervals NN O O
may NN O O
give NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
1D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VOL NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
prudent NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
slice NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
consecutive NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23114568)

Linguistic NN O I-OUT
alignment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
have NN O O
difficulties NN O O
with NN O O
social NN O O
interactions NN O O
and NN O O
conversations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
if NN O O
these NN O O
difficulties NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
deficit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
linguistically NN O O
converge NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
interlocutor NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
posited NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
successful NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
that NN O O
end NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
completed NN O O
two NN O I-INT
cooperative NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
confederate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
allowed NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
linguistic NN O I-OUT
alignment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
confederate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
lexical NN O I-OUT
choice NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
syntactic NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spatial NN O I-OUT
frame NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reference NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
matched NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
alignment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
confederate NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
linguistic NN O I-OUT
alignment NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
intact NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
engaged NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
structured NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
goal-directed NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
interactions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23118244)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insomnia NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Sleep NN O I-OUT
difficulties NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
common NN O O
reasons NN O O
why NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
seek NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
intervention 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 I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
determined NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
pamphlet NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
parents NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
insomnia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
actigraphy NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
wore NN O O
an NN O O
actigraphy NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
to NN O O
record NN O O
baseline NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variable NN O O
being NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Actigraphy NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
time NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
randomization NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
asked NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
questions NN O O
to NN O O
gather NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
pamphlet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
usefulness NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
statistically NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
socioeconomic NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Habits NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
actigraphy NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
some NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
large NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parents NN O O
commented NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pamphlet NN O I-INT
contained NN O O
good NN O O
information NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
more NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
specific NN O O
examples NN O O
of NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
put NN O O
it NN O O
into NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
sleep NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
pamphlet NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23118720)

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
marine NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O I-INT
as NN O O
laxatives NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Cod-liver NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
marine NN O O
products NN O O
containing NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
have NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
, NN O O
anti-bacterial NN O O
and NN O O
anti-viral NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
infectious NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
developed NN O O
suppositories NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
marine NN O O
lipid NN O O
suppositories NN O O
and NN O O
ointment NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
laxative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
suppositories NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
administrating NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
FFA NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O I-INT
and NN O O
applying NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
FFA NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
perianal NN O O
region NN O O
twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ointment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blinded NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
felt NN O O
the NN O O
urge NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
defecate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
suppositories NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
37 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
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequently NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
defecated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
marine NN O O
lipid NN O O
suppositories NN O O
and NN O O
ointment NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
suppositories NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
distinct NN O O
laxative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
we NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23127292)

Prognostic NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
p53 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
node-negative NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
IBCSG NN O O
Trials NN O O
VIII NN O O
and NN O O
IX NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
p53 NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
finding NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
poorer NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Estrogen NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
endocrine NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
constructed NN O O
tissue NN O O
microarrays NN O O
( NN O O
TMAs NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
available NN O O
pathological NN O O
material NN O O
from NN O O
1113 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
comparing NN O O
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
chemo-endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
node-negative NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
p53 NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
nuclei NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
assays NN O O
of NN O O
ER NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
central NN O O
pathological NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
tumor NN O O
sections NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ER NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

> NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
positive NN O O
tumor NN O O
cell NN O O
nuclei NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
80.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
880/1092 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

p53 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
when NN O O
ER NN O O
was NN O O
absent NN O O
, NN O O
125/212 NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
ER NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
171/880 NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
qualitative NN O O
interaction NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
p53 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
tumors NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
express NN O O
ER NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
worse NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
tumors NN O O
expressed NN O O
ER NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interaction NN O O
remained NN O O
significant NN O O
after NN O O
allowance NN O O
for NN O O
pathologic NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
when NN O O
luminal NN O O
and NN O O
non-luminal NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
subtypes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
p53 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
requires NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ER NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
p53 NN O O
and NN O O
ER NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
different NN O O
p53 NN O I-OUT
mutations NN O I-OUT
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
p53 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
tumors NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
ER NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ACTRN12607000037404 NN O O
( NN O O
Trial NN O O
VIII NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ACTRN12607000029493 NN O O
( NN O O
Trial NN O O
IX NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23127528)

Monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
and NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
can NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
earlier NN O O
confirmation NN O O
of NN O O
progressing NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
modalities NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
sometimes NN O O
difficult NN O O
in NN O O
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
whether NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TMs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
namely NN O I-OUT
carcinoembryonic NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CA19-9 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DUPAN-2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SPan-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
can NN O O
facilitate NN O O
earlier NN O O
confirmation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Monitoring NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
TMs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
computed NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
in NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PC NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gemcitabine NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
January NN O O
2006-October NN O O
2007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-INT
analyzed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
fluctuation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TMs NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
rates NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
defined NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
criteria NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
disease NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
TM NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TM-PD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
November NN O O
2007-October NN O O
2008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O I-INT
calculated NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
TM-PD NN O I-INT
criteria NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
TTP NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
RECIST NN O I-INT
criteria NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
and NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
positive NN O O
rates NN O O
: NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
38 NN O O
; NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TM-PD NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
fluctuation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
?25 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
month NN O O
or NN O O
?10 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?10 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
month NN O O
in NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
; NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
these NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
one-month NN O O
earlier NN O I-OUT
confirmation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
feasible NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
by NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
could NN O O
facilitate NN O O
this NN O O
determination NN O O
in NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
35/49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
CA19-9 NN O O
and NN O O
SPan-1 NN O O
is NN O O
helpful NN O O
for NN O O
earlier NN O O
confirmation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
during NN O O
gemcitabine NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
PC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23128568)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
values NN O O
affirmation NN O O
on NN O O
race-discordant NN O I-PAR
patient-provider NN O I-PAR
communication NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Communication NN O O
between NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
poorer NN O O
quality NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
race-concordant NN O O
patient-provider NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

Fear NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
providers NN O O
stereotype NN O O
them NN O O
negatively NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
poorer NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
stereotype NN O O
threat NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
lessened NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
values-affirmation NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
experiment NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
values-affirmation NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
before NN O O
a NN O O
visit NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
provider NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
patient-provider NN O O
communication NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
audio NN O O
recordings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
visit NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Roter NN O O
Interaction NN O O
Analysis NN O O
System NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
visit NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
, NN O O
trust NN O O
, NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mood NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
visit NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
requested NN O O
and NN O O
provided NN O O
more NN O O
information NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
their NN O O
medical NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
[ NN O O
SE NN O O
] NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
utterances NN O O
, NN O O
66.3 NN O O
[ NN O O
6.8 NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
values-affirmation NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
48.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
5.9 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
.03 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient-provider NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
interested NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
friendly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
responsive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interactive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respectful NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
depressed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distressed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
visit NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
trust NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
visit NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
19.2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
20.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.29 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
values-affirmation NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
patient-provider NN O O
communication NN O O
in NN O O
race-discordant NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
defined NN O O
before NN O O
widespread NN O O
implementation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23135337)

The NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
352 NN O I-INT
bipolar NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
ghostwriting NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
ghostwriting NN O O
in NN O O
corporate-sponsored NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
concern NN O O
to NN O O
medicine NN O O
, NN O O
bioethics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
government NN O O
agencies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ghostwritten NN O O
archival NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
industry-sponsored NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
bipolar NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
GlaxoSmithKline NN O O
( NN O O
GSK NN O O
) NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
352 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O O
publicly NN O O
available NN O O
evidence NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
complaint NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
misconduct NN O O
filed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Office NN O O
of NN O O
Research NN O O
Integrity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Human NN O O
Services NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
deconstruction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
published NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
how NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conflated NN O O
, NN O O
turning NN O O
a NN O O
'negative NN O O
' NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
'positive NN O O
' NN O O
study NN O O
- NN O O
with NN O O
conclusions NN O O
and NN O O
recommendations NN O O
that NN O O
could NN O O
adversely NN O O
affect NN O O
patient NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
352 NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
19-site NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imipramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
unresponsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
lithium NN O I-PAR
carbonate NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
paroxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
imipramine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
published NN O O
article NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Few NN O O
industry-sponsored NN O O
studies NN O O
gain NN O O
public NN O O
scrutiny NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
these NN O O
articles NN O O
transparent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
scientific NN O O
and NN O O
medical NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23160656)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
whole-body NN O I-INT
mild-cold NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
on NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aortic 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
AIx NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
air NN O O
temperature NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
whole-body NN O I-INT
mild-cold NN O I-INT
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
augmented NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AIx NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
reservoir NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
reservoir NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
ex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
years 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
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
studied NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O I-INT
?C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mild-cold NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
?C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
separate NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Supine NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
ambient NN O O
temperature NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
climate NN O O
chamber NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
mild-cold NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AP NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
+2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.36-4.36 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
AIx NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.24-10.1 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
ex NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
a NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
reservoir NN O O
function NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O O
aortic NN O O
in-flow NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
-7 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-15.4 NN O O
to NN O O
2.03 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
control NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+0.04 NN O O
m/s NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.47 NN O O
to NN O O
0.55 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.87 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+0.36 NN O O
m/s NN O O
; NN O O
-0.41 NN O O
to NN O O
1.12 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
mild-cold NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alters NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
in-flow NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
differentially NN O O
affecting NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2319047)

Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
baseball NN O O
playing NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
's NN O O
on NN O O
first NN O O
? NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
0.3 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
7.8-9.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
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
played NN O O
in NN O O
baseball NN O O
games NN O O
. NN O O

Drug NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
game NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
on-task NN O O
behavior NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
answer NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
about NN O O
the NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
game NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

Judgment NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
batting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
batting NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
game NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
drills NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
game NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
attending NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
game NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23192919)

B-type NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
contrast-induced NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
substudy NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HORIZONS-AMI NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Contrast-induced NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CI-AKI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
CI-AKI NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
challenging NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
contemporary NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
database NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
therefore NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
admission NN O O
B-type NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
BNP NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CI-AKI NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
979 NN O I-PAR
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Harmonizing NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Revascularization NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Stents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Myocardial NN O I-PAR
Infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HORIZONS-AMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
BNP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
room NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

CI-AKI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
of NN O O
?25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
?0.5 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
contrast NN O O
administration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Logistic NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
admission NN O O
BNP NN O O
with NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
CI-AKI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CI-AKI NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O I-PAR
BNP NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
univariable NN O O
correlate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CI-AKI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.14-1.51 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
multivariable NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
angiographic NN O O
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
CI-AKI NN O O
( NN O O
1.29 NN O O
[ NN O O
1.10 NN O O
, NN O O
1.51 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

Significant NN O O
net NN O O
reclassification NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
BNP NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
net NN O I-OUT
reclassification NN O O
improvement=0.177 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
to NN O O
the NN O O
Mehran NN O I-OUT
Risk NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
net NN O I-OUT
reclassification NN O O
improvement=0.100 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
identify NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
CI-AKI NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
ST-segment-elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLINICAL NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
URL NN O O
: NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00433966 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23197299)

Thrombin-activatable NN O I-INT
fibrinolysis NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hyperthyroxinaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Endocrine NN O O
disorders NN O O
affect NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
coagulation NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Thrombin-activatable NN O I-INT
fibrinolysis NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAFI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
coagulation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
excess NN O O
and NN O O
deficiency NN O O
on NN O O
TAFI NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hyperthyroxinemia NN O O
on NN O O
TAFI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
levothyroxine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hypothyroidism NN O O
on NN O O
TAFI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
observational NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
euthyroidism NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
clot-lysis NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
TAFI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAFIa NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-dependent NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clot-lysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TAFI NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Thyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hypofibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
enhanced NN O O
TAFIa-dependent NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
lysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
TAFI NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
used NN O O
levothyroxine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hypothyroidism NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
hyperfibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
TAFIa-dependent NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
lysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
alterations NN O O
of NN O O
TAFIa-dependent NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
lysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
thyroid NN O O
disorders NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
haemostatic NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
disturbed NN O I-OUT
haemostatic NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hyperthyroidism NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
make NN O O
them NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypothyroidism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23205521)

Exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
self-face NN O I-INT
facilitates NN O I-INT
identification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
influences NN O O
on NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
growing NN O O
literature NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
self-face NN O I-INT
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
processing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
experimentally NN O O
activated NN O O
self-face NN O I-INT
representations NN O I-INT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dynamically NN O I-OUT
emerging NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
exposed NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
videos NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
faces NN O O
( NN O I-INT
self-face NN O I-INT
prime NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
others NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nonself-face NN O I-INT
prime NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
facial NN O O
expression NN O O
judgment NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
experimentally NN O O
activating NN O O
self-face NN O O
representations NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dynamically NN O I-OUT
emerging NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
self-face NN O I-PAR
prime NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
recognized NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O O
( NN O O
when NN O O
less NN O O
affective NN O O
perceptual NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
available NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonself-face NN O O
prime NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
poorer NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
identification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
neurocognitively NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
self-face NN O O
prime NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recognize NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
expressions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
others NN O O
is NN O O
linked NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
representations NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
own NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23212807)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated 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
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
0.125 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.175 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1.25 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.75 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
27-29 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
endpoint NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose- NN O O
( NN O O
-12.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
6.5 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
low-dose NN O O
( NN O O
-7.4 NN O O
[ NN O O
8.1 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.164 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
-3.5 NN O O
[ NN O O
10.7 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
only NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
consistent NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
ABC-I NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Somnolence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
high-versus NN O I-PAR
low-dose NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23224592)

Parents NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
state NN O O
and NN O O
trait NN O O
anxiety NN O O
: NN O O
relationships NN O O
with NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comorbid NN O O
anxiety NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
among 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 I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
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
are NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
parents NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
state NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trait NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
parent-reported NN O I-INT
internalizing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
externalizing NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
among NN O I-INT
adolescents NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parental NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trait NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parents NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
adolescent NN O I-OUT
internalizing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
externalizing NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
of NN O O
adolescent NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
own NN O I-OUT
trait NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
considering NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
targeting NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23228924)

Myocardial NN O O
extracellular NN O O
volume NN O O
by NN O O
cardiac NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anthracycline-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
extracellular NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
T1 NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
cardiac NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
anthracyclines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
performed NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ECV NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anthracyclines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
from NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
anthracycline-treated NN O O
cohort NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cumulative NN O I-PAR
anthracycline NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
282 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
mg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
52 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
ECV NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
anthracycline-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
age- NN O O
and NN O O
gender-matched NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
0.36 NN O O
? NN O O
0.03 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.28 NN O O
? NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ECV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
left NN O O
atrial NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECV NN O I-OUT
vs NN O I-OUT
indexed NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.65 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
association NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ECV NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
lateral NN O O
, NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.64 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ECV NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
elevated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
anthracycline NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
diastolic NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
atrial NN O O
volumes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23233021)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
bumetanide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gamma NN O O
aminobutyric NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
GABA NN O O
) NN O O
-mediated NN O O
synapses NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
oscillations NN O O
they NN O O
orchestrate NN O O
are NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

GABA-acting NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O I-INT
exert NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
paradoxical NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
raising NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
like NN O O
in NN O O
epilepsies NN O O
, NN O O
GABA NN O O
excites NN O O
neurons NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
elevated NN O O
intracellular NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
chloride NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
now NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
diuretic NN O O
, NN O O
chloride-importer NN O O
antagonist NN O O
bumetanide NN O I-INT
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
intracellular NN O O
chloride NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
bumetanide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
1-month NN O O
wash NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

Determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
with NN O O
video NN O O
films NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
D0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
D90 NN O O
by NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
evaluators NN O O
. NN O O

Bumetanide NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
significantly NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
D90-D0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
treated NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.017 NN O O
treated NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
severe NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
CARS NN O O
values NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
s.d NN O O
. NN O O

; NN O O
n=9 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
removed NN O O
( NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
test NN O O
: NN O O
P-value=0.031 NN O O
; NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t-test NN O O
: NN O O
P-value=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
occasional NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
hypokalaemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.0-3.5 NN O O
mM NN O O
l NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
K NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
supplemental NN O O
potassium NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
companion NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
bumetanide NN O O
treatment NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
labelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hadjikhani NN O I-OUT
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
submitted NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bumetanide NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
promising NN O O
novel NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agent NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Larger NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
best NN O O
suited NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23246790)

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
reach NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attrition NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
Web-based NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
print-delivered NN O I-OUT
tailored NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
over 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 I-PAR
clustered NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Internet NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
large NN O O
populations NN O O
with NN O O
individual NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
advice NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
Internet NN O O
access NN O O
, NN O O
actual NN O O
reach NN O O
by NN O O
Web-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
disappointingly NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
use NN O O
between NN O O
demographic NN O O
subgroups NN O O
are NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
Web-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
often NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
deal NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
user NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attrition NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
print-delivered NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
similar NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
recommendations NN O O
in NN O O
choosing NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
delivery NN O O
mode NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
particular NN O O
target NN O O
audience NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Web-based NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
print-delivered NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Active NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clustered 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
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
direct NN O I-PAR
mailing NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
Municipal NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Council NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
printed NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Web-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
by NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
answers NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O O
tailored NN O O
advice NN O O
on NN O O
3 NN O O
occasions NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
assessment NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
printed NN O O
or NN O O
Web-based NN O O
) NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
and NN O O
chi-square NN O O
tests NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
user NN O O
characteristics NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
user NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
mode NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
printed NN O O
intervention NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
younger NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
physically NN O O
active NN O O
( NN O O
P=.03 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
participants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
printed NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
print-delivered NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
low NN O O
intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
physically NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
predictor NN O O
for NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
both NN O O
delivery NN O O
modes 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
difference NN O O
in NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
printed NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
user NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
reach NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
tailored 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
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
printed NN O O
or NN O O
Web-based NN O O
delivery NN O O
mode NN O O
differed NN O O
between NN O O
sociodemographic NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
over NN O O
50 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
reach NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
, NN O O
Web-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
channel NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
high-risk NN O O
populations NN O O
( NN O O
lower NN O O
PA NN O O
intention NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
specific NN O O
user NN O O
characteristics NN O O
explained NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
modes NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
what NN O O
caused NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Web-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
( NN O O
NTR NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
2297 NN O O
: NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp NN O O
? NN O O
TC=2297 NN O O
( NN O O
Archived NN O O
by NN O O
WebCite NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.webcitation.org/65TkwoESp NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23249643)

The NN O O
added NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
coaching NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
precondition NN O O
for NN O O
behavioral NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
sedentary NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
added NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
15-minute NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
coaching NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-PAR
lifestyle NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard-intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
self-efficacy NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
116 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
extra-intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
self-efficacy NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
111 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
PA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Perceived NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PA NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
postintervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
posttest NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
emerged NN O O
on NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
extra-intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
program NN O O
adherence NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
role NN O O
as NN O O
mediator NN O O
of NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Adding NN O O
a NN O O
15-minute NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
coaching NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
PA NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
as NN O O
mediator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
in NN O O
PA NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
supported NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23257173)

Simvastatin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
outflow NN O O
and NN O O
augments NN O O
endothelium-independent NN O O
dilation NN O O
in NN O O
non-hyperlipidaemic NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Previous NN O O
reports NN O O
, NN O O
involving NN O O
hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
that NN O O
statins NN O O
reduce NN O O
muscle NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
MSNA NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
investigate NN O O
potential NN O O
neural NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
sympathoinhibition NN O O
or NN O O
determine NN O O
its NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
endothelial NN O O
function NN O O
or NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
lipophilic NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
would NN O O
attenuate NN O O
resting NN O O
sympathoexcitation NN O O
and NN O O
augment NN O O
baroreflex NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
MSNA 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
, NN O O
flow-mediated NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Academic NN O O
hospital-based NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
non-hyperlipidaemic NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
overall NN O I-PAR
mean?SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
58?12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
Resting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
baroreflex NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelium-independent NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
homoeostatic NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
lowered NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
burst NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
32?12 NN O O
to NN O O
25?9 NN O O
bursts/min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
MSNA NN O I-OUT
burst NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
55?23 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
43?17 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
baroreflex NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
either NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O I-OUT
endothelium-independent NN O I-OUT
vasodilation NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.1?3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
9.7?3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
n=13 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
fall NN O O
in NN O O
MSNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r=0.41 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p=0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
non-hyperlipidaemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
simvastatin NN O I-PAR
causes NN O O
a NN O O
cholesterol-independent NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
elevated NN O O
central NN O O
set-point NN O O
for NN O O
MSNA NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
arterial NN O O
baroreflex NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
MSNA NN O O
or NN O O
HR NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
neurogenic NN O O
constraint NN O O
on NN O O
endothelium-independent NN O O
vasodilation NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23266440)

Reducing NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
vanguard NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
Exercise NN O O
and NN O O
Nutrition NN O O
to NN O O
Enhance NN O O
Recovery NN O O
and NN O O
Good NN O O
Health NN O O
for NN O O
You NN O O
( NN O O
ENERGY NN O O
) NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

Breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
invasive NN O O
cancer NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
developed NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

Obesity NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
pre- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Co-morbid NN O O
medical NN O O
conditions NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Exercise NN O O
and NN O O
Nutrition NN O O
to NN O O
Enhance NN O O
Recovery NN O O
and NN O O
Good NN O O
Health NN O O
for NN O O
You NN O O
( NN O O
ENERGY NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
4-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
693 NN O I-PAR
overweight/obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?21years NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
?1cm NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
-III NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
designed NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
achieving NN O O
sustained NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
and NN O O
co-morbidities NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
enable NN O O
future NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
biochemical NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
linking NN O O
obesity NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
disease-free NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
strategically NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
vanguard NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
fully-powered NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
therapies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O O
featured NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group-based NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
newsletters NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
initial NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
goal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O I-INT
study NN O O
has NN O O
high NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
initiates NN O O
the NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
new NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23274597)

Pseudoephedrine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
preexercise NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
influence NN O O
on NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
preexercise NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
pseudoephedrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
high-intensity NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O O
PSE NN O O
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
World NN O O
Anti-Doping NN O O
Agency NN O O
( NN O O
WADA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
cyclists NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
triathletes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30.6 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
6.6 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
72.9 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5.1 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
V?O2max NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
64.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.5 NN O I-PAR
mL?kg?min 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
undertook NN O O
four NN O O
cycling NN O O
time NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
TT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
requiring NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
work NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
kJ?kg NN O O
BM NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
possible NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonfed NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
ingested NN O I-INT
2.8 NN O I-INT
mg?kg NN O I-INT
BM NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PSE NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
90 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
fed NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
g?kg NN O I-INT
BM NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CHO NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Venous NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
pre-warm-up NN O O
and NN O O
postexercise NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
PSE NN O O
and NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
urine NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
PSE NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preexercise NN O O
meal NN O O
, NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mg?kg NN O O
BM NN O O
of NN O O
PSE NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
cycling NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
fed NN O I-OUT
trials NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
PSE NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
points NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nonfed NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
epinephrine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PSE NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PLA NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
preexercise NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postexercise NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
PSE NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
( NN O O
150 NN O O
?g?mL NN O O
) NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
WADA NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
illicit NN O O
PSE NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preexercise NN O O
meal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cycling NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
PSE NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mg?kg NN O O
BM NN O O
of NN O O
PSE NN O O
taken NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O O
PSE NN O O
concentrations NN O O
exceeding NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
WADA NN O O
threshold NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23275644)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopy-assisted NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
nodal NN O O
dissection NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
IA/IB NN O O
gastric NN O O
Cancer NN O O
( NN O O
JCOG0912 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
in NN O O
Japan NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopy-assisted NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
IA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T1N0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
T1N1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
T2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
N0 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
followed NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopy-assisted NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
JCOG0703 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
began NN O O
in NN O O
March NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
920 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
accrued NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
laparoscopy-assisted NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
gastrectomy NN O I-OUT
completion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
open NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
short-term NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
a NN O O
credentialed NN O I-PAR
surgeon NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
open NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laparoscopy-assisted NN O I-INT
distal NN O I-INT
gastrectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23280086)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
the NN O O
specifics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
matter NN O O
? NN O O
: NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
essentially NN O O
all NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
comprised NN O O
of NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anthracyclines NN O I-INT
intensified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
asparaginase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Given NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
regimen NN O O
has NN O O
emerged NN O O
as NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
previously NN O O
evaluated NN O O
cytarabine NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
g/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
80 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
regimen NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
induction NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
historic NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
failure NN O O
with NN O O
resistant NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Philadelphia NN O I-PAR
chromosome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Ph NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
regimen NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
4-drug NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
L-20 NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
consolidation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
nervous NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
trial NN O O
accrued NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2004 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
survivors NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Responses NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
164 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
regimen NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
L-20 NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
71 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
the NN O O
L-20 NN O O
arm NN O O
failed NN O O
with NN O O
resistant NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
L-20 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
similar NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
alive NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
L-20 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Despite NN O O
superior NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ALL-2 NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
coupled NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reported NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
ALL NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
raise NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
ultimate NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O O
ALL NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
regimen NN O O
chosen NN O O
. NN O O

Cancer NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O

? NN O O
2012 NN O O
American NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Society NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23285026)

No NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
ownership NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
easily NN O O
disrupted NN O O
during NN O O
illusions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
illusion NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
idea NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
rapidly NN O O
gaining NN O O
popularity NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
pain NN O O
medicine NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
body NN O I-INT
ownership NN O I-INT
illusions NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
pathological NN O O
pain NN O O
sensations NN O O
and NN O O
induce NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
idea NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
empirically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
separate NN O O
research NN O O
laboratories NN O O
undertook NN O O
independent NN O O
randomized NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
experimentally NN O O
induced NN O O
hand NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
rated NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O O
by NN O O
noxious NN O I-INT
heat NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
s NN O O
duration NN O O
; NN O O
interstimulus NN O O
interval NN O O
25 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
set NN O O
temperatures NN O O
( NN O O
47? NN O O
, NN O O
48? NN O O
and NN O O
49?C NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O I-INT
was NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
Experiment NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
quantitative NN O O
sensory NN O O
testing NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
involved NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
paradoxical NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
sensations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Again NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
on NN O O
cold NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.56 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rubber NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O O
induce NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23292082)

HOXB13 NN O I-INT
G84E NN O I-INT
mutation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Finland NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
recently NN O O
identified NN O O
germline NN O O
mutation NN O O
G84E NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
HOXB13 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
family-based NN O O
analysis NN O O
by NN O O
The NN O O
International NN O O
Consortium NN O O
for NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Genetics NN O O
( NN O O
ICPCG NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
G84E NN O I-INT
mutation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
most NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
families NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Nordic NN O O
countries NN O O
of NN O O
Finland NN O O
( NN O O
22.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Sweden NN O O
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
further NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
G84E NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Finns NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
its NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
4,000 NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5,000 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
986 NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
442 NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Genotyping NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
TaqMan NN O O
, NN O O
MassARRAY NN O O
iPLEX NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sequencing NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
using NN O O
Fisher NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
Cox NN O O
modeling NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
G84E NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
highest NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
hereditary NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
[ NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
8.8 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4.9-15.7 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mutation NN O I-OUT
contributed NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
younger NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
?55 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
prostate-specific NN O O
antigen NN O O
( NN O O
PSA NN O O
; NN O O
?20 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
benign NN O O
prostate NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
( NN O O
BPH NN O O
) NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
contribution NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
suggestive NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mutation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
familial NN O O
BRCA1/2-negative NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
confirm NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
G84E NN O O
mutation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Finnish NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
particularly NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
early-onset NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
substantially NN O O
elevated NN O O
PSA NN O O
. NN O O

IMPACT NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HOXB13 NN O I-OUT
G84E NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
susceptibility NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23296213)

Contingency NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotic-induced NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Weight NN O O
gain NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Contingency NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
rewards NN O O
positive NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
SMI NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SMI NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
28 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
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standardized NN O I-INT
lifestyle NN O I-INT
modification NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
individuals NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
SMI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
payment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
attendance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
attendance NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
payment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
participants NN O O
joined NN O O
a NN O O
LM NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
payment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CM NN O O
( NN O O
attendance NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CM NN O O
( NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
lost NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
1.16 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
1.23 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CON NN O I-OUT
gained NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
of NN O O
0.68 NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
CM NN O O
( NN O O
behavior NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lost NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2.54 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
LM NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
facilitate NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
financial NN O I-PAR
reimbursement NN O O
for NN O O
behavioral NN O O
change NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23303244)

Accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
pulse NN O I-INT
oximetry NN O I-INT
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

CONTEXT NN O O
Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O O
by NN O O
pulse NN O I-INT
oximetry NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
when NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
transfused NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
fluids NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
crystalloid NN O O
and NN O O
colloid NN O O
fluid NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
( NN O O
bias NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
precision NN O O
of NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximetry NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
the NN O O
venous NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
in NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Open NN O O
interventional NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Single NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-28 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Each NN O O
volunteer NN O O
underwent NN O O
three NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
experiments NN O I-INT
on NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hydroxyethyl NN O I-INT
starch NN O I-INT
130/0.4 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
oximetry NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
whereas NN O O
starch NN O O
solution NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
oximetry NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
true NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
fluids NN O O
were NN O O
infused NN O O
separately NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
all NN O O
956 NN O O
pairs NN O O
of NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
oximetry NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
true NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bias NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
averaged NN O O
only NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
g NN O O
l NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
prediction NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
wide NN O O
, NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
-24.9 NN O O
to NN O O
23.7 NN O O
g NN O O
l. NN O O
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
fluid NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
bias NN O O
was NN O O
strongly NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
volunteer NN O O
( NN O O
each NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
bias NN O O
of NN O O
measuring NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
by NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
oximetry NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
crystalloid NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
colloid NN O O
fluid NN O O
is NN O O
infused NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01195025 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23306077)

Translating NN O O
the NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
Approaches NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Stop NN O I-INT
Hypertension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
underresourced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Dietary NN O I-INT
Approaches NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Stop NN O I-INT
Hypertension NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O O
for NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
program NN O O
participation NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
culturally NN O O
modified NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
DASH NN O I-INT
among NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
underresourced NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
recruited NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
neighborhoods NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
fewer NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
antihypertension NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
offered NN O O
2 NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
9 NN O O
group NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
printed NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
collected NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
March NN O O
2010 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
June NN O O
2010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
educated NN O I-PAR
beyond NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
130/78 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
antihypertension NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
35.9 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
Intervention NN O O
participants NN O O
attended NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
salt NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eat NN O I-OUT
healthier NN O I-OUT
snacks NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
culturally NN O O
modified NN O O
, NN O O
community-based NN O I-INT
DASH NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
feasible NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
program NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23312881)

Intravenous NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
expansion NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Following NN O O
the NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
expansion NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
, NN O O
anti-vascular NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
antitumour NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
with NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LV5FU2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
at NN O O
cycle-1 NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
aflibercept NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
then NN O O
irinotecan-LV5FU2 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequently NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
with NN O O
irinotecan-LV5FU2 NN O I-INT
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-vascular NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
dynamic NN O O
contrast-enhanced NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
DCE-MRI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
14 NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cycle-1 NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
in NN O O
later NN O O
cycles NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
received NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
upfront NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aflibercept NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1-44 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
?20 NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
frequent NN O O
grade NN O O
3/4 NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
37 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
anti-aflibercept NN O O
antibodies NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O O
had NN O O
stable NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
lasting NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor-bound NN O I-OUT
aflibercept NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
adequate NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
steady-state NN O O
achieved NN O O
from NN O O
cycle-3 NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
DCE-MRI NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
perfusion NN O O
changes NN O O
with NN O O
aflibercept NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Aflibercept NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
irinotecan-LV5FU2 NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
had NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
promising NN O O
antitumour NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23321692)

A NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
3'-azido-2',3'-dideoxythymidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
human NN O O
interferon-? NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
naturally NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
feline NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Feline NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
FeLV NN O O
) NN O O
infection NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
infection-related NN O O
deaths NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
domestic NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
drugs NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
attempted NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
has NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
cure NN O O
or NN O O
complete NN O O
virus NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-INT
interferon-?2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
huIFN-?2a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3'-azido-2',3'-dideoxythymidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
been NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
antigenaemia NN O O
in NN O O
cats NN O O
infected NN O O
experimentally NN O O
with NN O O
FeLV NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
huIFN-?2a NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
cats NN O O
infected NN O O
naturally NN O O
with NN O O
FeLV NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourty-four NN O I-PAR
FeLV-infected NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
FeLV NN O I-PAR
p27 NN O I-PAR
antigen NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
enzyme-linked NN O I-PAR
immunosorbent NN O I-PAR
assay NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
huIFN-?2a NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/kg NN O O
q24h NN O O
; NN O O
12 NN O O
cats NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
q12h NN O O
; NN O O
10 NN O O
cats NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
cats NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
cats NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
cats NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
FeLV NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
27 NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Aside NN O O
from NN O O
anaemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
cat NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
AZT NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
huIFN-?2a NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
together NN O O
in NN O O
cats NN O O
infected NN O O
naturally NN O O
with NN O O
FeLV NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
notable NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23326865)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
aliskiren NN O I-INT
on NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
proteinuria-lowering NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aliskiren NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
24-h NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
proteinuria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2.01 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
CI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1.36?2.66 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
creatinine NN O I-PAR
clearance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
93?6.8 NN O I-PAR
ml/min NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
Aliskiren NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O I-OUT
effects NN O O
were NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
; NN O O
2?44 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
aliskiren NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
17?55 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
aliskiren NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
11?26 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
11?39 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aliskiren NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Aliskiren NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
antiproteinuric NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
probably NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
hypotensive NN O O
dosages NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
renin NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
alternative NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
proteinuric NN O I-OUT
non-diabetic NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23334070)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacology NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ponezumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Ponezumab NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
humanized NN O O
antiamyloid NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
A? NN O O
) NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
AD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose-escalation NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ponezumab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
2-hour NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cerebrospinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
CSF NN O O
) NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
1- NN O O
and NN O O
10-mg/kg NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Ponezumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
no NN O O
drug-attributed NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
subject NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Another NN O O
subject NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
slight NN O I-OUT
enlargement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
preexisting NN O I-OUT
midbrain NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Electrocardiography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unremarkable NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
microhemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vasogenic NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
meningoencephalitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
maximum NN O O
observed NN O O
concentration NN O O
increased NN O O
approximately NN O O
dose NN O O
proportionally NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
time NN O O
zero NN O O
extrapolated NN O O
to NN O O
infinite NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
inf NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
slightly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
dose NN O O
proportionally NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
terminal NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
measurable NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
ponezumab NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
~0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
values NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
A? NN O O
( NN O O
1-x NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
A? NN O O
( NN O O
1-40 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
dose NN O O
dependently NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
A? NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1-x NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
A NN O O
2-hour NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ponezumab NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O O
AD NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
profile NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
linear NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
A? NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CSF NN O O
A? NN O O
increased NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
ponezumab NN O I-INT
alters NN O I-INT
central NN O O
A? NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23343686)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
occlusion NN O O
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
: NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
collateral NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
that NN O O
intermittent NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
occlusion NN O O
( NN O O
iCSO NN O O
) NN O O
reduces NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
coronary NN O O
collateral NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
intraindividual NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
during NN O O
two NN O O
2-min NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
balloon NN O O
occlusions NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
iCSO NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
balloon-tipped NN O O
catheter NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
2-min NN O I-INT
iCSO NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
i.c NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
shift NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Collateral NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CFI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
iCSO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
between NN O O
mean NN O O
distal NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusive NN O O
( NN O O
Poccl NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
aortic NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
Pao NN O O
) NN O O
both NN O O
minus NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
I.c NN O O
. NN O O

ECG NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
shift NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
all 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
procedure NN O O
with NN O O
iCSO NN O O
versus NN O O
without NN O O
iCSO NN O O
was NN O O
1.33?1.25 NN O O
mV NN O O
versus NN O O
1.85?1.45 NN O O
mV NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
i.c NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
shift NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
iCSO NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
CFI NN O O
, NN O O
best NN O O
fitting NN O O
a NN O O
Lorentzian NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
=0.61 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ischaemia NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
iCSO NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
greatest NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
CFI NN O O
of NN O O
0.05-0.20 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
CFI NN O O
range NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
iCSO NN O O
was NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
ICSO NN O O
reduces NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ischaemia NN O O
reduction NN O O
by NN O O
iCSO NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
collateral NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
minimal NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
collateral NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
render NN O O
iCSO NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

ICSO NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
manifest NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
when NN O O
collateral NN O O
function NN O O
prevents NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
place NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23349254)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
Aloe NN O I-INT
arborescens NN O I-INT
Mill NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
on NN O O
selected NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pro-oxidant-antioxidant NN O I-OUT
equilibrium NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cytokine NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rowers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
investigation NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Biostimine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
Aloe NN O I-INT
arborescens NN O I-INT
Mill NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
leaves NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
pro-oxidant-antioxidant NN O I-OUT
equilibrium NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
anti- NN O O
and NN O O
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
rowers NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
exhaustive NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Polish NN O I-PAR
Rowing NN O I-PAR
Team NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
ampoule NN O O
of NN O O
Biostimine NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
2,000-meter-maximum NN O O
test NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
rowing NN O O
ergometer 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
the NN O O
preparatory NN O O
camp NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
antecubital NN O O
vein NN O O
before NN O O
each NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
24-hr NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thiobarbituric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
reactive NN O I-OUT
substances NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TBARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cytokine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
Biostimine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
exercise NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TBARS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
postexercise NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
TBARS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
athletes NN O O
receiving NN O O
Biostimine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
TAC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
variable NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
Biostimine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
postexercise NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
TBARS NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23360819)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
SNPs NN O O
in NN O O
nutrient-sensitive NN O I-OUT
candidate NN O O
genes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
gene-diet NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
DiOGenes NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
gene NN O O
variants NN O O
or NN O O
gene-diet NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
variants NN O O
in NN O O
presumed NN O O
nutrient-sensitive NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
modified NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
among NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diet NN O I-PAR
Obesity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Genes NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
By NN O O
multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regressions NN O O
, NN O O
240 NN O O
SNPs NN O O
in NN O O
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
candidate NN O I-PAR
genes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
SNP NN O O
main NN O O
and NN O O
SNP-diet NN O O
interaction NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
an NN O I-INT
8-week NN O I-INT
low-energy NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
only NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
contents NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
or NN O O
glycaemic NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
multiple NN O O
testing NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
SNP-dietary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identified NN O O
for NN O O
lipin NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
LPIN1 NN O O
) NN O O
rs4315495 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
20.26 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
per NN O O
A-allele/protein NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
20.38 NN O O
, NN O O
20.14 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.000043 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
SNP-diet NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
240 NN O O
SNPs NN O O
in NN O O
twenty-four NN O O
candidate NN O O
genes NN O O
, NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
pathways NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
identified NN O O
one NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
LPIN1 NN O I-OUT
rs4315495 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
TAG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23361064)

Temporal NN O O
expectation NN O O
in NN O O
focal NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
dystonia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
present NN O O
sensory NN O O
and NN O O
representational NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
motor NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
discrimination NN O O
between NN O O
tactile NN O O
stimuli NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
pure NN O O
motor NN O O
imagery NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
like NN O O
the NN O O
mental NN O O
rotation NN O O
of NN O O
corporeal NN O O
and NN O O
inanimate NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
limited NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dystonia NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
process NN O O
the NN O O
time-dependent NN O O
features NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

speed NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
movement NN O O
in NN O O
real NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
time-dependent NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
movement NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
crucial NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
motor NN O O
sequence NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
handwriting NN O O
or NN O O
playing NN O O
a NN O O
musical NN O O
passage NN O O
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
ultimate NN O O
goal NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
results NN O O
instead NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
execution NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
implicit NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
perceive NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
of NN O O
different NN O O
movements NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gender-matched NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
temporal NN O I-INT
expectation NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
by NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
visually NN O O
perceived NN O O
human NN O O
body NN O O
motion NN O O
( NN O O
handwriting NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

the NN O O
action NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
body NN O O
segment NN O O
specifically NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
writer NN O O
's NN O O
cramp NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
inanimate NN O O
object NN O O
motion NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
moving NN O O
circle NN O O
reaching NN O O
a NN O O
spatial NN O O
target NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Videos NN O I-INT
representing NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
were NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
full NN O O
before NN O O
experimental NN O O
trials NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
tasks NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
watching NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
videos NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
interrupted NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
variable NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
'pre-dark NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
its NN O O
onset NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
dark NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
variable NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
'dark NN O O
' NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
represented NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
video NN O O
reached NN O O
its NN O O
end NN O O
by NN O O
clicking NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
space NN O O
bar NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
keyboard NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Performance NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
timing NN O O
task NN O O
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
timing NN O O
error NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variability NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
anticipation NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
writer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cramp NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
greater NN O O
absolute NN O O
timing NN O O
error NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
body NN O O
motion NN O O
task NN O O
( NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inanimate NN O O
object NN O O
motion NN O O
task NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
documented NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Absolute NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
body NN O O
motion NN O O
task NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
, NN O O
disease NN O O
duration NN O O
or NN O O
writing NN O O
speed NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
an NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
writing NN O O
movement NN O O
representation NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
dystonia NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
purely NN O O
motor NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
also NN O O
involves NN O O
non-motor NN O O
( NN O O
sensory NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
) NN O O
aspects NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
movement NN O O
processing NN O O
and NN O O
planning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23361105)

Contribution NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
to NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Bradykinin NN O O
increases NN O O
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
stimulates NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue-type NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
acting NN O O
through NN O O
its NN O O
B2 NN O O
receptor NN O O
. 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
endogenous NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
CPB NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
bradykinin NN O I-OUT
B2 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
antagonism NN O I-OUT
reduces NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
?-aminocaproic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EACA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
HOE NN O I-INT
140 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
B2 NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
. NN O O

Bradykinin NN O O
B2 NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonism NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
much NN O O
as NN O I-INT
EACA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O O
only NN O I-INT
EACA NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O I-INT
EACA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HOE NN O I-INT
140 NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EACA NN O I-OUT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
treatments NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
transfused NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
endogenous NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
that NN O O
additional NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
plasmin NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
contribute NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-INT
EACA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23361389)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dietetic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Undernutrition NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prevalent NN O O
problem NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dietetic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
parallel NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
146 NN O I-PAR
non-institutionalized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
referral NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
dietitian NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
referral NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
handgrip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat-free NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
randomized NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
146 NN O O
) 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
generalized NN O O
estimating NN O O
equations NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.15-1.12 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.15 NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.33-0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
handgrip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.62-1.60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Predefined NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physically NN O I-OUT
active NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
1.25 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.70-2.11 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
inactive NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-0.20 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-1.16-0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
dietetic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
dietitians NN O I-INT
does NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
lead NN O O
to NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
functioning NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
undernourished NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23362251)

Design NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Virtual NN O I-INT
Dolphinarium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
recent NN O O
proliferation NN O O
of NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
applications NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
learning NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
behavior NN O O
among NN O O
such NN O O
children NN O O
has NN O O
produced NN O O
optimistic NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
abilities NN O O
in NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Dolphin-assisted NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
also NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
topic NN O O
of NN O O
public NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
interest NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
will NN O O
present NN O O
an NN O O
innovative NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Virtual NN O I-INT
Dolphinarium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
potential NN O O
autism NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Instead NN O O
of NN O O
emulating NN O O
the NN O O
swimming NN O O
with NN O O
dolphins NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
virtual NN O O
dolphin NN O O
interaction NN O O
program NN O O
will NN O O
allow NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
act NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
dolphin NN O I-PAR
trainers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
poolside NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
learn NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
hand NN O I-PAR
gestures NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
virtual NN O I-PAR
dolphins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immersive NN O I-INT
visualization NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gesture-based NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
are NN O O
implemented NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
within NN O O
an NN O O
immersive NN O O
room NN O O
equipped NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
curved NN O O
screen NN O O
spanning NN O O
a NN O O
320 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
high-end NN O O
five-panel NN O O
projection NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
screening NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
readiness NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-INT
virtual NN O I-INT
dolphin NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
research NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
two NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
helping NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
protecting NN O O
the NN O O
endangered NN O O
species NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23365106)

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
n3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
large NN O O
and NN O O
small NN O O
artery NN O O
elasticity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Increased NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
enhanced NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whether NN O O
n3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
ester NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAEE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
carry NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
12-wk NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial 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
25 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
energy NN O I-INT
deficit NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
loss NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
WL NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
Omacor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
EPA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
38 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL+FAEE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
arterial NN O O
elasticity NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Large NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
elasticity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
pulse NN O O
contour NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

WL NN O O
alone NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
WL NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
C1 NN O O
and NN O O
C2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
WL+FAEE NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HOMA NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
adiponectin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
artery NN O I-OUT
elasticity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
TGs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C2 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
WL+FAEE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
n3 NN O I-INT
FAEEs NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
C1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C2 NN O I-OUT
independently NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23379240)

[ NN O I-INT
Afala NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
94 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
domestic NN O O
preparation NN O O
afala NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
afala NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
total NN O O
IPSS NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
respect NN O O
of NN O O
irritative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
BPH NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
uroflowmetry NN O O
, NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
persisted NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dihydrotestosterone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
6-month NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23379651)

Pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
anti-diabetic NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
with NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ovulation NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
clomiphene-citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM 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
explore NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
clomiphene NN O I-INT
citrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ovulation NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
clomiphene-citrate-resistant NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Dhaka NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
College NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Infertility NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Dhaka NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
165 NN O I-PAR
infertile NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CC-resistant NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Along NN O O
with NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Metformin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
1500 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Afterwards NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
added NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
ovulation NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O I-INT
metformin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O O
ovulatory NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
when NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
response NN O O
with NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
CC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rFSH NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
after NN O O
six NN O O
ovulatory NN O O
cycles NN O O
without NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
achieving NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
P-value NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
0.5 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Ovulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
89.09 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
54.55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B. NN O O
Ovulation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
74.55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
29.09 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rFSH NN O I-INT
requirement NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
much NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
27.27 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
12.73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-INT
the NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
ovulation-inducing NN O O
agents NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
safely NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23381483)

Practice NN O O
makes NN O O
improvement NN O O
: NN O O
how NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
out-perform NN O O
others NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
visual NN O O
search NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

People NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
exhibit NN O O
superior NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
visual NN O O
search NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
this NN O O
advantage NN O O
have NN O O
employed NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
uncluttered NN O O
images NN O O
with NN O O
fully NN O O
visible NN O O
targets NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O I-INT
luggage NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
accurate NN O O
in NN O O
detecting NN O O
targets NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
improve NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target-absent NN O I-OUT
bags NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
behavior NN O O
is NN O O
extremely NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
real-world NN O O
monitoring NN O O
tasks NN O O
that NN O O
require NN O O
sustained NN O O
attention NN O O
for NN O O
long NN O O
time NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
improvement NN O O
is NN O O
attributable NN O O
neither NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
speed NN O O
nor NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
intelligence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
possible NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
employment NN O O
opportunities NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23381958)

Drug-drug NN O O
interaction NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
renin NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
( NN O O
CYP NN O O
) NN O O
enzyme NN O O
, NN O O
CYP3A4 NN O O
, NN O O
metabolizes NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
direct NN O O
renin NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
CYP3A4 NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
single-dose NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
two-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
drug-drug NN O O
interaction NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
treatments NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
A NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ACT-178882 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
ACT-178882 NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serial NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
pre-dose NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
h NN O O
post-dose NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
pre-dose NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
240 NN O O
h NN O O
post-dose NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
B. NN O O
Trough NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-5 NN O O
of NN O O
dosing NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
recording NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
reporting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
Cmax NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
from NN O O
time NN O O
zero NN O O
to NN O O
infinity NN O O
( NN O O
AUC? NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
26.8 NN O O
( NN O O
20.1-35.8 NN O O
) NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
and NN O O
454 NN O O
( NN O O
351-587 NN O O
) NN O O
ng?h/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
these NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
43.5 NN O O
( NN O O
36.8-51.4 NN O O
) NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
and NN O O
918 NN O O
( NN O O
781-1078 NN O O
) NN O O
ng?h/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ACT-178882 NN O O
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
from NN O O
3.5 NN O O
to NN O O
5.0 NN O O
h NN O O
by NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
whereas NN O O
its NN O O
apparent NN O I-OUT
terminal NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
unaffected NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
, NN O O
22.9 NN O O
and NN O O
24.2 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
treatments NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
treatment NN O O
A NN O O
as NN O O
reference NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
1.62 NN O O
( NN O O
1.36-1.94 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2.02 NN O O
( NN O O
1.75-2.34 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
AUC? NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
and NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
21.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
on NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
electrocardiogram NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
laboratory NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Concomitant NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
doubled NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
t? NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
increase NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
present NN O O
unknown NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ACT-178882 NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23385110)

Wheelchair NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
manual NN O O
wheelchair NN O O
among NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
wheelchair NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
inexperienced NN O I-PAR
wheelchair NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Research NN O O
laboratory NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
community-living NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
70y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
wheelchair NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O I-INT
1-hour NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Wheelchair NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WSTP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
socialization NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O O
Wheelchair NN O I-OUT
Use NN O I-OUT
Confidence NN O I-OUT
Scale-Manual NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WheelCon-M NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
manual NN O O
wheelchair NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
WheelCon-M NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
self-report NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
that NN O O
comprises NN O O
65 NN O O
items NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
conceptual NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
1-way NN O O
between-groups NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postintervention NN O I-OUT
WheelCon-M NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
F1,17=10.9 NN O O
, NN O O
P=.004 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
WheelCon-M NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
partial NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
=.39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
WSTP NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
maneuvering NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
environment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
solving NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
advocacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
managing NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
performing NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaving NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
situations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Two NN O O
1-hour NN O O
WSTP NN O O
sessions NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
wheelchair NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
inexperienced NN O I-PAR
wheelchair NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23386127)

Plasma NN O O
Epstein-Barr NN O O
virus NN O O
DNA NN O O
predicts NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
correlative NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
cooperative NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Epstein-Barr NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
EBV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
Hodgkin NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
( NN O O
HL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
hybridization NN O O
( NN O O
ISH NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
viral NN O O
nucleic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
EBER NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
plasma NN O O
EBV-DNA NN O O
could NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
surrogate NN O O
for NN O O
EBER-ISH NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
its NN O O
prognostic NN O O
utility NN O O
in NN O O
HL NN O O
. NN O O

Specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Intergroup NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
E2496 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
EBV-DNA NN O I-INT
quantification NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EBV NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
EBER-ISH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
cutoff NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
60 NN O O
viral NN O O
copies/100 NN O O
?L NN O O
plasma NN O O
yielded NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
concordance NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
EBER-ISH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
month NN O O
6 NN O O
plasma NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
designated NN O O
EBV NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
EBV NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
cutoff NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
EBV NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
plasma NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
54 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
failure-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
EBV NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
plasma NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
274 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O I-OUT
EBER-ISH NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pretreatment NN O O
plasma NN O O
EBV NN O O
positivity NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
failure NN O O
on NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
month NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
EBV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
FFS NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
EBV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
125 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O O
plasma NN O O
EBV-DNA NN O O
is NN O O
highly NN O O
concordant NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
EBER-ISH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HL NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
prognostic NN O O
utility NN O O
both NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
# NN O O
NCT00003389 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23392460)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
coformulated NN O I-PAR
elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir NN O I-INT
disoproxil NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-PAR
efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir NN O I-INT
disoproxil NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir NN O I-INT
disoproxil NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
348 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
vs NN O O
efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir NN O I-INT
disoproxil NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
EFV/FTC/TDF NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
352 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
, NN O O
EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
EFV/FTC/TDF NN O I-INT
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
difference NN O O
+3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Virologic NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
RNA NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
copies/mL NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
difference NN O O
+2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Discontinuation NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
96 NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
durable NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2339965)

Heat-exercise NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pyridostigmine-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-PAR
wearing NN O I-PAR
chemical NN O I-PAR
protective NN O I-PAR
clothing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
currently NN O O
the NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
operation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
chemical NN O O
warfare NN O O
( NN O O
CW NN O O
) NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
CW NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
are NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
thermal NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
caused NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
CW NN O I-PAR
protective NN O I-PAR
clothing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
various NN O O
physiological NN O O
and NN O O
biophysical NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
temperature NN O O
regulation NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
wearing NN O O
CW NN O O
protective NN O O
clothing NN O O
. NN O O

Pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
8 NN O O
h. NN O O
An NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
cholinesterase NN O O
inhibition NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
last NN O O
tablet NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
170 NN O O
min NN O O
exercise-heat NN O O
stress NN O O
( NN O O
Tdb NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
rh NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sitting NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
50-min NN O O
walks NN O O
( NN O O
1.39 NN O O
m.s-1 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
grade NN O O
) NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

Non-evaporative NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
-14.0 NN O O
and NN O O
-10.6 NN O O
W.m-2 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pyridostigmine-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
additional NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
heat NN O O
balance NN O O
parameters NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
: NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
S.D NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
154 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
and NN O O
151 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
bpm NN O O
, NN O O
rectal NN O O
temperature NN O O
( NN O O
Tre NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
39.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
38.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
heat NN O O
storage NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
was NN O O
62 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
W.m-2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sweat NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
832 NN O O
+/- NN O O
185 NN O O
and NN O O
748 NN O O
+/- NN O O
52 NN O O
g.h-1 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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- (23400613)

Disparities NN O O
in NN O O
transition NN O I-INT
planning NN O I-INT
for NN O O
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
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
accessibility NN O O
to NN O O
health NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
transition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
services NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
expands NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
HCT NN O O
services NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OSHCN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
2005-2006 NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Survey NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Special NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Needs NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
examine NN O I-PAR
receipt NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HCT NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OSHCN NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
explored NN O O
whether NN O O
individual NN O O
, NN O O
family NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
health NN O O
system NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
HCT NN O O
services NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Whereas NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
OSHCN NN O O
received NN O O
HCT NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
quarter NN O O
of NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
did NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
discussion NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
pediatrician NN O O
about NN O O
transitioning NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
adult NN O O
provider NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
quarter NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
discussion NN O O
about NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
just NN O O
under NN O O
half NN O O
discussed NN O O
adult NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
encouraged NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
take NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
appropriate NN O I-OUT
responsibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
disability NN O O
or NN O O
multiple NN O O
health NN O O
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
were NN O O
strong NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
HCT NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
variables NN O O
accounted NN O O
for NN O O
little NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
disparities NN O O
in NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
services NN O O
. NN O O

Youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
greatest NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
poor NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
HCT NN O I-INT
services NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
develop NN O O
policy NN O O
and NN O O
practice NN O O
guidelines NN O O
tailored NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23404659)

Sex NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
opiate NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
families NN O O
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
and NN O O
concurrent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O O
risk NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
opiate NN O I-PAR
addiction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
151 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Focus NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Families NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FOF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
project NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at-risk NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
methadone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
between NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
interviewed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
females NN O O
were NN O O
sexually NN O O
active NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
females NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
partner NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
females NN O O
reported NN O O
having NN O O
sex NN O O
outside NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
committed NN O O
relationship NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
females NN O O
met NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
high-risk NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reporting NN O O
casual NN O O
or NN O O
multiple NN O O
partners NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
condom NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
examined NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
processes NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
FOF NN O O
study NN O O
predicted NN O O
whether NN O O
participants NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
measures NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
having NN O O
ever NN O O
met NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
or NN O O
dependence NN O O
predicted NN O O
greater NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
being NN O O
married NN O O
or NN O O
being NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
romantic NN O O
relationship NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
high-risk NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
findings NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
committed NN O O
relationships NN O O
in NN O O
regulating NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
heightened NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
or NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23405947)

Association NN O O
between NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
HF NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
are NN O O
poorly NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
ventricles NN O O
during NN O O
acute NN O O
HF NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ventricular NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
limited NN O O
access NN O O
dataset NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
Congestive NN O O
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
Pulmonary NN O O
Artery NN O O
Catheterization NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
( NN O O
ESCAPE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
The NN O O
National NN O O
Heart NN O O
, NN O O
Lung NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Blood NN O O
Institute NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
HF NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
ventricles NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
43.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
23.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
32.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
40.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
in NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
34.1 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index/cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
LVEF NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
month NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
ischemic NN O O
and NN O O
nonischemic NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
acute NN O O
HF NN O O
, NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonischemic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ventricles NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
during NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
or NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index/output NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
LVEF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23407221)

Rifampicin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
isoniazid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
tuberculosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
immigrant NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
tolerance NN O O
, NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
latent NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
infection NN O O
( NN O O
LTBI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6H NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
isoniazid NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
rifampicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3RH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
POPULATION NN O O
Immigrants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
LTBI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Barcelona NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Spain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2001 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Monthly NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
tolerance NN O O
, NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

Effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
590 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3RH NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6H NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
52.4 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

No NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
hepatotoxicity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Variables NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
non-adherence NN O O
were NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
by NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.88 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.26-2.82 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
illegal NN O I-OUT
immigration NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.48 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.01-2.15 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
unemployment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.91 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.28-2.85 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
illiteracy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1.73 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.04-2.88 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
3.7 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.54-5.4 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
the NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
2.45 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.68-3.57 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
developed NN O O
tuberculosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
3RH NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
facilitates NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
LTBI NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23416308)

Safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
Toll-like NN O O
receptor NN O O
7 NN O O
agonist NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
oral NN O O
agonist NN O O
of NN O O
Toll-like NN O O
receptor NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
TLR7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
development NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
viral NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
. NN O O

TLR7 NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
conserved NN O O
innate NN O O
immune NN O O
receptor NN O O
expressed NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
plasmacytoid NN O O
dendritic NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
single NN O O
ascending-dose NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6:2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well-absorbed NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Minimal NN O I-OUT
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-? NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
profile NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mg NN O O
doses NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
IFN-? NN O O
exposure NN O O
( NN O O
flu-like NN O O
symptoms NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
TLR7 NN O O
agonism NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
resolved NN O O
within NN O O
72 NN O O
h. NN O O
Induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemokines/cytokines NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IFN-stimulated NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
at NN O O
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
? NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
well NN O O
below NN O O
doses NN O O
that NN O O
induced NN O O
serum NN O O
IFN-? NN O O
or NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
GS-9620 NN O I-INT
demonstrates NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
mg. NN O O
Pharmacodynamic NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
seen NN O O
before NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
antiviral NN O O
response NN O O
without NN O O
systemic NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
viral NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23428834)

Low NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
and NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
in NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
linked NN O O
to NN O O
elevated NN O O
plasma NN O O
fibroblast NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
23 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Fibroblast NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
dialysis NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
shares NN O O
structural NN O O
features NN O O
with NN O O
FGF19 NN O O
subfamily NN O O
members NN O O
that NN O O
exert NN O O
hormonal NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
circulating NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
concentrations NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
uremic NN O O
lipid NN O O
profile NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
654 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
C-terminal NN O I-OUT
FGF23 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
stored NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Linear NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
examine NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cross-sectional NN O I-INT
associations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-OUT
FGF23 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazard NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
concentrations NN O O
and NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IQR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
FGF23 NN O I-PAR
concentration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4,212 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1,411-13,816 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
RU/ml NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
increase NN O O
per NN O O
SD NN O O
in NN O O
log10 NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
BMI NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-1.11 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TC NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-6.46 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-C NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-4.73 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-2.14 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
albumin NN O O
, NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
mineral NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
with NN O O
death NN O O
was NN O O
attenuated NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
HDL-C NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
of NN O O
highest NN O O
quartile NN O O
1.53 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.06-2.20 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
lowest NN O O
quartile NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O O
plasma NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
BMI NN O O
and NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
association NN O O
between NN O O
FGF23 NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
unexplored NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
mineral NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23432894)

Intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
ineffective NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
asthmatic NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
analyse NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nursing NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
ineffective NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
northeast NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Brazil NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
drawing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
applied NN O O
intervention NN O O
included NN O O
actions NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
positioning NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cough NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
choking NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16.83 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26.17 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
adventitious NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
sounds NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
obstructive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
proposed NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23436524)

Modulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
environment NN O O
, NN O O
innate NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
barrier NN O O
function NN O O
by NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
threonine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
coccidiosis NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
broiler NN O I-PAR
chicks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Coccidiosis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
economic NN O O
losses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
poultry NN O I-PAR
industry NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
detrimental NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
growth NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
nutrient NN O O
utilization NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
Thr NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
fiber NN O I-INT
may NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
environment NN O O
and NN O O
positively NN O O
affect NN O O
intestinal NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
barrier NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
broiler NN O I-PAR
chicks NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Eimeria NN O I-PAR
maxima NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Thr-deficient NN O I-INT
basal NN O I-INT
diet NN O O
( NN O O
3.1 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
Thr/kg NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
70 NN O I-INT
g/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
silica NN O I-INT
sand NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
high-methoxy NN O I-INT
pectin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Thr NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
or NN O O
5.3 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
; NN O O
4 NN O O
diets NN O O
total NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fed NN O O
to NN O O
chicks NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hatch NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
posthatch NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
d NN O O
10 NN O O
posthatch NN O O
, NN O O
chicks NN O O
received NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
distilled NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Eimeria NN O I-INT
maxima NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
sporulated NN O O
oocytes NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
6 NN O O
replicate NN O O
pens NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
chicks NN O O
per NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
treatment NN O O
combinations NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
diets NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
inoculation NN O O
states NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
increased 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
addition NN O O
of NN O O
5.3 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
Thr/kg NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Eimeria NN O I-OUT
maxima NN O I-OUT
schizonts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
intestinal NN O O
tissue NN O O
sampled NN O O
from NN O O
infected NN O O
birds NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weights NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cecal NN O I-OUT
digesta NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highest NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
pectin-fed NN O O
birds NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ceca NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
heaviest NN O O
weights NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
short-chain NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
. NN O O

Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interleukin-12 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ileal NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
infected NN O O
birds NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
with NN O O
5.3 NN O O
g NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
Thr/kg NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cecal NN O O
tonsils NN O O
, NN O O
interferon-? NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
highest NN O O
in NN O O
infected NN O O
birds NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
fiber NN O O
? NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
interferon-? NN O O
expression NN O O
was NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
infected NN O O
birds NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
Thr NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
Thr NN O O
? NN O O
infection 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
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
infection NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Thr NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
cytokine NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
birds NN O O
fed NN O O
pectin-containing NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
pectin NN O O
has NN O O
some NN O O
protective NN O O
function NN O O
against NN O O
coccidiosis NN O O
, NN O O
Thr NN O O
supplementation NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
intestinal NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
near NN O O
normal NN O O
growth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
broiler NN O I-PAR
chicks NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
E. NN O I-PAR
maxima NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23438314)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
COMPASS NN O I-INT
web-based NN O I-INT
and NN O O
face-to-face NN O I-INT
teacher NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Most NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
rely NN O O
on NN O O
schools NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
teachers NN O O
rarely NN O O
use NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
practices NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
improved NN O O
educational NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
previously NN O O
tested NN O O
consultation NN O O
intervention NN O O
called NN O O
the NN O O
Collaborative NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Promoting NN O I-INT
Competence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Success NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COMPASS NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Ruble NN O O
, NN O O
Dalrymple NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
McGrew NN O O
, NN O O
2010 NN O O
; NN O O
Ruble NN O O
, NN O O
Dalrymple NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
McGrew NN O O
, NN O O
2012 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2nd NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
web-based NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
teacher-child NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PBO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
COMPASS NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
face-to-face NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
COMPASS NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
web-based NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WEB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
goals NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
independence NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
independent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
goal NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
consultant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
an NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
findings NN O O
replicated NN O O
earlier NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.41 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
FF NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.12 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
WEB NN O O
group NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PBO NN O O
group 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
overall NN O O
change NN O O
across NN O O
goal NN O O
domains NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
FF NN O O
and NN O O
WEB NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
videoconferencing NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
COMPASS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
educational NN O O
outcomes 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
. NN O I-PAR
Videoconferencing NN O O
technology NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
scalable NN O O
tool NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
facilitating NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
autism NN O O
specialists NN O O
and NN O O
bridging NN O O
the NN O O
research-to-practice NN O O
gap NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23444169)

Comparative NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
dissolution NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
diflunisal/naproxen NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
diflunisal NN O O
and NN O O
naproxen NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
simple NN O O
validated NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
( NN O O
HPLC NN O O
) NN O O
assay NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
diflunisal NN O O
and NN O O
naproxen NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diflunisal-naproxen NN O I-OUT
fixed-dose NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FDC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
their NN O O
separate NN O O
dosage NN O O
forms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
dissolution NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
adopted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
dissolution NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FDC NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
marketed NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vivo NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
laboratory-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
Way NN O O
, NN O O
Cross-Over NN O O
Study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
Egyptian NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
FDC NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
co-administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
diflunisal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
naproxen NN O I-INT
marketed NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
72-h NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
analyzed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
diflunisal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
naproxen NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
reversed NN O I-INT
phase NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
chromatography NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
UV NN O I-INT
detection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC0-t NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC0-? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
t1/2 NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
log NN O O
transformed NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC0-t NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUCt-? NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
acceptable NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
0.8-1.25 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
studies NN O O
perspectives NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
FDC NN O O
tablet NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
similar NN O O
relative NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
individual NN O O
-reference NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23463854)

Developing NN O O
the NN O O
Ho'ouna NN O I-INT
Pono NN O I-INT
substance NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
collaborating NN O O
with NN O O
Hawaiian NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
briefly NN O O
outlines NN O O
a NN O O
collaboration NN O O
among NN O O
communities NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Hawai'i NN O I-PAR
Island NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
university-based NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
develop NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
implement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evaluate NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
school-based NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
curriculum NN O I-OUT
called NN O I-INT
Ho'ouna NN O I-INT
Pono NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
providing NN O O
a NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
project NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
is NN O O
fourfold NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
overview NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Ho'ouna NN O I-INT
Pono NN O I-INT
research NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
( NN O O
2007-2013 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
this NN O O
overview NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ways NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
selected NN O O
results NN O O
informed NN O O
program NN O O
development NN O O
are NN O O
highlighted NN O O
. NN O O

Third NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
curriculum NN O O
is NN O O
briefly NN O O
described NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
video NN O O
production NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23465566)

Association NN O O
between NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
ready-to-eat NN O O
cereal NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
nutrient NN O O
intakes 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
in NN O O
fourth- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sixth-grade NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
non-ready-to-eat NN O O
cereal NN O O
and NN O O
ready-to-eat NN O I-INT
cereal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
breakfasts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
nutrient NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
relationships NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
RTEC NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
and NN O O
nutrient NN O O
intakes NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
RTEC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
where NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS/SETTING NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
625 NN O I-PAR
fourth- NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
sixth-grade NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
San NN O I-PAR
Antonio NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Bienestar NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
cluster NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O O
multiple-pass NN O O
24-hour NN O O
dietary NN O O
recalls NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
fourth-grade NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
fifth- NN O O
and NN O O
sixth-grade NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ethnicity NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
height NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
between NN O O
August NN O O
2001 NN O O
and NN O O
May NN O O
2004 NN O O
. NN O O

STATISTICAL NN O O
ANALYSES NN O O
PERFORMED NN O O
Descriptive NN O O
and NN O O
inferential NN O O
statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
breakfast NN O O
consumption NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
6?4 NN O O
cross-tabulation NN O O
table NN O O
with NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
categorical NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
RTEC NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nutrition-related NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
correlation NN O O
multivariate NN O O
linear NN O O
model NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RTEC NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nutrient NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
inverse NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RTEC NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
percentile NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
3-year NN O O
period NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O O
consumed NN O I-INT
RTEC NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
greater NN O O
intakes NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-OUT
nutrients NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
3-year NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23466353)

Topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tinea NN O I-PAR
pedis NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
coriander NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
unguentum NN O O
leniens NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
antifungal NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
coriander NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
has NN O O
already NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
coriander NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
unguentum NN O O
leniens NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
interdigital NN O I-PAR
tinea NN O I-PAR
pedis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Half-side NN O I-PAR
comparative NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symmetric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
interdigital NN O I-PAR
tinea NN O I-PAR
pedis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Active NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
52.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
coriander NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
unguentum NN O O
leniens NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0654 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
substances NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Coriander NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
interdigital NN O O
tinea NN O O
pedis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23466656)

Neurophysiological NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
differentiate NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ASD+ADHD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
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
demonstrate NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
may NN O O
underlie NN O O
social NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
substantial NN O O
overlap NN O O
between NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
, NN O O
ERP NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
directly NN O O
compared NN O O
across NN O O
pure NN O O
and NN O O
comorbid NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=19 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
ASD+ADHD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=29 NN O I-PAR
) 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
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=26 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
upright/inverted NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
direct/averted NN O I-INT
gaze NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
recording NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
P1 NN O O
and NN O O
N170 NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
N170 NN O O
was NN O O
predominant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
hemisphere NN O O
in NN O O
TD NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD/ASD+ADHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
bilateral NN O O
distribution NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
altered NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
P1 NN O O
latency NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
direction NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
midline-N170 NN O O
amplitude NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
TD NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ADHD/ASD+ADHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
inversion NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
P1 NN O O
latency NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
TD NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
specific NN O O
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
altered NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
specialisation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
early NN O O
visual NN O O
attention NN O O
stages NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD+ADHD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O O
co-occurrence NN O O
with NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Elucidating NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
overlap NN O O
between NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
ADHD NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
aetiological NN O O
investigation NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23469597)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
dujieqing NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
promoter NN O O
methylation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MGMT NN O O
gene NN O O
in NN O O
middle-and-late NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Dujieqing NN O I-INT
Oral NN O I-INT
Liquid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DJQ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
promoter NN O O
methylation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
O6-methylguanine-DNA NN O O
methyltransferase NN O O
( NN O O
MGMT NN O O
) NN O O
gene NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
DNA NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
middle-and-late NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Recruited NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
DJQ NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mL NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
course NN O O
was NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
promoter NN O O
methylation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MGMT NN O O
gene NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
DNA NN O O
samples NN O O
form NN O O
middle-and-late NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
detected NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
nested NN O O
methylation-specific NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction NN O O
( NN O O
MSP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Meanwhile NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O O
hemogram NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxic/adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
Karnofsky NN O O
performance NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
KPS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
promoter NN O O
methylation NN O O
of NN O O
MGMT NN O O
genes NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
methylation NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
20.00 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
46.67 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
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
KPS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
both 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
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
KPS NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
toxic/adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
milder NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
DJQ NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
efficiency NN O O
synergism NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
reducing NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
. NN O O

MGMT NN O O
gene NN O O
was NN O O
indicated NN O O
as NN O O
DJQ NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
target NN O O
point NN O O
for NN O O
efficiency NN O O
synergism NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
reducing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficiency NN O O
synergism NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
reducing NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
regulating NN O O
the NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
MGMT NN O O
gene NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23475835)

Parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
aphakia NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
parenting NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
unilateral NN O I-OUT
congenital NN O I-OUT
cataract NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
intraocular NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IOL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
implanted NN O I-INT
or NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
left NN O I-INT
aphakic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Stress NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
( NN O O
VA NN O O
) NN O O
assessment NN O O
done NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Caregivers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
IOL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
reported NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
post-VA NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Stress NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
differentially NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
IOL NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
CL NN O I-INT
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
infancy NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
stress NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23477890)

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
chemoradiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally 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 I-PAR
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
Radiation NN O O
Therapy NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
RTOG NN O O
) NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
9801 NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
RTOG NN O O
9801 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
radioprotector NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
chemoradiation-induced NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIIA/B NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
induction NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
225 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
6 NN O O
both NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O O
weekly NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69.6 NN O O
Gy NN O O
at NN O O
1.2 NN O O
Gy NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
amifostine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AM NN O O
) NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
IV NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
or NN O O
no-AM NN O O
during NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Stratification NN O O
factors NN O O
included NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
70 NN O O
vs. NN O O
?70 NN O O
years NN O O
) 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

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
243 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pts NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
AM NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no-AM NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
pts NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
?70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
KPS NN O I-PAR
?90 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
With NN O I-OUT
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
96.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
still NN O O
alive NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
identical NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.03 NN O O
( NN O O
0.79-1.34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
five-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
17 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3-5 NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
16 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AM NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.24 NN O O
( NN O O
0.66-2.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
regarding NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
chemoradiation NN O O
regimen NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
produced NN O I-INT
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multi-institutional NN O O
setting NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
regimens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Amifostine NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
compromise NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O I-OUT
done NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
RTOG NN O O
9801 NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O O
reporting NN O O
of NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
chemoradiation NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23482575)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
protein NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
gilts NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
adrenocortical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sympathoadrenal NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Inadequate NN O O
maternal NN O O
nutrition NN O O
during NN O O
gestation NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
environment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
fetus NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
alterations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O O
( NN O O
HPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sympatho-adrenomedullary NN O O
( NN O O
SAM NN O O
) NN O O
systems NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
life 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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diets NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
ratios NN O O
on NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
gilts NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O I-OUT
axes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Throughout NN O O
gestation NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
Landrace NN O I-PAR
gilts NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
high NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
adequate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
12.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
isocaloric NN O O
by NN O O
adjusting NN O O
the NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
salivary NN O O
cortisol NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sows NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gestation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
cross-fostered NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
catecholamine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
offspring NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
determined NN O O
on NN O O
postnatal NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
PND NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
and NN O O
under NN O O
specific NN O O
challenging NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
( NN O O
PND NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
ACTH NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
challenges NN O O
( NN O O
PND NN O O
68 NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Glucocorticoid NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurotransmitter NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
stress-related NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
histological NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adrenal NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Maternal NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
throughout NN O O
gestation 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
the NN O O
LP NN O O
gilts NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
AP NN O O
and NN O O
HP NN O O
gilts 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
differences NN O O
between NN O O
diets NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
corticosteroid-binding NN O O
globulin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
GR NN O O
binding NN O O
in NN O O
hippocampus NN O O
and NN O O
hypothalamus NN O O
in NN O O
piglets NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
PND NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
27 NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
weaning NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
LP NN O O
piglets 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
in NN O O
HP NN O O
offspring NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased 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
cortisol NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
challenge NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
PND NN O O
81 NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
adrenal NN O I-OUT
medulla NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
LP NN O O
offspring NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
AP NN O O
offspring NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
maternal NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
aberrant NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-INT
gestation NN O I-INT
have NN O O
moderate NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
HPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SAM NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
offspring NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
pigs NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
plasticity NN O O
to NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
maternal NN O O
malnutrition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23483320)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
factors NN O O
PGE2 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
PGE-2 NN O O
and NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
fluid NN O O
with NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
after NN O O
postoperative NN O O
total NN O O
knee NN O O
arthroplasty NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
TKA 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
, NN O O
receiving NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
totally NN O O
6 NN O O
times NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mL NN O O
IV NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PGE-2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
consumed NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PGE-2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
are NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
parecoxib NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
TKA NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
defined NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
opioid NN O O
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ROM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23484763)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
bepotastine NN O I-INT
besilate NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
conjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
natural NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Allergic NN O O
conjunctivitis NN O O
( NN O O
AC NN O O
) NN O O
affects NN O O
an NN O O
estimated NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
world NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
fraction NN O O
suffering NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
seasonal NN O O
or NN O O
perennial NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposures NN O O
. NN O O

Bepotastine NN O I-INT
besilate NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BBOS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
dual-acting NN O I-INT
histamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
and NN O O
mast NN O O
cell NN O O
stabilizer NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
for NN O O
itching NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
AC NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
BBOS NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
ocular NN O I-PAR
itching NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AC NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
natural NN O O
exposure NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
BBOS NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
basis NN O O
and NN O O
instilled NN O O
1 NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
agent NN O O
into NN O O
both NN O O
eyes NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
instantaneous NN O O
and NN O O
reflective NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
subject-assessed NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
instantaneous NN O O
and NN O O
reflective NN O O
itching NN O O
. NN O O

Subject-reported 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
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
BBOS NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
instantaneous NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reflective NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
2-week NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BBOS NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
generally NN O O
transient NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
BBOS NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
effectively NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safely NN O I-OUT
treated NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
natural NN O O
exposure NN O O
allergy NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
ocular NN O O
itching NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
AC NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
number NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01174823 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (23494559)

JobTIPS NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
transition NN O O
to NN O O
employment NN O O
program NN O O
for 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
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
internet NN O I-OUT
accessed NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
included NN O O
Theory NN O O
of NN O O
Mind-based NN O O
guidance NN O O
, NN O O
video NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O O
supports NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
virtual NN O O
reality NN O O
practice NN O O
sessions NN O O
in NN O O
teaching NN O O
appropriate NN O O
job NN O O
interview NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
twenty-two NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
16-19 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
employment NN O I-PAR
interviews NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Half NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O O
intervention NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
interview NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
half NN O O
who NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
contrast NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
performance NN O O
pre NN O O
and NN O O
post NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
four NN O O
independent NN O O
raters NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
Content NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Delivery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
youth NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
JobTIPS NN O I-INT
employment NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23504941)

Bizzy NN O O
Break NN O O
! NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
classroom-based NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
break NN O I-INT
on NN O O
in-school NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
school NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
setting NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
classroom-based NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
break NN O I-INT
on NN O O
in-school NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9.3 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
Irish NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
another NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
five NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
during NN O O
school NN O O
hours NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Teachers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
classes NN O O
led NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
break NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
classroom NN O O
each NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
Bizzy NN O O
Break NN O O
! NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
in-school NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
5351 NN O O
and NN O O
5054 NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
5469 NN O O
and NN O O
4246 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
the NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
steps NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
boys NN O O
responded NN O O
differently NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O I-INT
classroom-based NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
break NN O I-INT
undertake NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23510581)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND 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
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
altered NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
and NN O O
modulate NN O O
brain NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
neurotypical NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
a NN O O
face-matching NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
house-matching NN O O
task NN O O
during NN O O
functional NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
IU NN O O
intranasally NN O O
administered NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
within-subject NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Under NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
AS NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
decreased NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
amygdala NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fusiform NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
occipital NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
amygdala NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AS NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
saliency NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
stimuli NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
might NN O O
promote NN O O
face NN O O
processing NN O O
and NN O O
eye NN O O
contact NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
prerequisites NN O O
for NN O O
neurotypical NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23510984)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ganitumab NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conatumumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
FOLFIRI NN O O
for NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mutant NN O O
KRAS NN O O
metastatic NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Targeted NN O O
agents NN O O
presently NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
mutant NN O O
KRAS NN O O
metastatic NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
mCRC NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aflibercept NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
evaluated 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
conatumumab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
an NN O O
agonistic NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
human NN O O
death NN O O
receptor NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
ganitumab NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
insulin-like NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
FOLFIRI NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
mutant NN O O
KRAS NN O O
mCRC NN O O
. 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
mutant NN O I-PAR
KRAS NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
rectum NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
fluoropyrimidine- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
FOLFIRI NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
conatumumab NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Arm NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ganitumab NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Arm NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
Q2W NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
155 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Arms NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
6.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.69 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.147 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
4.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.01 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.998 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.89 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.650 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.27 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.357 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12.0 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
grade NN O O
?3 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Arms NN O O
A/B/C NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
% NN O O
/25 NN O O
% NN O O
/18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
18 NN O O
% NN O O
/2 NN O O
% NN O O
/10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Conatumumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O I-INT
ganitumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
FOLFIRI NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
combinations NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23511149)

Perioperative NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarctions NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
often NN O O
unrecognized NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
correction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
fracture NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Troponin NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TnT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
measurements NN O I-INT
and NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
recordings NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
2nd NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
80.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
significant NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
TnT NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
sign NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
71 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
35.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
TnT NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
exceeding NN O O
five NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
normal NN O O
limit NN O O
. NN O O

TnT NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
already NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
ST NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depressions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
new NN O O
ST NN O O
segment NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serial NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
recordings NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
old NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.06 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
1.02-1.10 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
earlier NN O O
revascularization NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
3.29 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.12-9.73 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
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
2.42 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.04-5.61 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
TnT NN O O
elevation NN O O
. NN O O

Majority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarctions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
or NN O O
unrecognized NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence-based NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
were NN O O
seldom NN O O
started NN O O
and NN O O
cardiologist NN O O
was NN O O
consulted NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
often NN O O
develop NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
unrecognized NN O O
perioperative NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarctions NN O O
. NN O O

Earlier NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
appropriate NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
infarction NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
Epidemiologic NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O O
III NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23512255)

Lengthening NN O O
the NN O O
moment NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patella NN O O
confers NN O O
enhanced NN O O
extensor NN O I-OUT
mechanism NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
postulated NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
advantage NN O O
conferred NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
extensor NN O O
mechanism NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
knee NN O O
implant NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
detectable NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
direct NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
212 NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
incorporated NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
features NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Extensor NN O I-OUT
mechanism NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
battery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
timed NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
pre-operatively NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
post-arthroplasty NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Posthoc NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
highlighted NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
postulated NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
advantage NN O O
achieved NN O O
116 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
contralateral NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
design NN O O
achieved NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
functional NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
knee NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
modern NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
( NN O O
theoretically NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
a NN O O
mechanical NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
extensor NN O O
mechanism NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
generate NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
extensor NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
without NN O O
the NN O O
postulated NN O O
mechanical NN O O
advantage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23524367)

Acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
durations NN O I-INT
on NN O O
passive NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
various NN O O
disciplines NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
are NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
durations NN O I-INT
on NN O O
muscle NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
flexibility NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
stretched NN O I-INT
their NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
hamstrings NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
durations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
180 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
isokinetic NN O O
dynamometer NN O O
as NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
lower-limb NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
static NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
straight NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
raise NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SLR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
isometric NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Static NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
all NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
durations NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Static NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
180 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
seconds NN O O
of NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
20-second NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
stiffness NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
180- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
300-second NN O I-INT
stretching 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
addition NN O O
, NN O O
DPT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
300 NN O O
seconds NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
20-second NN O I-INT
stretching 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
and NN O O
SLR NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
all NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
durations NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Straight NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
raise NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
180- NN O O
and NN O O
300-second NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
20-second NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
and NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
300-second NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
60-second NN O I-INT
stretching 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

Isometric NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
all NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
durations 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

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
SPT NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
SLR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Over NN O O
180 NN O I-INT
seconds NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
was NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
DPT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
force NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
longer NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
better NN O O
flexibility NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23524942)

Clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-flurouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
over NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-flurouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
distant NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
taxol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1-14 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
II NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
indicating NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
II NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
thoroughly NN O O
substantiated NN O O
the NN O O
contention NN O O
that NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiation NN O O
with NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23525780)

Process NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Healthy NN O I-INT
Bodies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Healthy NN O I-INT
Souls NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
church-based NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Baltimore NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Soaring NN O O
obesity NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
demand NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
health NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
address NN O O
dietary NN O O
patterns NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
food NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

Healthy NN O I-INT
Bodies NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Healthy NN O I-INT
Souls NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBHS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
church-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-participatory NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cluster-randomized NN O I-PAR
health NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
Baltimore NN O O
City NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
diabetes NN O O
risk NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
promoting NN O O
healthy NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
church NN O O
food NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

HBHS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
organized NN O O
into NN O O
five NN O O
3-8-week NN O O
phases NN O O
: NN O O
Healthy NN O I-INT
Beverages NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Healthy NN O I-INT
Desserts NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Healthy NN O I-INT
Cooking NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Healthy NN O I-INT
Snacking NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Eating NN O I-INT
Out NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Physical NN O I-INT
Activity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
three-part NN O O
process NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
adopted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
in-church NN O I-OUT
instrument NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
assess NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
interactive NN O O
sessions NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
exposure NN O I-OUT
survey NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
individual-level NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
received NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
congregants NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
church NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
environment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Print NN O O
materials NN O O
were NN O O
implemented NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
fidelity NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Program NN O O
reach NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
inaccuracies NN O O
in NN O O
church NN O O
attendance NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
study NN O O
implementation NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
components NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
dose NN O O
received NN O O
were NN O O
giveaways NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
42.0-61.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
taste NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48.7-53.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
posters NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
34.3-65.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
received NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
program NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
HBHS NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23528101)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
on-demand NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sucrose-formulated NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hemophilia NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPINART NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
on-demand NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hemophilia NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
preplanned NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3-year NN O O
SPINART NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
compares NN O O
routine NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
on-demand NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O I-INT
sucrose-formulated NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
FVIII NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rFVIII-FS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS/METHODS NN O O
SPINART NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
multinational NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Males NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12-50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
hemophilia NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
FVIII NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
FVIII NN O I-PAR
inhibitors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6-24 NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preceding NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
rFVIII-FS NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
on-demand NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
completed NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
negative NN O O
binomial NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
analysis NN O O
; NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
annualized NN O O
bleeding NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Eighty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
median NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
year NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
on-demand NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
54.5 NN O O
; NN O O
total NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
27.9 NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
FVIII NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Routine NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
rFVIII-FS NN O I-INT
leads NN O I-INT
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
bleeding NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
on-demand NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
established NN O I-INT
rFVIII-FS NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
profile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23531317)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
inhalation NN O O
of NN O O
diesel NN O O
exhaust NN O O
, NN O O
hematological NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Exposure NN O O
to NN O O
traffic-related NN O O
air NN O O
pollution NN O O
( NN O O
TRAP NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
trigger NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Diesel NN O O
Exhaust NN O O
( NN O O
DE NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
TRAP NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
DE NN O O
inhalation NN O O
on NN O O
circulating NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
populations NN O O
, NN O O
hematological NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
specialized NN O O
facility NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
balanced NN O O
to NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MetS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-INT
filtered NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
DE NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
two-hour NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
2-week NN O I-PAR
washout NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
collected NN O O
blood NN O O
pre-exposure NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
initiation NN O O
and NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
performed NN O O
multiplex NN O O
cytokine NN O O
assay NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecules NN O O
( NN O O
n=15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
paired NN O O
analysis NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
DE NN O O
and NN O O
FA NN O O
exposures NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
pre-exposure NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
7 NN O O
hrs NN O O
after NN O O
DE NN O O
[ NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.9 NN O O
to NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
FA NN O O
exposure NN O O
[ NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
non-significantly NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
hrs NN O O
post NN O O
DE NN O O
[ NN O O
0.3 NN O O
gm/dL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
gm/dL NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
versus NN O O
FA NN O O
exposure NN O O
[ NN O O
0.2 NN O O
gm/dL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
0.3 NN O O
gm/dL NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.06 NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
22 NN O O
hrs NN O O
after NN O O
DE NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
MetS NN O O
subjects NN O O
[ NN O O
DE NN O O
: NN O O
16.6 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
10.2 NN O O
to NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
thousand NN O O
platelets/mL NN O O
versus NN O O
[ NN O O
FA NN O O
: NN O O
3.4 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-9.5 NN O O
to NN O O
16.3 NN O O
) NN O O
thousand NN O O
platelets/mL NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.04 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
DE NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
WBC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
erythrocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Using NN O O
the NN O O
multiplex NN O O
assay NN O O
, NN O O
small NN O O
borderline NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
metalloproteinase-9 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukins NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
7 NN O O
hrs NN O O
post NN O O
exposure NN O O
initiation NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
E-selectin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intercellular NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
22 NN O I-OUT
hrs NN O O
post NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
short-term NN O O
DE NN O O
exposure NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
hemoconcentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocytosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

Multiplex NN O O
assay NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IL-1? NN O O
and NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
immediately NN O O
post NN O O
exposure NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
myeloperoxidase NN O O
and NN O O
endothelial NN O O
activation NN O O
molecules NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
specific NN O O
assays NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
population NN O O
will NN O O
improve NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
following NN O O
acute NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
TRAP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23532629)

Erythropoietin NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
anemia NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
esophagogastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
erythropoiesis-stimulating NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
anemia NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
topic NN O O
of NN O O
debate NN O O
over NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
epoetin NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
gastric/esophagogastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
3-weekly NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
capecitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
plus NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
either NN O O
irinotecan NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
80 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Epo-b NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30000 NN O O
IU NN O O
once NN O O
weekly NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Hb NN O O
< NN O O
11 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
Hb NN O O
?12 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
< NN O O
0.5 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
, NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
30000 NN O O
IU NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O O
received NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
achieved NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
achieving NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
Hb NN O O
of NN O O
?12 NN O O
g/dl NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
14.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.0 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.056 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
78 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
irinotecan NN O O
group NN O O
profited NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
Epo-b NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
6.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.1 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
15.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
8.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
raising NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
esophagogastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
Epo-b NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
clear NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23535873)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
2000-m NN O I-OUT
rowing NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
beta-alanine NN O O
only NN O O
and NN O O
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
2,000-m NN O I-OUT
rowing NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
well-trained NN O I-PAR
rowers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
1.85 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
0.08 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
82.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
8.9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6.4 NN O I-INT
g NN O O
? NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
2,000-m NN O I-OUT
rowing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
before NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Baseline NN O I-INT
) NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
28 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
post NN O O
supplementation NN O O
trials NN O O
involved NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
maltodextrin NN O O
or NN O O
sodium NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
creating NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
conditions NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
maltodextrin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
maltodextrin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
pre-TT NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
post-TT NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
TT+5 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
analyzed NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
magnitude NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
inferences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Beta-alanine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
very NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
2,000-m NN O I-OUT
rowing NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6.4 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
8.1 NN O O
s NN O O
effect NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
likely NN O O
benefit NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
? NN O O
8.8 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
? NN O O
5.6 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
possibly NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
combining NN O O
chronic NN O O
beta-alanine NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
sodium NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
supplementation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
beta-alanine NN O O
supplementation NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O O
bicarbonate NN O O
ingestion NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Both NN O I-INT
chronic NN O I-INT
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
2,000-m NN O I-OUT
rowing NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
addition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
chronic NN O I-INT
beta-alanine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
enhance NN O O
rowing NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23547660)

The NN O O
Tiotropium NN O I-INT
Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Respimat NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
TIOSPIR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trial-design NN O O
and NN O O
rationale NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Tiotropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparing NN O O
across NN O O
programs NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
Respimat NN O I-INT
Soft NN O I-INT
Mist NN O I-INT
inhaler NN O I-INT
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O O
as NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
HandiHaler NN O I-INT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
concerns NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
raised NN O O
about NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
safety NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
via NN O O
Respimat NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
TIOSPIR NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
NCT01126437 NN O O
) NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
Respimat NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
marketed NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
?g NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
investigational NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O I-INT
tiotropium NN O I-INT
HandiHaler NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
marketed NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
are NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

that NN O I-INT
tiotropium NN O I-INT
Respimat NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
Respimat NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
are NN O O
non-inferior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
HandiHaler NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
terms NN O I-INT
of NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

that NN O O
tiotropium NN O I-INT
Respimat NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
HandiHaler NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
terms NN O I-INT
of NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
spirometry NN O O
substudy NN O O
evaluates NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
dummy NN O O
, NN O O
event-driven NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
except NN O I-PAR
inhaled NN O I-PAR
anticholinergic NN O I-PAR
agents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
encompasses NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
wide NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
e.g NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
arrhythmia NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
include NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
specialists NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
To NN O I-PAR
date NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
17,000 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
1200 NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
anticipated NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
2-3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
TIOSPIR NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
precise NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Respimat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HandiHaler NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tiotropium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
potential NN O I-OUT
dose-dependence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
provide NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
epidemiology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
COPD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
international NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
cohort NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23562009)

Daclizumab NN O I-INT
high-yield NN O O
process NN O O
in NN O O
relapsing-remitting NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
sclerosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
SELECT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Daclizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
humanised NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
modulates NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O O
signalling NN O O
by NN O O
blocking NN O O
the NN O O
? NN O O
subunit NN O O
( NN O O
CD25 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interleukin-2 NN O O
receptor NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
high-yield NN O O
process NN O O
( NN O O
HYP NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Czech NN O I-PAR
Republic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Hungary NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Poland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Russia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ukraine NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Turkey NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
Feb NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing-remitting NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
interactive NN O O
voice NN O O
response NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
personnel NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O O
pharmacist NN O O
who NN O O
prepared NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
annualised NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial 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
NCT00390221 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O I-PAR
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
208 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
209 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
188 NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
192 NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
197 NN O O
( NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
completed NN O O
follow-up NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
52 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
annualised NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
0?21 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?16-0?29 NN O O
; NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
33-68 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
0?23 NN O O
, NN O O
0?17-0?31 NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
28-65 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?00015 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0?46 NN O O
, NN O O
0?37-0?57 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups 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
64 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
p=0?0003 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

12 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
daclizumab NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
excluding NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
sclerosis NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-OUT
patient NN O O
given NN O O
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recovering NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
rash NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
local NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psoas NN O O
abscess NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Subcutaneous NN O I-INT
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
multiple NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
during NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
daclizumab NN O I-INT
HYP NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
offer NN O I-INT
an NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
relapsing-remitting NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FUNDING NN O I-OUT
Biogen NN O O
Idec NN O O
and NN O O
AbbVie NN O O
Biotherapeutics NN O O
Inc NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23562192)

Nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
intercellular NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
desloratadine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Because NN O O
intercellular NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecule NN O O
( NN O O
ICAM NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
of NN O O
eosinophils NN O O
are NN O O
crucial NN O O
in NN O O
supporting NN O O
allergic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
down-regulation NN O O
may NN O O
bring NN O O
additional NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
ICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
desloratadine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
montelukast NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
single-center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two-arm NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
AR NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
desloratadine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
montelukast/levocetirizine NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
than NN O O
levocetirizine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desloratadine/montelukast NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
resulting NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
influx NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AR NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
antihistamines NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
montelukast NN O I-INT
, NN O O
may NN O O
additionally NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
bring NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
that NN O O
favor NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23566237)

Successful NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depressed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
distensible NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
scars NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblasts NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
multi-site NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
previous NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblasts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
dermal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O O
contour NN O O
deformities NN O O
found NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
wrinkle NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblast NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
distensible NN O I-PAR
facial NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
scars NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
vehicle NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
scarring NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O O
served NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Skin NN O O
biopsies NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
randomized NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
fibroblast NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
three NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
sessions NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblast NN O I-INT
suspension NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10-20 NN O O
million NN O O
cells/mL NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
one NN O O
cheek NN O O
and NN O O
vehicle NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
cell NN O O
culture NN O O
medium NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
at NN O O
14-day NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
blinded NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
evaluator NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
photographic NN O I-OUT
viewer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IPR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
scarring NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblast NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
treatment NN O O
success NN O O
than NN O O
vehicle NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
vs.18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
evaluator NN O O
( NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IPR NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblast NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
permanent NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Autologous NN O I-INT
fibroblast NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
safely NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depressed NN O I-OUT
distensible NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23578015)

Long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
88 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
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ASD 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
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
as NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of 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

Primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
ADHD NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD-RS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inattention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity-impulsivity NN O I-OUT
ADHD-RS NN O I-OUT
further NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
34.9 NN O O
to NN O O
27.0 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
ADHD-RS NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
18.3 NN O O
to NN O O
14.5 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ADHD-RS NN O I-OUT
inattention NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
16.5 NN O O
to NN O O
12.6 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hyperactivity-impulsivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
diminish NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
continued NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
regarding NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
continued NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
further NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
while NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
tend NN O O
to NN O O
subside NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine 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
ASD NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
. 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- (23578065)

Altered NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
saccadic NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fetal NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Prenatal NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
alcohol NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
, NN O O
preventable NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
neurobehavioral NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measurement NN O O
and NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
saccadic NN O O
eye NN O O
movements NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
sensory NN O O
, NN O O
motor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
as NN O O
saccade NN O O
metrics NN O O
. NN O O

Saccade NN O O
accuracy NN O O
is NN O O
1 NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
metrics NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
to NN O O
function NN O O
optimally NN O O
requires NN O O
several NN O O
cortical NN O O
brain NN O O
structures NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intact NN O O
cerebellum NN O O
and NN O O
brain-stem NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cerebellum NN O O
has NN O O
frequently NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
damaged NN O O
by NN O O
prenatal NN O O
alcohol NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fetal NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
exhibit NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
saccades NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
FASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
completed NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
saccadic NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
difficulty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eye NN O O
movement NN O O
performance NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
tasks NN O O
was NN O O
captured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
infrared NN O O
eye NN O O
tracker NN O O
. NN O O

Saccade NN O I-OUT
metrics NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
velocity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
different NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O O
with NN O O
FASD NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
variable NN O O
in NN O O
saccade NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
saccade NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
, NN O O
corrective NN O I-OUT
saccades NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
final NN O O
fixation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
increased NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
amplified NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O O
demand NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tasks NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
with NN O O
FASD NN O O
also NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
FASD NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
eye NN O O
movement NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
sensory-motor NN O O
integration NN O O
including NN O O
cerebellar NN O O
circuits NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
impairing NN O O
saccade NN O O
accuracy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23586852)

Promoting NN O O
question-asking NN O I-INT
in NN O O
school-aged 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 I-PAR
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
robot NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
human-trainer NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE 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
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
applied NN O I-INT
behaviour NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ABA-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
trainer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
promoting NN O O
self-initiated NN O O
questions NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
crossover NN O O
multiple NN O O
baseline NN O O
design NN O O
across NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
self-initiated NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
self-initiated NN O I-OUT
questions NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
maintained NN O O
this NN O O
skill NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
interventions NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
trainer NN O I-INT
were NN O O
both NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
self-initiated NN O O
questions NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
conclusion NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
differential NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
and NN O O
directions 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- (23587455)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
morphine NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
gynecology NN O O
tumor NN O O
operation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
opioids NN O O
and NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
opioid-sparing NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
complex NN O O
operations NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
gynecological NN O O
tumor NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-PAR
tumor 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
either NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
parecoxib NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
access NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
0-10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
cumulative NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
administered NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
than NN O O
in 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
at NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
3.81 NN O O
? NN O O
0.35 NN O O
versus NN O O
4.13 NN O O
? NN O O
0.45 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
16.20 NN O O
? NN O O
1.49 NN O O
versus NN O O
19.60 NN O O
? NN O O
0.35 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
26.29 NN O O
? NN O O
2.75 NN O O
versus NN O O
32.49 NN O O
? NN O O
2.42 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
41.72 NN O O
? NN O O
2.70 NN O O
versus NN O O
49.97 NN O O
? NN O O
4.53 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
60.06 NN O O
? NN O O
4.00 NN O O
versus NN O O
65.68 NN O O
? NN O O
3.23 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
movement NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
3.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
2.6 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 I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
P NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
6.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
parecoxib NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O O
analgesic NN O O
morphine NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O O
requirement NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
after NN O O
gynecological NN O O
tumor NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23588127)

Prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
cervicitis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Mucopurulent NN O O
cervicitis NN O O
( NN O O
MPC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
syndrome NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
mucopurulent NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
empiric NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
cure NN O O
of NN O O
MPC NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
etiology NN O O
at NN O O
2-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Unfortunately NN O O
, NN O O
enrollment NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
accrual NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cervicitis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
important NN O O
prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MPC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
etiology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, 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
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pelvic NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirty-one NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
131/577 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
MPC NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-seven NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
excluding NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
sexually NN O O
transmitted NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
exclusions NN O O
, NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
53/87 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
cervicitis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
10/33 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
8/33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
24 NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
AE NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
More NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
MPC NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
extremely NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
most NN O O
women NN O O
concluding NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23590124)

Is NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
mobile NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
waves NN O I-INT
on NN O O
human NN O O
skin NN O O
perfusion NN O O
non-thermal NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
establish NN O O
whether NN O O
SkBF NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
waves NN O I-INT
emitted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
mobile NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
when NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
is NN O O
held NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
jaw NN O O
and NN O O
ear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Variations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SkBF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Tsk NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
recorded NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
thermostatic NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
20-minute NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
20-minute NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
skin NN O O
microvessels NN O O
' NN O O
vasodilatory NN O O
reserve NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
heat NN O O
challenge NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
, NN O O
SkBF NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sessions NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Tsk NN O I-OUT
time-course NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
microvessels NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
vasodilatory NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
greater NN O O
during NN O O
radiofrequency NN O O
exposure NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
sham NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
reveal NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
vasodilatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
of NN O O
mobile NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
on NN O O
skin NN O O
perfusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23592849)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
fidelity NN O I-INT
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
Strategies NN O O
for NN O O
Teaching NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
Autism NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Structured NN O O
Teaching NN O O
enrolled NN O O
educators NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
kindergarten-through-second-grade NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
District NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Philadelphia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Students NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed 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
the NN O O
academic NN O O
year NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Differential NN O O
Ability NN O O
Scales NN O O
. NN O O

Program NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
through NN O O
video NN O I-INT
coding NN O I-INT
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
checklist NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
with NN O O
random NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
classroom NN O O
and NN O O
student NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Average NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Strategies NN O O
for NN O O
Teaching NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Autism NN O O
Research NN O O
classrooms NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Structured NN O O
Teaching NN O O
classrooms NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
9.2-point NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
= NN O O
9.6 NN O O
) NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
Differential NN O I-OUT
Ability NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
8-month NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
classrooms NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
low NN O O
or NN O O
high NN O O
program NN O O
fidelity NN O O
, NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Strategies NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Teaching NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
gain NN O O
in NN O O
Differential NN O I-OUT
Ability NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Structured NN O I-PAR
Teaching NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
11.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.5 NN O O
points NN O O
and NN O O
11.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.9 NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
classrooms NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
fidelity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
students NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Structured NN O I-OUT
Teaching NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
greater NN O O
gain NN O O
than NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Strategies NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Teaching NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.4 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
significant NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
practices NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
supports NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
challenging NN O O
issues NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
implementation NN O O
measurement NN O O
in NN O O
community NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23605599)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
on NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
might NN O O
give NN O O
rise NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
mucositis NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
severe NN O O
and NN O O
painful NN O O
inflammation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
known NN O O
definite NN O O
cure NN O O
for NN O O
mucositis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-power NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
radiotherapy- NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-power NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
xerostomia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
result NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
2009-2010 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
low-power NN O O
laser NN O O
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
xerostomia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
variety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malignancies NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
& NN O O
lt NN O O
; NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
low-power NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
might NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23605805)

Clinical NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
buffered NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
sublingual NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O O
new NN O O
physiologically NN O O
based NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
disposition NN O O
. NN O O

Sublingual NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
buffered NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main 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
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
propranolol NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
Cp-prop NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
sublingual NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
specially NN O I-INT
buffered NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
that NN O O
following NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Inderal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
special NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
model NN O O
in NN O O
describing NN O O
the NN O O
Cp-prop NN O O
following NN O O
sublingual NN O O
administration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
sublingual NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
Inderal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Multiple NN O I-INT
Cp-prop NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
data NN O O
following NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Inderal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
utilized NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
special NN O O
advanced NN O O
compartmental NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
transit NN O O
( NN O O
ACAT NN O O
) NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
model NN O O
simulation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
physicochemical NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
imported NN O O
from NN O O
AMET NN O O
predictor NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
optimized NN O O
by NN O O
Gastroplus NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
absorbed NN O O
via NN O I-OUT
buccal/sublingual NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Cp-prop NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
at NN O O
earlier NN O O
times NN O O
with NN O O
3-fold NN O O
greater NN O O
relative NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
following NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
that NN O O
from NN O O
oral NN O O
Inderal NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
special NN O O
ACAT NN O O
model NN O O
provided NN O O
excellent NN O O
goodness NN O O
of NN O O
fit NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
Cp-prop-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
56.6 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Promptol? NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
initial NN O O
Cp-prop NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
modified NN O O
ACAT NN O O
model NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
sublingual NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
and NN O O
clearly NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Promptol? NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
sublingual NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
Promptol? NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
as NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
Inderal NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
effective NN O O
Cp-prop NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
advantageous NN O O
for NN O O
certain NN O O
clinical NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23609382)

Memantine NN O I-INT
add-on NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
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

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
memantine NN O I-INT
add-on NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fourth NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stabilized NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minimum NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
memantine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
risperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
mg/d NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Assessment NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
postbaseline NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
memantine NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
end NN O O
point 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
same NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
psychopathology NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.757 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
memantine NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
tolerable NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
add-on NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23613224)

Home-based NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
hospital-based NN O I-INT
high-intensity NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
High-intensity NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
exercise NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
gradually NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
exercise NN O O
is NN O O
intensity NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
HIT NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
strict NN O O
supervision 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
HIT NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ninety NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
men/10 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
exercise NN O O
modes NN O O
: NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HIT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
85-95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Eighty-three NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
34.7 NN O O
? NN O O
7.3 NN O O
to NN O O
39.0 NN O O
? NN O O
8.0 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
32.7 NN O O
? NN O O
6.5 NN O O
to NN O O
36.0 NN O O
? NN O O
6.2 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34.4 NN O O
? NN O O
4.8 NN O O
to NN O O
37.2 NN O O
? NN O O
5.2 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
in NN O O
TE NN O O
, NN O O
GE NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HE NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
TE NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

HE NN O O
was NN O O
1.6 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.7 NN O O
to NN O O
3.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
TE NN O O
vs. NN O O
GE NN O O
1.1 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-0.5 NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GE NN O O
vs NN O O
. NN O O

HE NN O O
0.6 NN O O
ml/kg/min NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
on-treatment NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
HIT NN O O
was NN O O
efficiently NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
settings NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Exercise NN O O
mode NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
essential NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23614586)

Health-education NN O O
package NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
worm NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
schoolchildren NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Soil-transmitted NN O O
helminths NN O O
are NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
prevalent NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
infections NN O O
globally NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
determined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O O
package NN O O
at NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Linxiang NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
District NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Hunan NN O I-PAR
province NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
where NN O O
these NN O O
worms NN O O
are NN O O
prevalent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
soil-transmitted NN O O
helminths NN O O
, NN O O
induce NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
unmatched NN O O
, NN O O
cluster-randomized NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
1718 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Schools NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
health-education NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cartoon NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
involved NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
display NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
health-education NN O I-INT
poster NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
soil-transmitted NN O I-OUT
helminths NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hand-washing NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Albendazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
soil-transmitted NN O O
helminths NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
helminths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
43 NN O O
points NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention 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
63.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
33.4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
washed NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
hands NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
toilet NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
nearly NN O I-OUT
twice NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
98.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
54.2 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
0.001 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
infection NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
soil-transmitted NN O O
helminths NN O O
was NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention 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
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.4 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

No NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
immediately NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
albendazole NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
health-education NN O O
package NN O O
increased NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
soil-transmitted NN O O
helminths NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
school NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
UBS NN O O
Optimus NN O O
Foundation NN O O
, NN O O
Zurich NN O O
, NN O O
Switzerland NN O O
; 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
number NN O O
, NN O O
ACTRN12610000048088 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23619951)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multi-component NN O O
higher-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
anti-stigma NN O O
program NN O O
on NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
six-session NN O O
higher-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
anti-stigma NN O O
program NN O O
incorporating NN O O
descriptive NN O O
, NN O O
explanatory NN O O
and NN O O
directive NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
to NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
upon NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
towards NN O O
peers NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
seventh- NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eighth- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ninth-grade NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
395 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
classes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mainstream NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two-eighth-grade NN O I-PAR
classes NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
remaining NN O I-INT
students NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
no-intervention NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no-intervention NN O I-INT
non-peer NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
anti-stigma NN O O
program NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
behavioural NN O I-OUT
intentions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
participants NN O O
towards NN O O
their NN O O
peers NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attitudinal NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
spill-over NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
non-targeted NN O O
students NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
some NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
multi-session NN O O
anti-stigma NN O O
programs NN O O
incorporating NN O O
combined NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
educational NN O I-PAR
environments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23623047)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
olmesartan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
plaque NN O O
volume NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O O
plaques NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
( NN O I-INT
olmesartan NN O I-INT
at NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
or NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
at NN O O
80 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
plaque NN O O
by NN O O
coronary NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
receptor NN O O
blockers NN O O
after NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Nontarget NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
volumetric NN O O
intravascular NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
olmesartan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
examined NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
46.2 NN O O
? NN O O
24.1 NN O O
mm? NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
vs NN O O
41.6 NN O O
? NN O O
21.1 NN O O
mm? NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
: NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
47.2 NN O O
? NN O O
32.7 NN O O
mm? NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
vs NN O O
42.5 NN O O
? NN O O
30.2 NN O O
mm? NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
: NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
olmesartan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23624061)

Are NN O O
postural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
backward NN O O
and NN O O
forward NN O O
perturbations NN O O
processed NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
neural NN O O
circuits NN O O
? NN O O
Startle NN O O
pathways NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
rapid NN O O
accomplishment NN O O
of NN O O
postural NN O O
stability NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
startling NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
stimulus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
formulated NN O O
four NN O O
specific NN O O
questions NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
a NN O O
concurrent NN O O
SAS NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
automatic NN O O
postural NN O O
responses NN O O
? NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
so NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
forward NN O O
versus NN O O
backward NN O O
perturbations NN O O
? NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
does NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
prior NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perturbation NN O O
direction NN O O
? NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
low- NN O O
and NN O O
high-magnitude NN O O
perturbations NN O O
? NN O O
Balance NN O O
was NN O O
perturbed NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
movable NN O I-PAR
platform NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
suddenly NN O I-PAR
translated NN O I-PAR
forward NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
backward NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
participant NN O O
received NN O O
160 NN O O
perturbations NN O I-INT
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
SAS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
varied NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
and NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perturbations NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
perturbation NN O O
direction NN O O
. NN O O

Perturbation NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
interspersed NN O O
with NN O O
SAS-only NN O I-INT
trials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SAS NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O O
and NN O O
strengthened NN O O
postural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
clear NN O O
functional NN O O
benefits NN O O
( NN O O
better NN O O
balance NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
true NN O O
for NN O O
responses NN O O
that NN O O
protected NN O O
against NN O O
falling NN O O
backwards NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
tibialis NN O O
anterior NN O O
and NN O O
rectus NN O O
femoris NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
muscles NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
SAS-triggered NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
perturbation NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
perturbation NN O O
magnitude NN O O
accelerated NN O O
postural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
again NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
acceleration NN O O
for NN O O
backward NN O O
perturbations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
postural NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
backward NN O O
and NN O O
forward NN O O
perturbations NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
processed NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
neural NN O O
circuits NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
startle NN O O
pathways NN O O
on NN O O
postural NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
backward NN O O
perturbations NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
give NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
investigating NN O O
whether NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
startle NN O O
pathways NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
prominent NN O O
backward NN O O
instability NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
supranuclear NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23632800)

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
transvaginal NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
prolapse NN O I-PAR
repair NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
AND NN O O
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
transvaginal NN O I-INT
trocar-guided NN O I-INT
polypropylene NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
colporrhaphy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
prolapse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
vaginal NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
prolapse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Ba NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
+1 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pelvic NN O I-PAR
Organ NN O I-PAR
Prolapse NN O I-PAR
Quantification NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
POP-Q NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
either NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
colporrhaphy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
39 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
repair NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
trocar-guided NN O I-INT
transvaginal NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
compartment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
Ba NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
stages NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
I NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
anatomical NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
quantification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
compartments NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
POP-Q NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prolapse NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P-QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
power NN O O
was NN O O
fixed NN O O
as NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
cutoff NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
regarding NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
preoperative NN O O
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Anatomical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
colporrhaphy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
repair NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
mesh NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
were NN O O
56.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
82.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.068-0.54 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
tape NN O O
exposure NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
P-QOL NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
distinct NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Trocar-guided NN O I-INT
transvaginal NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
advanced NN O O
anterior NN O O
POP NN O O
repair NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
anatomical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
compartment NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
colporrhaphy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
equally NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
both NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
P-QOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23639612)

Galactomannan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
histology NN O O
for NN O O
directing NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antifungal NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
invasive NN O I-PAR
aspergillosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
haematology NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Empirical NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
antifungal NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
haematology NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
aspergillosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
( NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
histology NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
biomarker-based NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
( NN O O
aspergillus NN O O
galactomannan NN O O
and NN O O
PCR NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
directing NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antifungal NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
stem-cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
fungal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enrolled NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
schedule NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
histology NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker-based NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aspergillus NN O I-INT
galactomannan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
direct NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
antifungal NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

Masking NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
tests NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
treating NN O O
physicians NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
investigators NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
empirical NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
antifungal NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
enrolment NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
biomarker-based NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
postive NN O O
galactomannan NN O O
or NN O O
PCR NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
deemed NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
invasive NN O O
aspergillosis NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
context NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
empirical NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
data NN O O
review NN O O
committee NN O O
from NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
allocations NN O O
were NN O O
masked NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
all NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients 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
ClinicalTrial.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00163722 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
Sept NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Nov NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
122 NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
and NN O O
118 NN O O
the NN O O
biomarker-based NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

39 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
biomarker NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
empirical NN O O
antifungal NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
4-26 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
hepatotoxic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
biomarker NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
hepatotoxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
21 NN O O
[ NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
12 NN O O
[ NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?11 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
52 NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
60 NN O O
[ NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
aspergillus NN O O
galactomannan NN O O
and NN O O
PCR NN O O
to NN O O
direct NN O O
treatment NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
empirical NN O I-OUT
antifungal NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
approach NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
invasive NN O O
aspergillosis NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
haematology NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
FUNDING NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
, NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Council NN O O
New NN O O
South NN O O
Wales NN O O
, NN O O
Pfizer NN O O
, NN O O
Merck NN O O
, NN O O
Gilead NN O O
Sciences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23642776)

Extra NN O I-INT
virgin NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EVOO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
and NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
institutionalized NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
increased NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
defense NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
EVOO NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
institutionalized NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65-96 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
daily NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
polyphenol-rich NN O I-INT
EVOO NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
oleuropein NN O I-INT
derivative NN O I-INT
contents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O O
maintained NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
habits NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=39 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
olive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
EVOO NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
added NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
50ml NN O O
( NN O O
n=23 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TGs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
OG NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
HDL NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CG NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
OG NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
over NN O O
CG NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
hydroxytyrosol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH-Tyr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
after NN O O
EVOO NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
EVOO NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OH-Tyr NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TAC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
also NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
catalase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
superoxide NN O I-OUT
dismutase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GH-PX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
EVOO NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
EVOO NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
on NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
nutritional NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
EVOO NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23647705)

Predicting NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
anthelmintic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dairy NN O I-OUT
cattle NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
an NN O O
Ostertagia NN O O
ostertagi NN O O
ELISA NN O O
from NN O O
individual NN O O
milk NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

Gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
nematodes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
Ostertagia NN O I-PAR
ostertagi NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
several NN O I-PAR
species NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Cooperia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
ubiquitous NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
temperate NN O I-PAR
climates NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
shown NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
detrimental NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
dairy NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
published NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
producers NN O O
lose NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
0.35 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
milk NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
parasitized NN O I-PAR
cow NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enzyme-linked NN O I-INT
immunosorbent NN O I-INT
assays NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ELISAs NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
nematode NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
cattle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
milk NN O O
production NN O O
loss NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
differing NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
parasitism NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
cow NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

ELISA NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
individual NN O I-PAR
cow NN O I-PAR
milk NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
predict NN O I-PAR
milk NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
following NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
anthelmintic NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
increase NN O O
statistical NN O O
power NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
pooled NN O O
with NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
other NN O O
published NN O O
field NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
form NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
patient NN O O
data NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
( NN O O
IPDMA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
anthelmintic NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
milk NN O O
production NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
parasitism NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
ELISA NN O O
measuring NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
O. NN O O
ostertagi NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
optical NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ODRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimates NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
ODR NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
milk NN O O
production NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
how NN O O
well NN O O
the NN O O
ODR NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
anticipated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ODR NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
fractional NN O O
polynomials NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
ODR NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.138 NN O O
) NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
ODR NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
late NN O O
lactation NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
Svanovir NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.12 NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
individual NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
other NN O O
similar NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
IPDMA NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
terms NN O O
became NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
when NN O I-OUT
ODR NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
slightly NN O O
elevated NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
graph NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
kg/cow/day NN O O
of NN O O
milk NN O O
yield NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
cows NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
ODR NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
note NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
quantifying NN O O
the NN O O
ODR NN O O
values NN O O
differed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IPDMA NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
some NN O O
caution NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
final NN O O
estimated NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
shape NN O O
and NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
fixed NN O O
model NN O O
estimates NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
IPDMA NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
any NN O O
bias NN O O
would NN O O
likely NN O O
be NN O O
minimal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23647761)

Palliative NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
placement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oesophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
self-expanding NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SEMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
dysphagia NN O O
without NN O O
increased NN O O
pain NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incurable NN O I-PAR
oesophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
SEMS NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
Gy?3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=21 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
Gy?3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=20 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
seven NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
randomisation NN O O
( NN O O
FU1 NN O O
and NN O O
FU2 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dysphagia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
every NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
closed NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
patient-number NN O O
was NN O O
reached NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
SEMS NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
FU1 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Difference NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
FU2 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
n=21 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
manageable NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
dysphagia NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SEMS NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O O
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
preferable NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O O
alleviation NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
preceding NN O I-INT
SEMS NN O I-INT
provides NN O I-INT
relief NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23648162)

[ NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
setting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-INT
tidal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
alarm NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
extra-sternum NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
resuscitation NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
ventilator NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
tidal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
alarm NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
by NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
extra-sternum NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiration NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
low NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
control NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
VT NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
on NN O O
6 NN O O
- NN O O
7 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
pressure NN O O
alarm NN O O
threshold NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
during NN O O
CPR NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
VT NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
pressure NN O O
alarm NN O O
threshold NN O O
were NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
- NN O O
12 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Real-time NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PIP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
minutes NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
CPR NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PaO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PaCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HCO3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
better NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
pH NN O O
: NN O O
7.21?0.09 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.13?0.07 NN O O
, NN O O
PaO2 NN O O
: NN O O
45.35?5.92 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
vs. NN O O
40.70?4.70 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
PaCO2 NN O O
: NN O O
57.10?7.59 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
vs. NN O O
61.60?5.47 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
HCO3 NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
18.50?3.50 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
14.75?2.65 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
: NN O O
0.796?0.069 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.699?0.066 NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
lactic NN O O
acid NN O O
: NN O O
7.07?1.60 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.13?1.56 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resuscitation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
15 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
PIP NN O O
( NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
37.25?7.99 NN O I-INT
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
vs. NN O O
42.70?7.40 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O 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
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
barotrauma NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-INT
VT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6 NN O O
- NN O O
7 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
appropriate NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
alarm NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
barotraumas NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23652826)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe/simvastatin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
aspirin-naive NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
48.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
10.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
over NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD141 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
thrombomodulin NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
CD51/61 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
vitronectin NN O O
receptor NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
simvastatin NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
beyond NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
await NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IMPROVE-IT NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
Improved NN O O
Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
Vytorin NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
International NN O O
Trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23659834)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
NERD NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
proton NN O O
pump NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
non-erosive NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NERD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O O
and NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
relief NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
initial NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
weekly NN O O
average NN O O
symptom NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
398 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
253 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
on-demand NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
127 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
14 NN O O
( NN O O
11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.065 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O I-INT
hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
that NN O O
of NN O I-INT
esomeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
person/day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
35.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Hydrotalcite NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
option NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
on-demand NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
NERD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
its NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23660099)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
probiotics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
curative NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
probiotics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
SAP NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
EN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P+EN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
P+EN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
their NN O O
nutrition NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
EN NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
probiotics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
4 NN O O
capsules NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
through NN O O
nasal NN O O
gastric NN O O
tube NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
capsule NN O O
weighing NN O O
210 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
routine NN O O
treatment NN O O
including NN O O
anti-infection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anti-acid NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
secretion NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
nutritional NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
e NN O O
same NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TNF-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
enzyme NN O O
linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
ELISA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
dehydrogenase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amylase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipase NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
biochemistry NN O O
assay NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
intervention NN O O
of NN O O
nutrition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
organ NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TNF-? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amylase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipase NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
nutritional NN O O
intervention NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
levels NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
before NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TNF-? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LDH NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
of NN O O
nutrition NN O O
in NN O O
P+EN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
EN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
IL-8 NN O O
: NN O O
21.00 NN O O
? NN O O
7.07 NN O O
?g/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
48.00 NN O O
? NN O O
10.32 NN O O
?g/L NN O O
, NN O O
32.00 NN O O
? NN O O
9.30 NN O O
?g/L NN O O
; NN O O
TNF-? NN O O
: NN O O
44.3 NN O O
? NN O O
10.9 NN O O
ng/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
132.1 NN O O
? NN O O
34.1 NN O O
ng/L NN O O
, NN O O
67.8 NN O O
? NN O O
22.3 NN O O
ng/L NN O O
; NN O O
CRP NN O O
: NN O O
35.0 NN O O
? NN O O
12.4 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
103.2 NN O O
? NN O O
49.2 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
, NN O O
63.0 NN O O
? NN O O
29.2 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
; NN O O
lipase NN O O
: NN O O
269 NN O O
? NN O O
79 NN O O
U/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
670 NN O O
? NN O O
145 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
310 NN O O
? NN O O
78 NN O O
U/L NN O O
; NN O O
LDH NN O O
: NN O O
21.8 NN O O
? NN O O
10.3 NN O O
U/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
78.1 NN O O
? NN O O
37.4 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
37.9 NN O O
? NN O O
25.1 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
or 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
WBC NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
P+EN NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
? NN O O
3.0 NN O O
? NN O O
10?/L NN O O
, NN O O
6.3 NN O O
? NN O O
3.2 NN O O
? NN O O
10?/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
9.6 NN O O
? NN O O
3.0 NN O O
?10?/L NN O O
, NN O O
both 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
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
amylase NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-INT
P+EN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
211 NN O O
? NN O O
49 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
236 NN O O
? NN O O
52 NN O O
U/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
298 NN O O
? NN O O
71 NN O O
U/L NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
P+EN NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
nutritional NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
0.28 NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
? NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
0.71 NN O O
? NN O O
0.11 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
9 NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abscess NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
day NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shortened NN O O
in NN O O
P+EN NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10.4 NN O O
? NN O O
3.9 NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
25.8 NN O O
? NN O O
6.4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
13.4 NN O O
? NN O O
5.2 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
probiotics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bifidobacterium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
significant NN O O
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pro-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
earlier NN O I-OUT
restoration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SAP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23676253)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Deficits NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
cognition NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
predict NN O O
poor NN O O
community NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
limitations NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
cognitive NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agents NN O O
could NN O O
greatly NN O O
enhance NN O O
functional NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
acutely NN O O
improves NN O O
social NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
veterans NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
baseline NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
cognition NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
lower-level NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lies NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
higher-level NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sarcasm NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
deception NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
empathy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
processes NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
week NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
battery NN O O
after NN O O
being NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
IU NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Though NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
higher-level NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cohen NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
d=1.0 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
accurately NN O O
guess NN O O
which NN O O
treatment NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvements NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
higher-level NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
encourage NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23678498)

Supporting NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
challenging NN O I-PAR
contexts NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
CAPEDP NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
France NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
generous NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
care NN O O
systems NN O O
for NN O O
infant NN O O
and NN O O
maternal NN O O
well-being NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Western NN O O
world NN O O
, NN O O
professionals NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
increasingly NN O O
concerned NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
rising NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
home-visiting NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
France NN O O
to NN O O
specifically NN O O
target NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
questions NN O O
in NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
vulnerable NN O I-PAR
contexts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
CAPEDP NN O O
project NN O O
, NN O O
involving NN O O
440 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
place NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Paris NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
inner NN O I-PAR
suburbs NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
i NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ii NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
iii NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
sufficiently NN O I-PAR
fluent NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
French NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
give NN O I-PAR
truly 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
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
iv NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
vulnerability NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
educational NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
intending NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
bring NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
father NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
44 NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
trimester NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pregnancy NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
birthday NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
infant NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
paid NN O O
particular NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
postnatal NN O O
maternal NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
promoting NN O O
parenting NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
attachment NN O O
security NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
home-visits NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
major NN O O
issue NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
adapting NN O O
international NN O O
best NN O O
practice NN O O
recommendations NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
home-visiting NN O O
programs NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
particularities NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
French NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
original NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
trained NN O O
clinical NN O O
psychologists NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
all NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23680243)

Pregnancy NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
retrospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
CSII NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MDI NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
Present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal-fetal NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSII NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
multiple NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
retrospective NN O I-PAR
observational NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
thirty-four NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
CSII NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-INT
MDI NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
maternal-fetal NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
parameters NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
abortion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
congenital NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Pregnancy NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pregnant NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CSII NN O O
and NN O O
MDI NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
CSII NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MDI NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
CSII NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
( NN O O
CSII NN O O
: NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
MDI NN O O
: NN O O
0.46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
CSII NN O O
: NN O O
1.58 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
MDI NN O O
: NN O O
0.78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
trimester NN O O
( NN O O
CSII NN O O
: NN O O
1.74 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
MDI NN O O
: NN O O
1.09 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MDI NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
born NN O I-OUT
baby NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
founded NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abortion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
born NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
founded NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
CSII NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MDI NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
Apgar NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
CSII NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MDI NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
CSII NN O O
gives NN O O
better NN O O
glycemic NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MDI NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CSII NN O O
also NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
insulin NN O O
requirement NN O O
compared NN O O
MDI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23688137)

Environmental NN O O
enrichment NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Enriched NN O O
sensorimotor NN O O
environments NN O O
enable NN O O
rodents NN O O
to NN O O
compensate NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
neurological NN O O
challenges NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
those NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
sensorimotor NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
translate NN O O
that NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
treatment NN O O
. 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
3-12 NN O I-PAR
year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
sensorimotor NN O I-INT
enrichment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
received NN O O
daily NN O O
olfactory/tactile NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
stimulated NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
paired NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
modalities NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
administered NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
severity NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enriched NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Indeed NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enriched NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
what NN O O
we NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
points NN O O
on NN O O
that NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Sensorimotor NN O O
enrichment NN O O
also NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
Leiter-R NN O O
Visualization NN O O
and NN O O
Reasoning NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
enriched NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
11.3 NN O O
points NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enriched NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Environmental NN O O
enrichment NN O O
therefore NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
ameliorating NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23688859)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
thin-ideal NN O O
media NN O O
images NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
testing NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
disclaimer NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
warning NN O I-INT
label NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
disclaimer NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
Retouched NN O O
photograph NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
changing NN O O
a NN O O
person NN O O
's NN O O
physical NN O O
appearance NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
or NN O O
warning NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
Warning NN O O
: NN O O
Trying NN O O
to NN O O
look NN O O
as NN O O
thin NN O O
as NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
dangerous NN O O
to NN O O
your NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
thin/attractive NN O O
models NN O O
would NN O O
affect NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
intent NN O O
to NN O O
diet NN O O
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
undergraduate NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=342 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
disclaimer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
warning NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
car NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
whereby NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
car NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
dissatisfaction NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
intent NN O O
to NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
post-exposure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
largely NN O O
replicate NN O O
other NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
call NN O O
into NN O O
question NN O O
advocacy NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
label NN O O
media NN O O
images NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
identification NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23690414)

Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Cancer-related-fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PL NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
CRF NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Functional NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
Illness NN O I-OUT
Therapy-Fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O O
subscale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
intervention NN O O
including NN O O
MP NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
nursing NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. 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
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Edmonton NN O I-PAR
Symptom NN O I-PAR
Assessment NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ESAS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
MP+NTI NN O O
, NN O O
PL+NTI NN O O
, NN O O
MP NN O O
+ NN O O
control NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CTI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PL+CTI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Methylphenidate NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
MP+NTI NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
4.5 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PL+NTI NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
8.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
MP+CTI NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
7.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PL+CTI NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
5.0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
MP NN O O
and NN O O
PL NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
5.5 NN O O
v NN O O
6.0 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ESAS NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
NTI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Grade NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
MP NN O O
and NN O O
PL NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
of NN O O
93 NN O O
patients NN O O
v NN O O
29 NN O O
of NN O O
97 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
MP NN O O
and NN O O
NTI NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
improving NN O I-OUT
CRF NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23699515)

The NN O O
aging NN O O
motor NN O O
system NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
plastic NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
GABA-mediated NN O O
intracortical NN O O
inhibition NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
behavioral NN O O
relevance NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
GABAA-mediated NN O O
intracortical NN O O
inhibition NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
underlie NN O O
plastic NN O O
changes NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
lifespan NN O O
from NN O O
development NN O O
to NN O O
aging NN O O
, NN O O
here NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aging NN O O
motor NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
interdependence NN O O
of NN O O
plastic NN O O
alterations NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
motorcortical NN O O
network NN O O
and NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Double-pulse NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dpTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
examine NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
short-interval NN O I-INT
intracortical NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SICI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
contralateral NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
cortex NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
right-handed NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
covering NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
wide NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
lifespan NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
20-88 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
47.6 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
20.7 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SICI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
during NN O O
resting NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
event-related NN O O
condition NN O O
during NN O O
movement NN O O
preparation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
visually NN O O
triggered NN O O
simple NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
manual NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
tasks NN O O
of NN O O
graded NN O O
dexterous NN O O
demand NN O O
. NN O O

Weak NN O I-OUT
resting-state NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
lower NN O O
manual NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O I-OUT
event-related NN O I-OUT
modulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
demanding NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
fast NN O O
alternating NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
representations NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

Declining NN O I-OUT
resting-state NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
weakened NN O O
event-related NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
resting-state NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O O
might NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
modulatory NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
reflecting NN O O
malfunctioning NN O O
precision NN O O
in NN O O
GABAAergic NN O O
neurotransmission NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
consequence NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
inevitable NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23713303)

[ NN O O
Efficacy NN O O
observation NN O O
on NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
tension-type NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
treated NN O O
with NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
at NN O O
galea NN O O
tendon-muscle NN O O
node 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
better NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
tension-type NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTTH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
sticking NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
cases NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
138 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
sticking NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
sticking NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
was NN O O
adopted NN O O
to NN O O
stimulate NN O O
the NN O O
galea NN O O
tendon-muscle NN O O
node NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Baihui NN O O
( NN O O
GV NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Sishencong NN O O
( NN O O
EX-HN NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Fengchi NN O O
( NN O O
GB NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Taiyang NN O O
( NN O O
EX-HN NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Touwei NN O O
( NN O O
ST NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Hegu NN O O
( NN O O
LI NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
etc NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
made NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
two NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
CTTH NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
separately NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
CTTH NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
all NN O O
reduced NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
both 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
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sticking NN O I-OUT
needling NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2.38 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.22 NN O O
vs NN O O
4.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.54 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
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
97.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
146/150 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sticking NN O O
needling NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
88.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
122/138 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
sticking NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
at NN O O
galea NN O O
tendon-muscle NN O O
node NN O O
achieves NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CTTH NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
acupoint NN O O
selection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23715475)

Yoga NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
detoxification NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Yoga NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
mind-body NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
female NN O O
heroin NN O O
addicts 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
yoga NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
status 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
women NN O O
undergoing NN O O
detoxification NN O O
for NN O O
heroin NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
China NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-37 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
detoxification NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
AnKang NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
hospital NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mood NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
States NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
36-item NN O I-OUT
Short-Form NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Most NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Most NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mood NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
addicts NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
counterparts NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Yoga NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
mood NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
women NN O O
undergoing NN O O
detoxification NN O O
for NN O O
heroin NN O O
dependence NN O O
. NN O O

Yoga NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
auxiliary NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
hospital NN O O
routine NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23715565)

Prospective NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
, NN O O
lung NN O O
, NN O O
colorectal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Obesity NN O O
has NN O O
consistently NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
differentially NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
development NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
BMI NN O O
with NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
screening NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
chance NN O O
for NN O O
disease NN O O
detection NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
incident NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
1,213 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
752 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
incident NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
966 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
flexible NN O I-INT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colorectal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ovarian NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
calculated NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CIs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
adenoma NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
CIs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
multivariable-adjusted NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
normal-weight NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
18.5 NN O O
to NN O O
24.9 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
obese NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
30 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
incident NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.32 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.06 NN O O
to NN O O
1.65 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.48 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.16 NN O O
to NN O O
1.89 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
borderline NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O O
, NN O O
1.50 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.98 NN O O
to NN O O
2.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
associations NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Data NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
large NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
obesity NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
efforts NN O O
should NN O O
encourage NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
healthy NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
regular NN O O
screenings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23716291)

Learning NN O O
curve NN O O
in NN O O
multidetector NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MDCT-CA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
multidetector NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MDCT-CA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nonivasive NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
arteries NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
readers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
curve NN O I-PAR
proposed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
guidelines NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Three NN O I-PAR
radiologists NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
MDCT-CA NN O I-PAR
scored NN O O
50 NN O O
cases NN O O
at NN O O
various NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
curve NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
trainee NN O I-PAR
radiologists NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
per-segment NN O O
, NN O O
pervessel NN O O
and NN O O
per-patient NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
readers NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
73-90 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
segment NN O O
, NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
vessel NN O O
and NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
; NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
segment NN O O
and NN O O
vessel NN O O
and NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
all NN O O
readers NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
growing NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
MDCT-CA NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
adequate NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
expertise NN O O
in NN O O
MDCT-CA NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
as NN O O
independent NN O O
readers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23716409)

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
adoption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fee-based NN O I-OUT
arsenic NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Arsenic NN O O
( NN O O
As NN O O
) NN O O
testing NN O O
could NN O O
help NN O O
22 NN O O
million NN O O
people NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
drinking NN O O
water NN O O
sources NN O O
that NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
Bangladesh NN O O
As NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
safe NN O O
sources NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
household NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
media NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
fee-based NN O O
As NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
households NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
452 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
implemented NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
workers NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fee-based NN O I-INT
As NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
household NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fee-based NN O I-INT
As NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
household NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
campaign NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HELM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fee-based NN O I-INT
As NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
fee NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
As NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
0.28 NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
US NN O O
$ NN O O
0.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
households NN O O
with NN O O
untested NN O O
wells NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
HE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HELM NN O I-OUT
purchased NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
As NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
53 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

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
fee-based NN O I-OUT
As NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
household NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
demand NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
As NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23727103)

Anxiolytics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
Emergency NN O O
Medical NN O O
Service NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
prehospital NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
discomfort NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
suffer NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
needs NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
which NN O O
combines NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
with NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety 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
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anxiolytic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
analgesic NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prehospital NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
suspected NN O O
ACS NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
Midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Mi NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+Morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Mo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Mo NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
measures NN O O
took NN O O
part NN O O
: NN O O
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
randomisation NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
thereafter NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

Inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
raising NN O O
suspicion NN O O
of NN O O
ACS NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
score NN O O
?4 NN O O
. NN O O

PRIMARY NN O O
ENDPOINT NN O O
Pain NN O O
score NN O O
after NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
890 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Mi+Mo NN O O
and NN O O
873 NN O O
to NN O O
Mo NN O O
alone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
finally NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
Mo NN O O
was NN O O
5.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
Mi+Mo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6.0 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
Mo NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Mi+Mo NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Mo NN O O
alone NN O O
at NN O O
randomisation NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
thereafter NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
finally NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
admission NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Mi+Mo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Mo NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.003 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Drowsiness NN O I-OUT
differed NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
drowsy NN O O
in NN O O
Mi+Mo NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
Mo NN O O
alone NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
anxiolytics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
analgesics NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
analgesics NN O O
alone NN O O
reduced NN O O
anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
of NN O O
Morphine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prehospital NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
coronary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
effective NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23735703)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IFCT NN O I-PAR
0002 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
There NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
detectable NN O O
increase NN O O
in 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
using NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
opposed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PERI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
resectable NN O I-PAR
StageI-II NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2?2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
first NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
PRE NN O O
versus NN O O
PERI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
two NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
gemcitabine-cisplatin NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
GP NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-carboplatin NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
TC NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
PRE NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
preoperative NN O O
cycles NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
additional NN O O
preoperative NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O I-INT
PERI NN O I-INT
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
two NN O O
preoperative NN O O
cycles NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
postoperative NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3rd NN O O
and NN O O
4th NN O O
cycles NN O O
being NN O O
given NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
responders NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
528 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
267 NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
261 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PERI NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Three-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
67.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
67.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
=1.01 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.79-1.30 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.92 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
did NN O I-OUT
3-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pathological NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
( NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
responders NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
Cycles NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
90.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
75.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
Cycles NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRE NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PERI NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
relative NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
90.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
82.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
GP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR=0.97 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
0.76-1.25 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
regimens NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O O
differed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
increase NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
preoperative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
cycles NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2374275)

Nicotinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
as NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
in NN O O
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recently NN O O
, NN O O
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
hypolipidemic NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
nicotinic NN O O
acid NN O O
in NN O O
dyslipidemic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
g NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
very-low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
deterioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
glycosuria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
worsening NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
hyperuricemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nicotinic NN O O
acid NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
non-insulin-dependent NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
with NN O O
dyslipidemia NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
hypolipidemic NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23746205)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dried NN O I-INT
purple NN O I-INT
carrot NN O I-INT
on NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
, NN O O
lipids NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
QUENCH NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Obesity NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
health NN O O
issue NN O O
worldwide NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
low-grade NN O O
inflammation NN O O
predisposing NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
impaired NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
. NN O O

Anthocyanins NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenolic NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
purple NN O I-INT
carrots NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
at NN O O
reversing NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
through NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
pathways NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dried NN O I-INT
purple NN O I-INT
carrot NN O I-INT
on NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers 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 I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
53.1 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7.6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.6 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
lipid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
markers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
118.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
anthocyanins NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
259.2 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
phenolic NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
obese NN O O
participants NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
High NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Aspartate NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
purple NN O I-INT
carrot NN O I-INT
anthocyanins NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenolic NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O O
further NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
treating NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23747131)

Concomitant NN O O
, NN O O
sequential NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hybrid NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Since NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
triple NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
decreased NN O O
, NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
hybrid NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
new NN O O
therapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
enrolling NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
non-ulcer NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
, NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1g NN O O
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1g NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
hybrid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1g NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
, NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1g NN O O
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Bacterial NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
checked NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
( NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
C-urea NN O I-INT
breath NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
10-day NN O O
, NN O O
second-line NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20mg NN O O
, NN O O
levofloxacin NN O I-INT
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
1g NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
given NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
offered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
failure NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
270 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
interrupted NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
due NN O O
to NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
85.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
91.6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
91.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
92.1 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
hybrid NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
55.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
second-line NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
hybrid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
reached NN O O
high NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
second-line NN O O
levofloxacin-based NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
decreasing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23749007)

Ultracision NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
electrocautery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
performing NN O O
modified NN O O
radical NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
and NN O O
axillary NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
dissection NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Treatment NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
has NN O O
improved NN O O
dramatically NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
decades NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
modified NN O O
radical NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
with NN O O
axillary NN O O
dissection NN O O
remains NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
big NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
conventional NN O O
technology NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
diathermy NN O O
to NN O O
cut NN O O
and NN O O
coagulate NN O O
blood NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Ultracision NN O O
dissector NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
documented NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
fast NN O O
for NN O O
cutting NN O O
and NN O O
coagulating NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
ultracision NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
electrocautery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
looking NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
post NN O O
operative NN O O
drainage NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
drain NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
seroma NN O O
formation NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODOLOGY NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Pusat NN O I-PAR
Perubatan NN O I-PAR
Universiti NN O I-PAR
Kebangsaan NN O I-PAR
Malaysia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPUKM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1st NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
31st NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
ultracision NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
electrocautery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
unpaired NN O O
2-tailed NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
?2 NN O O
test NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
majority NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Malay NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Indian NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
others NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
axilla NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
UC NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
489.5 NN O O
versus NN O O
188.1 NN O O
mls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
axilla NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
UC NN O O
[ NN O O
169.3 NN O O
versus NN O O
58.8 NN O O
mls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
663.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
247.0 NN O O
mls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drainage NN O O
consequently NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
axilla NN O O
[ NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
versus NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
versus NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UC NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
EC NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ultracision NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
performing NN O O
modified NN O O
radical NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
doing NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
technology NN O O
enable NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
discharge NN O O
patients NN O O
earlier NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
morbidities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23754339)

Parent-based NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
provided NN O O
sleep NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
or NN O O
group NN O I-INT
format NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
daytime NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Actigraphy NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Mode NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Habits NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Parent-based NN O O
sleep NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
relatively NN O O
few NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
versus NN O O
individualized NN O O
education NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23760519)

Ultrasonography-guided NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
rectus NN O I-INT
sheath NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
after NN O O
pediatric NN O O
umbilical NN O O
hernia NN O O
repair NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
Regional NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
alleviate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
undergoing NN O O
pediatric NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasonographic NN O O
guidance NN O O
for NN O O
bilateral NN O O
rectus NN O O
sheath NN O O
block NN O O
( NN O O
BRSB NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
immediate NN O O
pain NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postanesthesia NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
PACU NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasonography-guided NN O O
BRSB NN O O
and NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
( NN O O
LAI NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
umbilical NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
observer-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Tertiary-referral NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Eligible NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
umbilical NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
conclusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
LAI NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
surgeon NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
as NN O I-INT
ultrasonography-guided NN O I-INT
BRSB NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
anesthesiologist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
FACES NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10-minute NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PACU NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
FACES NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BRSB NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LAI NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
vs NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
vs NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
minutes NN O O
or NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
vs NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonopioid NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
given NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
BRSB NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LAI NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
opioids NN O O
; NN O O
5 NN O O
vs NN O O
10 NN O O
for NN O O
nonopioids NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasonography-guided NN O O
BRSB NN O O
after NN O O
umbilical NN O O
hernia NN O O
repair NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
median NN O O
FACES NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
and NN O O
nonopioid NN O O
medications NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
LAI NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
could NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
longer-acting NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agents NN O O
with NN O O
ultrasonography-guided NN O O
BRSB NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01015053 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23766737)

Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
exploratory NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PlayWisely NN O I-INT
program 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 I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
a NN O O
low-cost NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
targets NN O O
an NN O O
increasingly NN O O
common NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
exploratory NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PlayWisely NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
essential NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
foundation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD-NOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Childhood NN O O
Autism NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
Second NN O O
Edition NN O O
( NN O O
CARS2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
PlayWisely NN O O
Interactive NN O O
Test NN O O
of NN O O
Attention NN O O
, NN O O
Recognition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Memory NN O O
Skills NN O O
; NN O O
Autism NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Checklist NN O O
( NN O O
ATEC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Modified NN O O
Checklist NN O O
for NN O O
Autism NN O O
in NN O O
Toddlers NN O O
( NN O O
M-CHAT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
PlayWisely NN O O
measure NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Yellow NN O O
Sets NN O O
that NN O O
examine NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Purple NN O O
Sets NN O O
that NN O O
examine NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
agility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Blue NN O O
Sets NN O O
that NN O O
examine NN O O
phonemic NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Total NN O O
Sets NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Green NN O O
Sets NN O O
that NN O O
examine NN O O
perception NN O O
and NN O O
Red NN O O
Sets NN O O
that NN O O
examine NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
other NN O O
measures NN O O
reached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PlayWisely NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
agility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phonemic NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
letter NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
coaches NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
investigators NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
showed NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
mitigate NN O O
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
very NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23768813)

Targeting NN O O
alpha-7 NN O I-INT
nicotinic NN O I-INT
neurotransmission NN O I-INT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
novel NN O O
agonist NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

Alpha7 NN O I-INT
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
?7 NN O I-INT
nAChR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
valuable NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Unfortunately NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
agonist NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
receptor NN O O
's NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
CDP-choline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dietary NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
agonist NN O O
choline NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-INT
galantamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
allosteric NN O I-INT
modulator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
nicotinic NN O I-INT
acetylcholine NN O I-INT
receptors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
transducing NN O O
the NN O O
choline NN O O
signal NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
, NN O O
preserve NN O O
the NN O O
receptor NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
single-site NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O I-INT
galantamine/CDP-choline NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
generation NN O I-PAR
antipsychotics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
galantamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CDP-choline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
matching NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
for NN O O
16weeks 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 I-OUT
5-item NN O I-OUT
Marder NN O I-OUT
negative-symptoms NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
completion NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
; NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MATRICS NN O I-OUT
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
Consensus NN O I-OUT
Battery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
subjects NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
gastro-intestinal NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
AE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
AE NN O O
for NN O I-INT
galantamine/CDP-choline NN O I-INT
was NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
mirrored NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive NN O O
measure NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O I-INT
?7 NN O I-INT
nAChR NN O I-INT
agonist/PAMs NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
warranted NN O O
in NN O O
larger NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
have NN O O
greater NN O O
power NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23773380)

Does NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
completion NN O I-INT
axillary NN O I-INT
lymph NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
influence NN O O
the NN O O
recommendation NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
sentinel NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
Hungarian NN O O
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Oncology NN O O
has NN O O
just NN O O
closed NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Optimal NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Axilla-Surgery NN O O
or NN O O
Radiotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
OTOASOR NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
compares NN O O
completion NN O I-INT
axillary NN O I-INT
lymph NN O I-INT
node NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cALND NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regional NN O I-INT
nodal NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RNI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sentinel NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node-positive NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SLN+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
investigational NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
50 NN O O
Gy NN O O
RNI NN O I-INT
instead NN O O
of NN O O
cALND NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
we NN O O
had NN O O
information NN O O
only NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
sentinel NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
( NN O O
SLN NN O O
) NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
further NN O O
axillary NN O O
nodal NN O O
involvement NN O O
remained NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
cALND NN O I-INT
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
recommendation NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SLN+ NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SLN+ NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
cALND NN O I-INT
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
RNI NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
investigational NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjuvant NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
institutional NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
institutional NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
August NN O O
2002 NN O O
and NN O O
June NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
474 NN O I-PAR
SLN+ NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
cALND NN O I-INT
( NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
= NN O O
244 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
RNI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
investigational NN O O
treatment NN O O
= NN O O
230 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
main NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
.095 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
pT2-3 NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
axillary NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
dissection NN O O
( NN O O
ALND NN O O
) NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
.066 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
RNI NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
ALND NN O I-INT
and NN O O
RNI NN O I-INT
arms NN O O
, NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
190/244 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
159/230 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.020 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
213/244 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ALND NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
204/230 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RNI NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.372 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
trastuzumab NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subgroup NN O O
analyses NN O O
explored NN O O
that NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
larger NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pT2-3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
cALND NN O I-INT
after NN O O
positive NN O O
SLN NN O O
biopsy NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (23773886)

An NN O O
Exploratory NN O O
, NN O O
Open-Label NN O O
, NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Trial NN O O
Comparing NN O O
Risperidone NN O I-INT
Long-Acting NN O I-INT
Injectable NN O I-INT
with NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
Antipsychotic NN O I-INT
Medication NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Early NN O I-PAR
Psychosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RLAI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
using 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
design NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
second-generation NN O I-INT
antipsychotics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SGAs NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n=41 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
RLAI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=44 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
eligible NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
stabilization NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phases NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
104 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
comparisons NN O I-OUT
made NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Severity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
time NN O O
X NN O O
group NN O O
interactions NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
examination NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
RLAI NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
stabilization NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
group NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
exploratory NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that-within NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
design-RLAI NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
SGAs NN O O
are NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
SS NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
RLAI NN O O
offers NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
SS NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
likely 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
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
either NN O O
choose NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
it NN O O
or NN O O
be NN O O
prescribed NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O O
control NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
community NN O O
treatment NN O O
orders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23773944)

[ NN O I-INT
Closure NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
persistent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
closure NN O O
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23774272)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
dairy NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
cardio-metabolic NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
dairy NN O O
food NN O O
influences NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
changing NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardio-metabolic NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
180 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
change NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O O
advice NN O O
. NN O O

Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
waist NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
dietary NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
176 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
dairy NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
increased NN O O
dairy NN O O
food NN O O
was NN O O
+0.9 NN O O
SD NN O O
1.1 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
+71 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
SD NN O O
0.4 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
-15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
dairy NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
-10.8 NN O O
SD NN O O
1.2 NN O O
g/day NN O O
( NN O O
-77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
standard NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
< NN O O
0.2 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
< NN O O
0.3 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+0.4 NN O I-OUT
kg NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
3.1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
dairy NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-PAR
advice NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
dairy NN O O
intake NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
cardio-metabolic NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
dairy NN O O
food NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
healthy NN O O
diet NN O O
without NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
cardio-metabolic NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O I-OUT
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ACTRN12612000574842 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23775967)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
entecavir NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rituximab-associated NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus NN O O
reactivation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
resolved NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
antiviral NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HBV NN O O
) NN O O
reactivation NN O O
before NN O O
rituximab-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
resolved NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CD20 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
resolved NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B 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
prophylactic NN O I-INT
entecavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ETV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
completing NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ETV NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
41 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
ETV NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HBV NN O I-INT
reactivation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBsAg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reverse NN O I-INT
seroconversion NN O I-INT
since NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
39 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
72.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
surface NN O O
antibody NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HBV NN O O
DNA NN O O
was NN O O
undetectable NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
62.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
18-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ETV NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
17.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
HBV NN O O
reactivation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
HBV NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
months NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
11.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ETV NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.019 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
reverse NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
HBV NN O O
reactivation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
reverse NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
months NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
since NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
were NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
16.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ETV NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.032 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
detectable NN O O
or NN O O
undetectable NN O O
viral NN O O
load NN O O
could NN O O
develop NN O O
HBV NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
reverse NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Undetectable NN O O
HBV NN O O
viral NN O O
load NN O O
before NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
confer NN O O
reactivation-free NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Antiviral NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
can NN O O
potentially NN O O
prevent NN O O
rituximab-associated NN O O
HBV NN O O
reactivation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
resolved NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23776270)

Long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
choline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
productive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brown-egg NN O I-PAR
laying NN O I-PAR
hens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
19-wk-old NN O I-PAR
HyLine NN O I-PAR
Brown NN O I-PAR
hens NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
choline NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
425 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
850 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1,700 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3,400 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
6,800 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
corn-soybean NN O I-INT
meal-based NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
on NN O O
productive NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Phase NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
19 NN O O
to NN O O
58 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
59 NN O O
to NN O O
68 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
dietary NN O O
choline NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
mass 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

During NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
linearly 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
feed NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
linearly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.057 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
choline NN O O
level NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
BW NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
both NN O O
linearly 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
quadratically NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
choline NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
6,800 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
shell NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shell NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eggs NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
albumen NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Haugh NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
linearly 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
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
choline NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
diets NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
425 NN O O
or NN O O
850 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
choline/kg NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
improved NN O O
yolk NN O I-OUT
color NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
dietary NN O O
choline NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
700 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
egg NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
choline NN O O
on NN O O
egg NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
minimal NN O O
when NN O O
hens NN O O
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
corn-soybean NN O I-INT
meal-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
from NN O O
19 NN O O
to NN O O
68 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23782126)

Tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment 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
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

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
tetrahydrobiopterin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BH4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
BH4 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
16 NN O O
weeks 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 I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Preschool NN O I-OUT
Language NN O I-OUT
Scale-4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PLS-4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
global NN O O
improvement NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
BH4 NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
regard NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
mannerisms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
minimal NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
BH4 NN O I-OUT
offers NN O I-OUT
promise NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
Trials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00850070 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23782128)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
extended NN O O
release NN O O
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
four NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
psychostimulant NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combining NN O I-INT
extended-release NN O I-INT
methylphenidate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
immediate-release NN O I-INT
MPH NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
afternoon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
sample NN O O
comprised NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Psychiatric NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4th NN O I-PAR
ed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
DSM-IV-TR NN O O
) NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Interview-Revised NN O O
( NN O O
ADI-R NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Observation NN O O
Schedule NN O O
( NN O O
ADOS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
sample NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
elementary NN O I-PAR
school-age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
chronological NN O I-PAR
age=8.8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
SD=1.7 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
intelligence NN O I-PAR
quotient NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
=85 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
SD=16.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
within-subject NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
declines NN O O
in NN O O
hyperactive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impulsive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O O
noted NN O O
significant NN O O
declines NN O O
in NN O O
inattentive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oppositional NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
exacerbation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotypies NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

Dose NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
primarily NN O O
linear NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
MPH NN O O
formulations NN O O
are NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23782653)

Home-based NN O I-INT
reach-to-grasp NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
feasibility NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
task-specific NN O I-INT
reach-to-grasp NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
gather NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
inform NN O O
recruitment NN O O
, NN O O
retention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
feasibility NN O O
trial NN O O
recruiting NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
upper-limb NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
therapy-provider NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
electronically NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
minimization NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
post-stroke NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
upper-limb NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
14 NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
long NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
over NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
practice NN O O
independently NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour/day NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
56 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
time NN O O
per NN O O
participant NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
arm NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed-up NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
post-randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Action NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
Arm NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ARAT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Wolf NN O I-OUT
Motor NN O I-OUT
Function NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WMFT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
Motor NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Log NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Stroke NN O I-OUT
Impact NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Carer NN O I-OUT
Strain NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
assessments NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
trained NN O O
assessor NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

Recruitment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
withdrawals NN O I-OUT
, 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
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
completeness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
recruited NN O O
, NN O O
recruitment NN O O
and NN O O
retention NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
descriptive NN O O
statistics NN O O
of NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
AEs NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
planning NN O O
a NN O O
definitive NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
home-based NN O O
RTG NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
ISRCTN56716589 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23801256)

A NN O O
head-to-head NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
are NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
FDA NN O O
approved NN O O
medications NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
irritability NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
head-to-head NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
months 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 I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
risperidone NN O O
lowered NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aripiprazole NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
5.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
risperidone NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
1.12 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
choice NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
equipoise NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
preference NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23802768)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
MET NN O O
expression NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
BRAF NN O O
( NN O O
V600E/K NN O O
) NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Preclinical NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
signalling NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
HGF-MET NN O O
pathway NN O O
may NN O O
confer NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
BRAF NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
BRAF NN O O
( NN O O
V600E/K NN O O
) NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
blockade NN O O
of NN O O
HGF-MET NN O O
signalling NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
BRAF NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
BRAF NN O O
( NN O O
V600E/K NN O O
) NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
observations NN O O
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
MET NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BRAF NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
V600E/K NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vemurafenib NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Formalin-fixed NN O O
tissue NN O O
blocks NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
of NN O O
tumours NN O O
from NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
BRIM2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
BRIM3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trials NN O O
of NN O O
vemurafenib NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
BRAF NN O O
( NN O O
V600E/K NN O O
) NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O

Immunohistochemistry NN O O
for NN O O
MET NN O O
( NN O O
SP44 NN O O
rabbit NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
validated NN O O
assay NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
validated NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
MET NN O O
expression NN O O
was NN O O
frequent NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
?1 NN O O
+ NN O O
cutoff NN O O
( NN O O
BRIM3 NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
BRIM2 NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
relatively NN O O
infrequent NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
?2 NN O O
+ NN O O
cutoff NN O O
( NN O O
BRIM3 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
BRIM2 NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Retrospective NN O O
subset NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cutoff NN O O
used NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
MET NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
show NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
MET NN O O
is NN O O
expressed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
BRAF NN O O
( NN O O
V600E/K NN O O
) NN O O
advanced NN O O
melanomas NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
analyses NN O O
on NN O O
appropriately NN O O
powered NN O O
subsets NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
and NN O O
predictive NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
MET NN O O
in NN O O
vemurafenib-treated NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23806094)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tailored NN O O
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Project NN O O
SCAPE NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O I-INT
sun NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
hypothesizing NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
tailored NN O O
intervention NN O O
would NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
generic NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O

Families NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Grades NN O I-PAR
1-3 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
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
tailored NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
personalized NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mail NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
generic NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
completed NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
knowledge NN O O
and NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
completed NN O O
4-day NN O O
sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
and NN O O
protection NN O O
diaries NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
themselves NN O O
. NN O O

Tailored NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sunscreen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shirts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hats NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shade NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effect NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
norms NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
focusing NN O O
tailored NN O O
communications NN O O
to NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
skin NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23808817)

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
nutrition NN O O
services NN O O
amongst NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
and NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
accredited NN O O
practicing NN O O
dietitian NN O O
amongst NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
and NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
at NN O O
100 NN O O
days NN O O
post-transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
stem NN O O
cell NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
dietitian NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
post-transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
nutrition NN O O
service NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
anonymously NN O O
at NN O O
100 NN O O
days NN O O
post-transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
using NN O O
independent NN O O
t-tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
58.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
9.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
26.8 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
16.4-47.6 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
rated NN O I-OUT
highly NN O I-OUT
by 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
between NN O O
the 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

Although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
extended NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
three NN O O
telephone NN O O
calls NN O O
rated NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
overall NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
less NN O O
calls NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
0.56 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Extended NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
three NN O O
telephone NN O O
calls NN O O
after NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
satisfied NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
exploration NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
nutrition NN O O
service NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23811316)

Arm-cranking NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
arm-cranking NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
untrained NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Community-based NN O O
supervised NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Male NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fifth NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
volunteered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
concealed NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
A NN O O
12-week NN O I-INT
arm-cranking NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
sessions/wk NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
warming-up NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10-15min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
main NN O I-INT
part NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
arm-crank NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20-30min NN O O
[ NN O O
increasing NN O O
2min NN O O
and NN O O
30s NN O O
every NN O O
3wk NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
work NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
reserve NN O O
( NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
cooling-down NN O I-INT
period NN O O
( NN O O
5-10min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Plasmatic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
as NN O O
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carbonyl NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P=.031 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
defense NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.014 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
peroxidase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.027 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
, NN O O
plasmatic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malondialdehyde NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.008 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
carbonyl NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P=.022 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
12-week NN O O
arm-cranking NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
defense NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
finally NN O O
attenuate NN O O
both NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23812661)

Comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
LEAP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
TEACCH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
non-model-specific NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
LEAP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
TEACCH NN O I-INT
represent NN O O
two NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
models NN O O
( NN O O
CTMs NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
across NN O O
several NN O O
decades NN O O
to NN O O
educate NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
high NN O I-INT
fidelity NN O I-INT
LEAP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
TEACCH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
classrooms NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
teachers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
quality NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
non-model-specific NN O O
practices NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
198 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O O
in NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
conditions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
raises NN O O
issues NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
replication NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
CTMs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
having NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
quality NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
beneficial NN O O
as NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
CTM NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23812665)

Measuring NN O O
the NN O O
plasticity NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
approach NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
EEG NN O I-INT
asymmetry NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
Program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Enrichment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Relational NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Social NN O O
skills NN O O
for NN O O
teenagers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
manual NN O O
, NN O O
Routledge NN O O
, NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
, NN O O
2010a NN O O
) NN O O
affected NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
asymmetry NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
PEERS NN O I-INT
shifted NN O O
from NN O O
right-hemisphere NN O I-OUT
gamma-band NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
asymmetry NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
PEERS NN O O
to NN O O
left-hemisphere NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
asymmetry NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PEERS NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
a NN O O
waitlist NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Left-hemisphere NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
asymmetry NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
PEERS NN O I-INT
no NN O O
longer NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
adolescents NN O O
in NN O O
left-dominant NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
asymmetry NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
post-test NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
Modifier NN O O
Model NN O O
of NN O O
Autism NN O O
( NN O O
Mundy NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
Res NN O O
Pract NN O O
Persons NN O O
Severe NN O O
Disabl NN O O
32 NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
:124 NN O O
, NN O O
2007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
remediating NN O O
isolation/withdrawal NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23815478)

Perceptual NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
optimal NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Humans NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
remarkable NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
speech NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
listeners NN O O
can NN O O
use NN O O
lexical NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
to NN O O
guide NN O O
their NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
atypical NN O O
sounds NN O O
in NN O O
speech NN O O
( NN O O
Norris NN O O
, NN O O
McQueen NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Cutler NN O O
, NN O O
2003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
lexically NN O I-INT
induced NN O I-INT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
enables NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
utterances NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
talker-specific NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
individual NN O O
identity NN O O
and NN O O
dialect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
perceptual NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O O
optimal NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
conversational NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Experiment NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
clear NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
adverse NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
noise NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Experiment NN O O
3a NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
two NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
loads NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Experiments NN O O
4a NN O O
and NN O O
4b NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Perceptual NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
optimal NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
noise NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
perceptual NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
sessions NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
atypical NN O O
/s/ NN O O
sounds NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
atypical NN O O
/f/ NN O O
sounds NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
learning NN O O
and NN O O
nonlearning NN O O
reflects NN O O
a NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
flexibility NN O O
and NN O O
stability NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
speech NN O O
system NN O O
must NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
deal NN O O
with NN O O
speech NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diverse NN O O
conditions NN O O
that NN O O
speech NN O O
is NN O O
encountered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23820434)

Beliefs NN O I-INT
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
donate NN O O
again NN O O
among NN O O
first-time NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
event NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
the NN O O
belief NN O I-INT
basis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
planned NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
by NN O O
donors NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
donation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intention NN O O
and NN O O
beliefs NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
donors NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
returning NN O O
to NN O O
donate NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
high NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
first-time NN O O
donors NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O O
donation NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
donors NN O O
who NN O O
reacted NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
intend NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
donate NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
targeting NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
beliefs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
those NN O O
donors NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
reacted NN O O
would NN O O
yield NN O O
most NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
bolstering NN O O
donors NN O O
' NN O O
intentions NN O O
to NN O O
remain NN O O
donating NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
those NN O O
messages NN O I-INT
that NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
communicated NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
mass NN O O
media NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
targeted NN O O
communications NN O O
to NN O O
retain NN O O
first-time NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
have NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
mild NN O O
vasovagal NN O O
reaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23821414)

Riluzole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
hyperglutamatergic NN O O
state NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Riluzole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
glutamate-modulating NN O O
agent NN O O
with NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
riluzole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
optimally NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
previous NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV-TR NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Aberrant NN O I-PAR
Behavior NN O I-PAR
Checklist-Community NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ABC-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
irritability NN O I-PAR
subscale NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
discontinued NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
received NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
to NN O O
50 NN O O
or NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
bodyweight NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOME NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
10 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
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
compared NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
dropouts NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
riluzole NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
riluzole-treated NN O I-INT
children NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lethargy/social NN O I-OUT
withdrawal 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
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity/non-compliance NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.20 NN O O
) NN O O
than 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

Eleven NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
responders NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
[ 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
3.750 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bodyweight NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Riluzole NN O I-INT
add-on NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
shows NN O O
several NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
add-on NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23827399)

Percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
grafting NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
j-Cypher NN O I-PAR
Registry NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
large-scale NN O O
studies NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CABG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
drug-eluting NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
era NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
12,812 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
sirolimus-eluting NN O I-PAR
stent NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
j-Cypher NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
919 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
crude NN O I-OUT
5-year NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
19.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
14.0 NN O I-PAR
% 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
After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
confounders NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
0.99 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.83 NN O O
to NN O O
1.18 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.25 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.06 NN O O
to NN O O
1.47 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
had NN O O
undergone NN O O
?1 NN O O
saphenous NN O O
vein NN O O
graft NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
2.21 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.26 NN O O
to NN O O
3.76 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
2.56 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.10 NN O O
to NN O O
5.60 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
2.65 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.82 NN O O
to NN O O
3.81 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
definite NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
7.70 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.99 NN O O
to NN O O
29.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O O
native NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
previous NN O O
CABG NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
saphenous NN O O
vein NN O O
graft NN O O
intervention NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
first-generation NN O O
drug-eluting NN O O
stent NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
native NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
target NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23836550)

Reputation NN O O
management NN O O
: NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
ability NN O O
but NN O O
reduced NN O O
propensity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
manage NN O O
their NN O O
reputation NN O O
, NN O O
purportedly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
mind NN O O
[ NN O O
Izuma NN O O
, NN O O
Matsumoto NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Camerer NN O O
, NN O O
& NN O O
Adolphs NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
explanations NN O I-INT
for NN O O
this NN O O
apparent NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
reputation NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
donated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
charity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
person NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
when NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
manipulation NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
recipient NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
donations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
observer NN O O
would NN O O
subsequently NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
donate NN O I-INT
to NN O O
them NN O O
( NN O O
motivation NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
manipulation NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
encourage NN O O
an NN O O
expectation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reciprocal NN O O
tit-for-tat NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
participant NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
motivate NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
their NN O O
behavior NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
more NN O O
donations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
person NN O O
watching NN O O
was NN O O
just NN O O
observing NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
motivation NN O O
condition NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
replicated NN O O
Izuma NN O I-OUT
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

's NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-OUT
donate NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
charity NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
motivation NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
typical NN O O
and NN O O
autistic NN O O
adults NN O I-INT
donated NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
more NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O O
when NN O O
watched NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
think NN O O
about NN O O
reputation NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
expectation NN O O
of NN O O
reciprocal NN O O
behavior NN O O
from NN O O
others NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O I-OUT
engage NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reputation NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23838275)

Contrast NN O O
, NN O O
motion NN O O
, NN O O
perceptual NN O O
integration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neurocognition NN O O
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
fragile-X NN O O
related NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
Fragile NN O O
X NN O O
Mental NN O O
Retardation NN O O
Protein NN O O
( NN O O
FMRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
RNA NN O O
binding NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
translation NN O O
regulator NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O O
FMRP NN O O
levels NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
impaired NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
processes NN O O
and NN O O
synaptic NN O O
plasticity NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
peripheral NN O O
FMRP NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motion/form NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Repeatable NN O I-INT
Battery NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Neuropsychological NN O I-INT
Status NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RBANS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
FMRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
lymphocytes NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
FMRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
contrast NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
spatial NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
temporal NN O O
frequencies NN O O
, NN O O
perceptual NN O O
integration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
motion NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
FMRP NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
pronounced NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
perception NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
RBANS NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O

FMRP NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
contrast NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
spatial NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
temporal NN O O
frequencies NN O O
and NN O O
form NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
is NN O O
reminiscent NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
Fragile NN O O
X NN O O
Syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
FXS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
FMRP NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
neurodevelopment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasticity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GABA-ergic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutamatergic NN O I-OUT
neurotransmission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23838727)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
parent-delivered NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent-coaching NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O I-INT
Start NN O I-INT
Denver NN O I-INT
Model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P-ESDM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
parenting-related NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
was NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
comparing NN O O
P-ESDM NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
P-ESDM NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Community NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
3-month NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parental NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
differ NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
significant NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
parenting NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
competence NN O O
across NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O I-INT
parent-coaching NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
help NN O O
maintain NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
adjustment NN O I-OUT
directly NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
is NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23839319)

Total NN O O
intravenous NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
using NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
lithotripsy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESWL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
dosages NN O O
: 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
Extracorporeal NN O I-INT
Shock NN O I-INT
Wave NN O I-INT
Lithotripsy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
usually NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
surgery NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
consequently NN O O
people NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
procedure NN O O
need NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
fast NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

Conscious NN O O
sedation NN O O
with NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-INT
can NN O O
relieve NN O O
from NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
keep NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
touch NN O O
with NN O O
anaesthesiologists NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
publications NN O O
tell NN O O
about NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
this NN O O
procedure7 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
appropriate NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
different NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
: NN O O
0,05 NN O O
mcg/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
GROUP NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
N.=114 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.1 NN O O
?g/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
GROUP NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
N.=114 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
deepness NN O O
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
referring NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
Obsever NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Sedation NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
O/ASS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Likert NN O O
's NN O O
scale NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
11-points NN O O
VAS NN O O
( NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
Student NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
?2 NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
categorical NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
228 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
N.=114 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
regarding NN O I-OUT
Likert NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesic NN O O
request NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) 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
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
about NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
desaturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
matter NN O O
of NN O O
fact NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
these NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
fifth NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
O/ASS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
1.61?0.19 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
2.987?0.20 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
According NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
results NN O O
remifentanil NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.05 NN O O
?g/kg/min NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
causing NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
?g/kg/min NN O O
, NN O O
granting NN O O
a NN O O
fast NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23860945)

Singing NN O I-INT
can NN O O
facilitate NN O O
foreign NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
singing NN O I-INT
can NN O O
facilitate NN O O
short-term NN O O
paired-associate NN O O
phrase NN O O
learning NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
unfamiliar NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Hungarian NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
listen-and-repeat NN O O
learning NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
speaking NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rhythmic NN O I-INT
speaking NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
singing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
singing NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
superior NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
collection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Hungarian NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
15-min NN O O
learning NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
speaking NN O I-INT
and NN O O
rhythmic NN O I-INT
speaking NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
tests NN O O
that NN O O
required NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
recall NN O O
and NN O O
produce NN O O
spoken NN O O
Hungarian NN O O
phrases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
potentially NN O O
influencing NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phonological NN O I-PAR
working NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
musical NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
listen-and-sing NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
can NN O O
facilitate NN O O
verbatim NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
spoken NN O O
foreign NN O O
language NN O O
phrases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23862237)

[ NN O O
Therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
compound NN O I-INT
Xuanju NN O I-INT
capsule NN O O
on NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
prostatitis NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Compound NN O I-INT
Xuanju NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O O
on NN O O
type NN O O
III NN O O
prostatitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
242 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
prostatitis NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NIH NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
former NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Compound NN O I-INT
Xuanju NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Tamsulosin NN O I-INT
Hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
latter NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Quinolinone NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Tamsulosin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
NIH-CPSI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
242 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
77.69 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
94/121 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
71.56 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
78/109 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
47.10 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
57/121 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
31.78 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
34/107 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
NIH-CPSI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Compound NN O I-INT
Xuanju NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
type NN O O
III NN O O
prostatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23870440)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
teacher-student NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Responsive NN O I-INT
Classroom NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
indirect NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Responsive NN O I-INT
Classroom? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
teachers NN O O
' NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
RC NN O O
practices NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
teacher-student NN O O
interaction NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
structural NN O I-INT
equation NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
framework NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
experimental NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Third- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fourth-grade NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=132 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
RC NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O I-PAR
teachers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=107 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
continued NN O O
business NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Observers NN O O
rated NN O O
teachers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FOI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
RC NN O I-INT
practices NN O O
5 NN O O
times NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Classroom NN O I-OUT
Practices NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Measure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
teachers NN O I-OUT
completed NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FOI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Classroom NN O I-OUT
Practices NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Classroom NN O I-OUT
Practices NN O I-OUT
Frequency NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Teacher-student NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
rated NN O O
during NN O O
classroom NN O O
observations NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Classroom NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scoring NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
teachers NN O O
' NN O O
grade NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
teacher-student NN O O
interaction NN O O
quality NN O O
at NN O O
pretest NN O O
, NN O O
RC NN O O
training NN O O
was NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
posttest NN O I-OUT
teacher-student NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
directly NN O O
and NN O O
indirectly NN O O
through NN O O
FOI NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
supported NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
indirect NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
?=0.85 NN O O
, NN O O
p=.002 NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
RC NN O O
teachers NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
FOI NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RC NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
?=1.62 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
R2=.69 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
turn NN O O
, NN O O
FOI NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
teacher-student NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
?=0.52 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
p=.001 NN O O
, NN O O
R2=.32 NN O O
. NN O O

Discussion NN O O
highlights NN O O
factors NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
FOI NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
administrators NN O O
roles NN O O
in NN O O
supporting NN O O
FOI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23870503)

Can NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
predict NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
can NN O O
identify NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
insufficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
VDI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Women NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Sun NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VIDSUN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
and NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-OUT
25-hydrocyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O I-OUT
VDI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
50 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Research NN O O
Unit NN O O
, NN O O
University NN O O
of NN O O
Wisconsin-Madison NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
recruited NN O O
609 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sd NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
VDI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
with NN O O
VDI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
black NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
v. NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
heavier NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
33.0 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
kg/m2 NN O O
v. NN O O
29.0 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
kg/m2 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
less NN O O
likely NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tan NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
v. NN O O
72 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
use NN O O
sunscreen NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
v. NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
report NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
consumed NN O O
less NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
supplements NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.15 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
5.24 NN O O
) NN O O
?g/d NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
210 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/d NN O O
) NN O O
v. NN O O
4.55 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
8.48 NN O O
) NN O O
?g/d NN O O
( NN O O
188 NN O O
( NN O O
sd NN O O
344 NN O O
) NN O O
IU/d NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
black NN O I-OUT
race NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suntan NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sun NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
past NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sunscreen NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
most NN O O
useful NN O O
questions NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
VDI NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
these NN O O
six NN O O
items NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
? NN O O
2.25 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
?89 NN O O
% NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
?35 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
VDI NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
VIDSUN NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
or NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
VDI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Existing NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
TAG NN O O
levels NN O O
might NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VIDSUN NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23873901)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O I-INT
for NN O O
exudative NN O I-OUT
age-related NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
degeneration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
would NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choroidal NN O I-PAR
neovascularisation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CNV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
new-onset NN O I-PAR
CNV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O O
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
monthly NN O O
0.5-mg NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
monthly NN O O
injections NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
accordance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
self-administered NN O O
one NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
both 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
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ranibizumab NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
-124 NN O O
?m NN O O
( NN O O
-29.7 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
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ranibizumab-only NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
-86.9 NN O O
?m NN O O
( NN O O
-19.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
0.45 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O I-INT
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CNV NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
reducing NN O I-OUT
CMT NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CNV NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23874533)

A NN O O
chinese NN O O
mind-body NN O O
exercise NN O O
improves NN O O
self-control NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Self-control NN O I-OUT
problems NN O O
commonly NN O O
manifest NN O O
as NN O O
temper NN O O
outbursts NN O O
and NN O O
repetitive/rigid/impulsive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
often NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
learning NN O O
difficulties NN O O
and NN O O
caregiver NN O O
burden NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
aims 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
traditional NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
Chan-based NN O I-INT
mind-body NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Nei NN O I-INT
Yang NN O I-INT
Gong NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
Progressive NN O I-INT
Muscle NN O I-INT
Relaxation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PMR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
self-control NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
age- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ-matched NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Nei NN O I-INT
Yang NN O I-INT
Gong NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PMR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
self-control NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
underlying NN O I-INT
neural NN O I-INT
mechanism NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
EEG NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inhibitory-control NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-control NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
concurs NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
parental NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
temper NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
cortex NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
region NN O O
that NN O O
mediates NN O O
self-control NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
PMR NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O O
Chan-based NN O I-INT
mind-body NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
self-control NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
Registry NN O O
; NN O O
Registration NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

: NN O O
ChiCTR-TRC-12002561 NN O O
; NN O O
URL NN O O
: NN O O
www.chictr.org NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23880333)

A NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
emotion NN O O
regulation NN O O
in NN O O
adults 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
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Adults 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
have NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
thus NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
individuals NN O O
have NN O O
trouble NN O O
understanding NN O O
the NN O O
mental NN O O
states NN O O
of NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
research NN O O
also NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
mental NN O O
states NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
emotion-regulation NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of 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
in NN O O
improving NN O O
emotion-regulation NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
group-based NN O O
CBT NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
waitlist NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
20-item NN O I-OUT
Toronto NN O I-OUT
Alexithymia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Coping NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Stressful NN O I-OUT
Situations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Motion NN O I-OUT
Picture NN O I-OUT
Mind-Reading NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
Center NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Epidemiological NN O I-OUT
Studies NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
26-item NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
State-trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Phobia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Liebowitz NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CBT NN O O
group NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
group NN O O
therapy NN O O
over NN O O
an NN O O
8 NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
session NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
session NN O O
lasting NN O O
approximately NN O O
100 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
therapy NN O O
will NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
psychologists NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
using NN O O
visual NN O O
materials NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
the NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
Affective NN O O
Training NN O O
kit NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
hopefully NN O O
indicate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
group-based NN O O
CBT NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
high- NN O O
functioning NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
The NN O O
University NN O O
Hospital NN O O
Medical NN O O
Information NN O O
Network NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

UMIN000006236 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23886027)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
N-Acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
augmentation NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
irritability 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
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+risperidone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo+risperidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
effervescent NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
checked NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
NAC+risperidone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo+risperidone NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
13.2 NN O O
( NN O O
5.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
16.7 NN O O
( NN O O
7.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
scores NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
9.7 NN O O
( NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15.1 NN O O
( NN O O
7.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
NAC+risperidone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
were NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16.1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16.1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12.9 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nervousness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
daytime NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
fatal NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
than NN O O
risperidone NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Meanwhile NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
generally NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.irct.ir NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
registration NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
IRCT201106103930N6 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23890774)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Positive NN O I-INT
Action NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
health NN O O
of NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cluster-randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Positive NN O I-INT
Action NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O I-INT
social-emotional NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
health NN O O
of NN O O
predominately NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ethnic NN O I-PAR
minority NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
matched-pair NN O O
, NN O O
cluster-randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
Chicago NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
implementation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Youth NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
emotional NN O O
health NN O O
( NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
, NN O O
life NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
, NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
social-emotional NN O O
and NN O O
character NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

Growth-curve NN O O
and NN O O
structural-equation NN O O
modeling NN O O
analyses NN O O
assessed NN O O
overall NN O O
program NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
health NN O O
outcomes NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
mediation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
's NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
youths NN O O
' NN O O
social-emotional NN O O
and NN O O
character NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Students NN O O
in NN O O
PA NN O I-INT
schools NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O I-INT
schools NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
( NN O O
standardized NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
[ NN O O
ES NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
.17 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ES NN O O
= NN O O
.13 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ES NN O O
= NN O O
-.14 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ES NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
-.26 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Program NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
change NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
social-emotional NN O O
and NN O O
character NN O O
development NN O O
for NN O O
students NN O O
in NN O O
PA NN O O
schools NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
universal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
school-based NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
benefit NN O I-INT
the NN O O
emotional NN O O
health NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
modest NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
over NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
program NN O O
implementation NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
challenges NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
mounting NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
offsetting NN O O
formidable NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
environments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23896590)

Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
recording NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
electronic NN O I-INT
emergency NN O I-INT
documentation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
AHA NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
cardiac NN O I-INT
arrest NN O I-INT
record NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
electronic NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
created NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
University NN O O
of NN O O
Washington NN O O
to NN O O
accurately NN O O
document NN O O
prerecorded NN O O
VF NN O O
and NN O O
pulseless NN O O
electrical NN O O
activity NN O O
( NN O O
PEA NN O O
) NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
scenarios NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
paper NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
record NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
anaesthesiology NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
view NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
prerecorded NN O O
, NN O O
simulated NN O I-INT
VF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PEA NN O I-INT
scenarios NN O I-INT
and NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
paper NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
electronic NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
subject NN O O
then NN O O
repeated NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
video NN O O
and NN O O
documentation NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
documentation NN O O
errors NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
omission NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
specification NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
commission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
noise NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
errors NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
paper NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electronic NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
analysed NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
factor NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
paper NN O O
records NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
electronic NN O O
system NN O O
omitted NN O O
6.3 NN O O
fewer NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-10.1 NN O O
to NN O O
-2.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
omission NN O O
errors NN O O
. NN O O

Users NN O O
recorded NN O O
2.9 NN O O
fewer NN O O
noise NN O O
items NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-5.3 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
paper NN O I-INT
, NN O O
representing NN O O
a NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
redundant NN O O
or NN O O
irrelevant NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
timing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?=-3.2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-9.3 NN O O
to NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.286 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
commission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?=-4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-9.4 NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.075 NN O O
) NN O O
errors NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-INT
electronic NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
specification NN O O
errors NN O O
were NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
electronic NN O O
system NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
paper NN O O
record NN O O
( NN O O
?=-3.2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-6.3 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
paper NN O I-INT
documentation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
documentation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
electronic NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
captured NN O I-INT
24 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
critical NN O O
information NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O O
medical NN O O
emergency NN O O
without NN O O
loss NN O O
in NN O O
data NN O O
quality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23902627)

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
exclusive NN O I-INT
breastfeeding NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
primiparas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Lebanon NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
mothers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-INT
breastfeed NN O I-INT
their NN O I-PAR
babies NN O I-PAR
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
remains NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
practices NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
largely NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
high-income NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
evidence NN O O
exists NN O O
on NN O O
possible NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Middle NN O O
East NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
breastfeeding NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Beirut NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
impact NN O O
breastfeeding NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
nested NN O O
within 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
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
24-hour NN O I-INT
hotline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postpartum NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
film NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postpartum NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Healthy NN O I-PAR
first-time NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
delivering NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
capital NN O I-PAR
Beirut NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
interviewed NN O O
at NN O O
1-3 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
8-12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multiple NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used 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
exclusive NN O O
breastfeeding NN O I-INT
at NN O O
8-12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
breastfeeding NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8-12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
was NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
exclusive NN O I-OUT
breastfeeding NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
27.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
exclusive NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
included NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=3.92 NN O O
; NN O O
p-value NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
planned NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=2.42 NN O O
, NN O O
p-value=0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
breastfeed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=3.28 NN O O
; NN O O
p-value=0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
source NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=1.87 NN O O
, NN O O
p-value=0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
video NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hotline NN O I-OUT
service NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR=2.55 NN O O
, NN O O
p-value=0.044 NN O O
; NN O O
OR=3.87 NN O O
, NN O O
p-value=0.004 NN O O
and NN O O
OR=4.13 NN O O
, NN O O
p-value=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
first-time NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
breastfeed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Beirut NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
extremely NN O O
low NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
behavior NN O O
are NN O O
diverse NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
interventions NN O O
should NN O O
target NN O O
different NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maternal-child NN O O
pair NN O O
's NN O O
ecosystem NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00857051 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23905378)

[ NN O O
Treating NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Shen NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
invading NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
bushen NN O I-INT
quhan NN O I-INT
zhiwang NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
bushen NN O I-INT
quhan NN O I-INT
zhiwang NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BQZD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Shen NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
invading NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BQZD NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
course NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
was NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
indices NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, 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 I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
28 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
sedimentation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ESR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Chinese NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
integrals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O O
effective NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
80 NN O O
. NN O O

0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
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
66.7 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
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ESR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CRP 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
by NN O O
both NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
HAQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DAS28 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medical NN O O
syndrome NN O O
integrals NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Better NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
lessening NN O O
tender NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swollen NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
VAS NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
DAS28 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Chinese NN O O
medical NN O O
syndrome NN O O
integrals NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Besides NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
BQZD NN O I-INT
had NN O O
roles NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
improving NN O O
joint NN O O
functions NN O O
, NN O O
signs NN O O
, NN O O
ESR NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CRP NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
herb NN O O
for NN O O
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Shen NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
invading NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
could NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
of NN O O
MTX NN O O
through NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effects NN O O
with NN O O
MTX NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23909380)

Low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
foetal NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
affects NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
traits NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
mink NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Neovison NN O I-PAR
vison NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O O
in NN O O
utero NN O O
and NN O O
post-partum NN O O
may NN O O
induce NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
in NN O O
mink NN O O
have NN O O
mainly NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
short-term NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-INT
in NN O O
utero NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-INT
in NN O O
metabolically NN O O
programmed NN O O
mink NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
low NN O O
protein NN O O
provision NN O O
in NN O O
utero NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
adequate NN O O
( NN O O
AP NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
LP NN O O
provision NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O O
mink NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-six NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
mink NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ME NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
crude NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
31 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ME NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
utero NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
LP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
~20 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ME NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
AP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30-42 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ME NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
provision NN O I-PAR
post-weaning NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Being NN O O
metabolically NN O O
programmed NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O O
in NN O O
utero NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
post-weaning NN O I-OUT
diets NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
LP NN O O
feed NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
was NN O O
below NN O O
requirements NN O O
; NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
lower NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
preventing NN O O
LP NN O O
mink NN O O
from NN O O
attaining NN O O
their NN O O
growth NN O O
potential NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LP NN O O
mink NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pancreas NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
lower NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
IGF-1 NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
lipidosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
25 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
LP NN O O
mink NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
provision NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
utero NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
alleviated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
nutrient NN O I-OUT
supply NN O I-OUT
post-partum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
low NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
provision NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mink NN O O
reduces NN O O
their NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
induces NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
lipidosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23925092)

[ NN O O
Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
disease NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
Elderly NN O I-INT
Diabetes NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
J-EDIT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23929781)

Anemia NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Anemia NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
functional NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
worsened NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among 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
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFREF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
anemia NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFREF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Anemia NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
events NN O O
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
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
HF-ACTION NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2331 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HFREF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
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
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fractions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
quintile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Anemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
baseline NN O I-PAR
Hb NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
g/dL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
g/dL NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
models NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
prediction NN O O
model NN O O
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
developed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
model NN O O
including NN O O
variables NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
anemia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
available NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
1763 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
59.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
anemia NN O O
was NN O O
515/1763 NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Older NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
estimated NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
Hb NN O O
quintiles NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
anemia NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without 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
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
vs NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
urgent NN O I-OUT
outpatient NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
exacerbations NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
anemia NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
1.15 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
1.01-1.32 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
other NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
at 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
modified NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O O
or NN O O
all-cause NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
was NN O O
1.25 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.10-1.42 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
: NN O O
1.11 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.87-1.42 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
: NN O O
1.16 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.01-1.33 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CV NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
: NN O O
1.27 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.06-1.51 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Anemia NN O O
modestly NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HF NN O O
exacerbation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
HFREF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
important NN O O
covariates NN O O
, NN O O
anemia NN O O
is NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
excess NN O O
hazard NN O O
for NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
all-cause NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Anemia NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
CV NN O O
death NN O O
and NN O O
CV/HF NN O O
hospitalizations NN O O
as NN O O
composite NN O O
endpoints NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23931247)

Ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
within NN O O
travenous NN O O
dexketoprofen NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dexketoprofen NN O I-INT
trometamol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
ilioinguinal NN O O
and NN O O
iliohypogastric NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
on NN O O
analgesic NN O O
quality NN O O
and NN O O
morphine NN O O
consumption NN O O
after NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
post-anesthesia NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
grouped NN O O
the NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dexketoprofen-block NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
DB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Before NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
incision NN O O
performed NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
ilioinguinal NN O I-INT
iliohypogastric NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
given NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
P NN O O
and NN O O
DB NN O I-INT
given NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
DB NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
dexketoprofen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
administered NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
analgesia NN O O
( NN O O
PCA NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recorded NN O O
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
postoperative NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
DB NN O O
group?s NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
block NN O O
group?s NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
values NN O O
at NN O O
postoperative NN O O
1st NN O O
, NN O O
2nd NN O O
, NN O O
6th NN O O
and NN O O
12th NN O O
hours NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
group NN O O
C NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
at NN O O
postoperative NN O O
fi NN O O
rst NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O O
to NN O O
fi NN O O
rst NN O O
PCA NN O O
demand NN O O
was NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
and NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
DB NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
with NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
dexketoprofen NN O I-INT
increases NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
by NN O O
decreasing NN O O
opioid NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
dexketoprofen NN O O
trometamol NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
analgesic NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23940214)

EULAR NN O I-PAR
Sjogren NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
Activity NN O I-PAR
Index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ESSDAI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
sensitive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
show NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
rituximab NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23942329)

Tissue NN O O
microarray NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DLBCL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tissue NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
93 NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
novo NN O I-PAR
diffuse NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
seen NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHOP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
n=48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rituximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
subtyped NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
investigational NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
( NN O O
IHC NN O O
) NN O O
based NN O O
tissue NN O O
microarray NN O O
( NN O O
TMA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
contrasted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
approximately NN O O
corresponding NN O O
categories NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
either NN O O
by NN O O
Hans NN O O
and NN O O
associates NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
three NN O O
marker NN O O
panel NN O O
into NN O O
germinal NN O O
or NN O O
non-germinal NN O O
centre NN O O
subtypes NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
Choi NN O O
and NN O O
colleagues NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
additional NN O O
antibodies NN O O
into NN O O
germinal NN O O
centre NN O O
( NN O O
GCB NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
activated NN O O
B-cells NN O O
( NN O O
ABC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
primary NN O O
subdivisions NN O O
was NN O O
further NN O O
evaluated NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BCL2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LMO2 NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
recognised NN O O
to NN O O
predicate NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
uniform NN O O
drug NN O O
regimen NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
CHOP NN O O
versus NN O O
R-CHOP NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
subtype NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
segregated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Choi NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
drugs NN O O
alone NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
event-free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
germinal NN O O
centre NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
activated NN O O
B-cell NN O O
subtype NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
not NN O O
even NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anti NN O O
CD NN O O
20 NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
Choi NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
antibody NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Hans NN O O
algorithm NN O O
on NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
OS NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
3 NN O O
year NN O O
EFS NN O O
when NN O O
comparing NN O O
GCB NN O O
versus NN O O
ABC NN O O
or NN O O
non-GCB NN O O
subgroups NN O O
. NN O O

BCL2 NN O O
and NN O O
LMO2 NN O O
marker NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
immunohistochemical NN O O
( NN O O
IHC NN O O
) NN O O
subtype NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
small NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
by NN O O
Choi NN O O
criteria NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
for NN O O
BCL2 NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
matter NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
subsets NN O O
( NN O O
GCB NN O O
or NN O O
ABC NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
( NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
OS NN O O
or NN O O
EFS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
better NN O O
EFS NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0015 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BCL2 NN O O
positive NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ABC NN O O
subgroups NN O O
subtypes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
rituximab NN O O
containing NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
LMO2 NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
outcome NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
thus NN O O
showing NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
- NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
subtype NN O O
or NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
here NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
contrasted NN O O
by NN O O
better NN O O
EFS NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LMO2 NN O O
positive NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
ABC NN O O
subtypes NN O O
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
rituximab NN O O
containing NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IHC NN O O
based NN O O
TMA NN O O
methodology NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
robust NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
profiling NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GEP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
classification NN O O
in NN O O
lymphomas NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
prognostic NN O O
tool NN O O
in NN O O
stratifying NN O O
DLBCL NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
entities NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
frozen NN O O
tissue NN O O
samples NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
GEP NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
budgetary NN O O
limitations NN O O
in NN O O
South NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
lymphoproliferative NN O O
disorders NN O O
exclude NN O O
agents NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
rituximab NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
drug NN O O
committees NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
approximately NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
DLBCL NN O O
when NN O O
rituximab NN O O
is NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
as NN O O
too NN O O
marginal NN O O
for NN O O
justifying NN O O
the NN O O
arising NN O O
additional NN O O
expenses NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
demonstration NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
molecular NN O O
subtype NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
superior NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
regimens NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
an NN O O
option NN O O
would NN O O
provide NN O O
convincing NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
resource NN O O
constrained NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23942708)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
leptin NN O O
single NN O O
nucleotide NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
and NN O O
zilpaterol NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
finishing NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4,178 NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
BW NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
403.9 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
16.04 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
interactive NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O I-INT
leptin NN O I-INT
R25C NN O I-INT
genotypes NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CC NN O O
, NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
TT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
zilpaterol NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
feeding NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
growth NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
traits NN O O
. NN O O

Steers NN O O
were NN O O
blocked NN O O
by NN O O
arrival NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
feed NN O O
yard NN O O
, NN O O
genotyped NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
leptin NN O O
SNP NN O O
, NN O O
allotted NN O O
to NN O O
genotype-specific NN O O
pens NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
steers/pen NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
within NN O O
genotype NN O O
and NN O O
block NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
or NN O O
21 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
ZH NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
pens NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
block NN O O
were NN O O
slaughtered NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
132.1 NN O O
? NN O O
10.9 NN O O
d NN O O
on NN O O
feed NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Final NN O O
BW NN O O
of NN O O
steers NN O O
fed NN O O
ZH NN O O
was NN O O
6.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
heavier NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ZH-fed NN O O
steers NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
ADG NN O O
than NN O O
steers NN O O
not NN O O
fed NN O O
ZH NN O O
. NN O O

Feeding NN O O
ZH NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
DMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
steers NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
allele NN O O
( NN O O
9.67 NN O O
, NN O O
9.53 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9.28 NN O O
kg/d NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
, NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TT NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O I-OUT
DMI NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
allele NN O O
( NN O O
9.68 NN O O
, NN O O
9.90 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
, NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
TT NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
ZH NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
fed NN O O
( NN O O
leptin NN O O
genotype NN O O
? NN O O
ZH NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ultrasonic NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
greatest NN O O
for NN O O
TT NN O O
steers NN O O
( NN O O
11.4 NN O O
? NN O O
0.28 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
CC NN O O
steers NN O O
( NN O O
11.0 NN O O
? NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
ZH-feeding NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
TT NN O O
steers NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
USDA NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
YG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
carcasses NN O O
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
YG NN O O
1 NN O O
carcasses NN O O
( NN O O
17.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
CC NN O O
steers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
ZH-fed NN O O
steers NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
USDA NN O I-OUT
YG NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
carcasses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25.9 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
16.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
YG NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
carcasses NN O O
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
steers NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

Marbling NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carcasses NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
USDA NN O I-OUT
Choice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Prime NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
in NN O O
TT NN O O
than NN O O
CC NN O O
steers NN O O
when NN O O
fed NN O O
diets NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
ZH NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
both NN O O
marbling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
among NN O O
leptin NN O O
genotypes NN O O
when NN O O
fed NN O O
ZH NN O O
for NN O O
21 NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
leptin NN O O
genotype NN O O
? NN O O
ZH NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCW NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
tended NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.095 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
steers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TT NN O O
genotype NN O O
( NN O O
12.7 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
CC NN O O
( NN O O
16.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CT NN O O
( NN O O
17.0 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
genotypes NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
leptin NN O O
R25C NN O O
genotype NN O O
impacted NN O O
most NN O O
traits NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fatness NN O O
whereas NN O O
feeding NN O O
ZH NN O O
for NN O O
21 NN O O
d NN O O
affected NN O O
HCW NN O O
and NN O O
ADG NN O O
positively NN O O
but NN O O
impacted NN O O
feed NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
marbling NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
USDA NN O O
quality NN O O
grades NN O O
negatively NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23944980)

Bedside NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
celiac NN O I-INT
plexus NN O I-INT
neurolysis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
unilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
needle-insertion NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Percutaneous NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
for NN O O
performing NN O O
celiac NN O O
plexus NN O O
neurolysis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
new NN O O
but NN O O
more NN O O
economical NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
time-consuming NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O O
bedside NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
interventional NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

Paucity NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
single-site NN O O
vs. NN O O
double-site NN O O
injections NN O O
at NN O O
celiac NN O O
trunk NN O O
for NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
celiac NN O I-INT
plexus NN O I-INT
neurolysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
USCPN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prompted NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
USCPN NN O I-INT
using NN O O
bilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
with NN O O
unilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unresectable NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
USCPN NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
20-mL NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
ethanol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
either NN O O
unilaterally NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mL?1 NN O O
site NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
bilaterally NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mL?2 NN O O
sites NN O O
) NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
randomization NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
Numerical NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
NRS NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
parameters NN O O
being NN O O
comparable 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
site NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
single NN O O
or NN O O
double NN O O
needle NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
bearing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
was NN O O
comparable 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

The NN O O
discomfort NN O O
score NN O O
correlated NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
scoring NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
visit NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
month NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Incidences NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
celiac NN O I-INT
plexus NN O I-INT
neurolysis NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
unilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
needle-insertion NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
comparable NN O O
with NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
paramedian NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
needle-insertion NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (23952636)

A NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
tirasemtiv NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amyotrophic NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Abstract NN O I-INT
Tirasemtiv NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
fast NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
activator NN O O
that NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sarcomere NN O O
to NN O O
calcium NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
contraction NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
muscle NN O O
is NN O O
stimulated NN O O
at NN O O
submaximal NN O O
contraction NN O O
frequencies NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
tirasemtiv NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
potentially NN O O
important NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
determined NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tirasemtiv NN O I-INT
when NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Tirasemtiv NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
375 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
concomitant NN O O
riluzole NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
ascending NN O O
dose NN O O
protocol NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
tirasemtiv NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Tirasemtiv NN O O
approximately NN O O
doubled NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
riluzole NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Trends NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
ALSFRS-R NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Maximum NN O I-OUT
Minute NN O I-OUT
Ventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Nasal NN O I-OUT
Inspiratory NN O I-OUT
Pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
tirasemtiv NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
safely NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
riluzole NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O I-OUT
exploratory NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
support NN O O
the NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
ALS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23955236)

Successful NN O O
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piglets NN O I-PAR
derived NN O O
from NN O O
expanded NN O O
blastocysts NN O O
vitrified NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
micro NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
cooling NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
without NN O O
direct NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
liquid NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
vitrification NN O O
techniques NN O O
for NN O O
porcine NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
the NN O O
micro NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
cooling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MVAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
method NN O O
without NN O O
direct NN O O
contact NN O O
with NN O O
liquid NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
( NN O O
LN? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Expanded NN O O
blastocysts NN O O
were NN O O
vitrified NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
solution NN O O
containing NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
ethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
trehalose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
wt/vol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
HEPES-buffered NN O I-INT
PZM-5 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
blastocysts NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
gilts NN O O
and NN O O
vitrified NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MVAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Cryotop NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blastocysts NN O O
were NN O O
stored NN O O
in NN O O
LN? NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
warming NN O O
, NN O O
cryoprotective NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
removed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
step NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
culture NN O O
( NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
embryo NN O O
transfer NN O O
to NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
Experiment NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
embryos NN O O
vitrified NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
MVAC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fresh NN O O
embryos NN O O
without NN O O
vitrification NN O O
( NN O O
Control NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
MVAC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
32/36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
33/36 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
34/34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
culture NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hatching NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
embryos NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
incubation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
69.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
63.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
23/36 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
94.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
32/34 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Experiment NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
vitrified NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
recipient NN O O
gilts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
piglets NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
recipients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MVAC NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Similarly NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
vitrified NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
recipient NN O O
gilts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O I-OUT
healthy NN O I-OUT
piglets NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
recipients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
porcine NN O I-PAR
expanded NN O I-PAR
blastocysts NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
cryopreserved NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
MVAC NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
without NN O O
potential NN O O
pathogen NN O O
contamination NN O O
from NN O O
LN? NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23959380)

Infant NN O O
distress NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
disorders NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O O
: NN O O
is NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
connection NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (23964752)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
diethylamine NN O I-INT
1.16 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Neck NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
NP NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
disorder NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
that NN O O
frequently NN O O
causes NN O O
discomfort NN O O
. NN O O

Non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
NSAIDs NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
neck NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
facilitate NN O O
earlier NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
diethylamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DDEA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1.16 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
is NN O O
clinically NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
until NN O O
now NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
existed NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
NP 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
DDEA NN O O
1.16 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O O
NP NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
NP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
DDEA NN O O
1.16 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
4x/day NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
pain-on-movement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
POM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain-at-rest NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
POM NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
POM NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
48 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
DDEA NN O O
gel NN O O
( NN O O
19.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
56.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
representing NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
decrease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-OUT
POM NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
DDEA NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
PAR NN O O
and NN O O
NDI NN O O
scores NN O O
from NN O O
first NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
onwards NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
with NN O I-INT
DDEA NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
94.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
DDEA NN O O
gel NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
DDEA NN O O
1.16 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
over-the-counter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
tools NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
efficacy NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
quickly NN O O
reduced NN O O
neck NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
questions NN O O
remain NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
comparability NN O O
and NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
tools NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
ascertain NN O O
whether NN O O
DDEA NN O O
1.16 NN O O
% NN O O
gel NN O O
offers NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
often NN O O
debilitating NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01335724 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23965288)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
utility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disability-Child NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
consideration NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
research NN O O
; NN O O
yet NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
guidance NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
assessment 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
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
and NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
clinician-rated NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disability-Child NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pretreatment NN O O
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disability-Child NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-.388 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
communication NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.407 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.032 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
verbal NN O O
ability NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.449 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
with NN O O
parent-reported NN O O
adaptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disability-Child NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.414 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.040 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.499 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23975885)

Increase NN O O
in NN O O
2-long NN O O
terminal NN O O
repeat NN O O
circles NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
D-dimer NN O O
after NN O O
raltegravir NN O O
intensification NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
degree NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
human NN O O
immunodeficiency NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HIV NN O O
) NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
during NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
ART NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
raltegravir NN O O
intensification NN O O
reduces NN O O
low-level NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
replication NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
2-long NN O I-OUT
terminal NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2-LTR NN O O
) NN O O
circles NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ART-suppressed NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
copies/mL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
T-cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
?350 NN O I-PAR
cells/mm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
?1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
raltegravir NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

2-LTR NN O O
circles NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
droplet NN O O
digital NN O O
polymerase NN O O
chain NN O O
reaction 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
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ART NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
3.8 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
raltegravir NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2-LTR NN O I-OUT
circles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
ratio NN O O
was NN O O
8.8-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0025 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
ratio NN O O
was NN O O
5.7-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.023 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
raltegravir NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intensification NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Raltegravir NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2-LTR NN O I-OUT
circles NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
low-level NN O O
viral NN O O
replication NN O O
persists NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
individuals NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
ART NN O O
. NN O O

Intensification NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
D-dimer NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O O
biomarker NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (23980091)

Gefitinib NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
completely NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NCIC NN O O
CTG NN O O
BR19 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Survival NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
completely NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unsatisfactory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
2002 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
on 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
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
completely NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
closure NN O O
, NN O O
503 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,242 NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
251 NN O O
to NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
252 NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
4.7 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0.1 NN O O
to NN O O
6.3 NN O O
years 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
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.24 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.94 NN O O
to NN O O
1.64 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.22 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.93 NN O O
to NN O O
1.61 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.15 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.28 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.92 NN O O
to NN O O
1.76 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.24 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.90 NN O O
to NN O O
1.71 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.18 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
344 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
wild-type NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.84 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.44 NN O O
to NN O O
7.73 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.395 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
3.16 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.61 NN O O
to NN O O
16.45 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.15 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
gefitinib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
EGFR NN O O
mutation-positive NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
those NN O O
expected NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
EGFR NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
pneumonitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
closed NN O O
prematurely NN O O
and NN O O
definitive NN O O
statements NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
gefitinib NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
not NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23980121)

Aftermath NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
sustainability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Ghana NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
recently NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
positive NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
effectively NN O I-PAR
decreases NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Ghanaian NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
equipment NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
CPAP NN O O
use NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
CPAP NN O O
machines NN O O
were NN O O
functional NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
oxygen NN O O
concentrators NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
electric NN O O
generators NN O O
were NN O O
non-functional NN O O
. NN O O

Nurses NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
personnel NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
first-generation NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Ghanaian NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
second-generation NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CPAP NN O I-PAR
knowledge NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
skills NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
first-generation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
second-generation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
First-generation NN O O
trainees NN O O
scored NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
second-generation NN O O
trainees NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Appropriate NN O O
technical NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
training NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
ensured NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
equipment NN O O
maintenance NN O O
. NN O O

Protocolization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
acquisition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
second- NN O O
and NN O O
future-generation NN O O
trainees NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23984944)

Negative NN O O
emotional NN O O
experiences NN O O
during NN O O
navigation NN O O
enhance NN O O
parahippocampal NN O O
activity NN O O
during NN O O
recall NN O O
of NN O O
place NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
parahippocampal NN O O
cortex NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
object-place NN O O
associations NN O O
in NN O O
spatial NN O O
learning NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
activity NN O O
within NN O O
this NN O O
region NN O O
is NN O O
modulated NN O O
by NN O O
affective NN O O
signals NN O O
during NN O O
navigation NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
fMRI NN O I-INT
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
place NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
navigation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
scanning NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
undertook NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
object NN O I-PAR
location NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
virtual NN O I-PAR
house NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
schedule NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
task-irrelevant NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-PAR
events NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
events NN O O
varied NN O O
in NN O O
valence NN O O
( NN O O
positive NN O O
, NN O O
negative NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
neutral NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
occurrence NN O O
( NN O O
intermittent NN O O
vs. NN O O
constant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
shown NN O O
static NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
learned NN O O
virtual NN O O
environment NN O O
, NN O O
now NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
affective NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
parahippocampal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
bilaterally NN O O
when NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
viewed NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
room NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
previously NN O O
encountered NN O O
negatively NN O O
arousing NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
automatic NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
place NN O I-OUT
representations NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
aversive NN O O
emotional NN O O
events NN O O
serves NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
adaptive NN O O
mechanism NN O O
for NN O O
avoiding NN O O
future NN O O
threats NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23988781)

Outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
parameters NN O O
following NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
of NN O O
transfusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
residual NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
using NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
centrifugation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
cardiopulmonary-bypass NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
biochemical NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Conducted NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
western NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Either NN O O
the NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
process NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
blood NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
circuit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
12-hour NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
12-hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
chest-tube NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
multiple-pass NN O I-INT
hemoconcentration NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
centrifugation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
CF NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
a NN O O
product NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
turnaround NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
consistent NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
MPH NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
trended NN O O
towards NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
12-hour NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23992605)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Villalta-Prandoni NN O I-INT
scale NN O I-INT
and NN O O
venous NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
severity NN O I-INT
score NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
thrombotic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Post-thrombotic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
PTS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
late NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
as NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
ulceration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
several NN O O
instruments NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
PTS NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
Villalta-Prandoni NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VPS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Venous NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
yet NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
instruments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
instruments NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
graduated NN O I-INT
compressive NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
PTS NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-nine NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
duplex NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
30-40 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
Hg NN O I-INT
graduated NN O I-INT
compressive NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PTS NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
VPS NN O O
and NN O O
VCSS NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
VPS NN O O
, NN O O
PTS NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
as NN O O
absent NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
< NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
without NN O O
objective NN O O
criteria NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
?3 NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
objective NN O O
criteria NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
?4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
VCSS NN O O
, NN O O
PTS NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
absent NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
?3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
4-7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
( NN O O
score NN O O
?8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2 NN O O
instruments NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
disease NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Pearson NN O O
chi-squared NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
gamma NN O O
statistic NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Good NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
VPS NN O O
and NN O O
VCSS NN O O
instruments NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
gamma NN O O
statistic NN O O
= NN O O
0.71-0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
severe NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
instruments NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
gamma NN O O
statistic NN O O
= NN O O
0.5-0.98 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-INT
VPS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O O
VCSS NN O I-INT
scoring NN O I-INT
systems NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
tools NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
identification NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
PTS NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
exists NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
instruments NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
severe NN O O
disease NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
VCSS NN O O
may NN O O
possibly NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
instrument NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23993773)

Behavioral NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
to NN O O
address NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
A NN O O
large NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
bedtime NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
disturbances NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
understudied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BPT NN O O
) NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small 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
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3.5years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
BPT NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
nonsleep-related NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
individually NN O O
administered NN O O
a NN O O
5-session NN O O
program NN O O
delivered NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fidelity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
's NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
parent NN O O
report NN O O
and NN O O
objectively NN O O
by NN O O
actigraphy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
BPT NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
supported NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
manualized NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
fidelity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
BPT NN O O
program NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
parent NN O O
report NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
objective NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
detected NN O O
by NN O O
actigraphy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
few NN O O
RCTs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
BPT NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
specifically NN O O
target NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
well-characterized NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
BPT NN O O
program NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
manualized NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
worthy NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (23995030)

Incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
incremental NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ICERs NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
brief 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
-based NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacological NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
department NN O O
( NN O O
ED NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chief NN O I-PAR
complaint NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
indirect NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Panic NN O O
management NN O O
( NN O O
PM NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
ICER NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
124.05 NN O O
, NN O O
per NN O O
the NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
Disorders NN O O
Interview NN O O
Schedule NN O O
for NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
Statistical NN O O
Manual NN O O
of NN O O
Mental NN O O
Disorders NN O O
, NN O O
Fourth NN O O
Edition NN O O
, NN O O
severity NN O O
score NN O O
change 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
54.63- NN O O
$ NN O O
314.57 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
paroxetine NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ICER NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
213.90 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
133.51- NN O O
$ NN O O
394.94 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
brief NN O O
CBT NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ICER NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
309.31 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
151.27- NN O O
$ NN O O
548.28 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
and NN O O
CBT NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
at NN O O
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

PM NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
ICER NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
in NN O O
EDs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24004700)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
colon NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rural NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
Iowa NN O O
Research NN O O
Network NN O O
( NN O O
IRENE NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Many NN O O
adults NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
screened NN O O
for NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
preventable NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
between NN O O
December NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
improve NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
physician NN O I-PAR
offices NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
practice NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
chart NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
chart NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mailed NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CRC NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
magnet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fecal NN O I-INT
immunochemical NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mailed NN O I-INT
education/FIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
preceding NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
project NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
provide NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
interest NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
explain NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
address NN O I-INT
barriers NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mailed NN O O
education/FIT NN O O
plus NN O O
phone NN O O
call NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
completion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
CRC NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
743 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
completed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
17.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
20.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chart NN O O
reminder NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
56.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mailed NN O O
education/FIT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
57.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mailed NN O O
education/FIT NN O O
plus NN O O
phone NN O O
call NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
chart NN O O
reminder NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.7-2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
mailed NN O O
education/FIT NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
6.0 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
3.7-9.6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mailed NN O O
education/FIT NN O O
plus NN O O
phone NN O O
call NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
, NN O O
6.2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
3.8-9.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
FIT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
mailed NN O O
education NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
CRC NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
overdue NN O O
for NN O O
screening NN O O
after NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
mailed NN O O
educational NN O O
materials NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
FIT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phone NN O O
call NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
screening NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24006504)

Intravesical NN O I-INT
seeding NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
urinary NN O I-INT
tract NN O I-INT
urothelial NN O I-INT
carcinoma NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
during NN O O
nephroureterectomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
THPMG NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
Pirarubicin NN O O
Monotherapy NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravesical NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
bladder NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
nephroureterectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
urothelial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
further NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Pirarubicin NN O O
Monotherapy NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
intravesical NN O I-INT
seeding NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Using NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pirarubicin NN O I-PAR
Monotherapy NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
cytology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.004 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
voided NN O O
urine NN O O
cytology NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
bladder NN O O
recurrence NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
5.54 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
1.12-27.5 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pirarubicin NN O I-PAR
Monotherapy NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
31 NN O O
had NN O O
positive NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
cytology NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
better NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
urine NN O O
cytology NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.00-0.53 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
bladder NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
had NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
cystotomy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
compromised NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
urethral NN O O
catheter NN O O
, NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
notion NN O O
that NN O O
tumor NN O O
cells NN O O
seeded NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
injured NN O O
urothelium NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravesical NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pirarubicin NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
nephroureterectomy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
positive NN O O
voided NN O O
urine NN O O
cytology NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intravesical NN O O
seeding NN O O
of NN O O
upper NN O O
urinary NN O O
tract NN O O
urothelial NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
occurs NN O O
during NN O O
nephroureterectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24007198)

Network NN O O
coordination NN O O
following NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Inadequate NN O O
discharge NN O O
planning NN O O
following NN O O
inpatient NN O O
stays NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
issue NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
provision NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
pre-discharge NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
keep NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
outpatient NN O O
appointment NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
discharged NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
linked NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
networks NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
twice NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
re-hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
Post-Discharge NN O I-OUT
Network NN O I-OUT
Coordination NN O I-OUT
Program NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
ipw NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
demonstrably NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
re-hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
are NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
participates NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Post-Discharge NN O I-OUT
Network NN O I-OUT
Coordination NN O I-OUT
Program NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
receives NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
with NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
social NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
include NN O O
: NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independence NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
conducted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
are NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Computer NN O I-INT
generated NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
randomization NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assure NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Stratified NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
randomization NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
ICD-10 NN O O
, NN O O
F1 NN O O
. NN O O

Approximately NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Psychiatrie-Zentrum NN O I-PAR
Hard NN O I-PAR
Embrach NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Klinik NN O I-PAR
Schlosstal NN O I-PAR
Winterthur NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
proposed NN O O
post-discharge NN O I-OUT
network NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
intervenes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
post-discharge NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
focuses NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
promoting NN O O
the NN O O
integration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
networks NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
additionally NN O O
to NN O O
coordinating NN O I-OUT
outpatient NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
addressing NN O I-OUT
concerns NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
ISRCTN58280620 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24011178)

Benefits NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
widely NN O O
advocated NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
improve NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minority NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
COPD NN O O
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
. NN O O

Travel NN O O
and NN O O
transport NN O O
are NN O O
frequently NN O O
cited NN O O
as NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
centre-based NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
home-based NN O O
programs NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
access NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
important NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
COPD NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
elements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
environment NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
entirety NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
is NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
equally NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
producing NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
hospital-based NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O O
and NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hospital-based NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
recruit NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spirometrically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hospital-based NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hospital NN O O
programs NN O O
will NN O O
follow NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
outpatient NN O O
model NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
supervised NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
education NN O O
for NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Home-based NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
will NN O O
involve NN O O
one NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
seven NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
exercise NN O O
participation NN O O
and NN O O
facilitate NN O O
self NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
assessor NN O O
. NN O O

Completion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O

Direct NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
indirect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
patient-related NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
identify NN O O
whether NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
deliver NN O O
equivalent NN O O
benefits NN O O
to NN O O
centre-based NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cost NN O O
effective NN O O
manner 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
will NN O O
contribute NN O O
new NN O O
knowledge NN O O
regarding NN O O
alternative NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24012722)

Why NN O O
does NN O O
lag NN O I-INT
affect NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory-based NN O I-OUT
automaticity NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
loss NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O O
strength NN O O
or NN O O
interference NN O O
? NN O O
In NN O O
Rickard NN O O
, NN O O
Lau NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Pashler NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
2008 NN O O
) NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lag NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
memory-based NN O I-OUT
automaticity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
response NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
faster NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O I-INT
retrieved NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O I-INT
for NN O O
short NN O O
lag NN O O
items NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
long NN O O
lag NN O O
items NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
testing NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
, NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
slower NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
retrieved NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
short NN O O
lag NN O O
items NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
long NN O O
lag NN O O
items NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
lag NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory-based NN O I-OUT
automaticity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
interference NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O O
strength NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
repeatedly NN O O
practiced NN O O
alphabet NN O I-INT
subtraction NN O I-INT
items NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
lag NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
long NN O I-INT
lag NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
immediately NN O I-INT
tested NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
half NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
7-day NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory-based NN O I-OUT
automaticity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
primarily NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
interference NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
discuss NN O O
potential NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
memory-based NN O O
processing NN O O
theories NN O O
to NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24018545)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
atomoxetine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comorbid NN O I-PAR
attention-deficit/hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24021291)

Novel NN O O
population NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
method NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
gluconate NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Iron-containing NN O O
products NN O O
are NN O O
atypical NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
because NN O O
iron NN O O
is NN O O
only NN O O
removed NN O O
by NN O O
plasma NN O O
sampling NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
non-linear NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
ferric NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SFGC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
formulations NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
from NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
parallel NN O O
whereas NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
crossover NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
iron NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
infused NN O O
IV NN O I-INT
SFGC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
by NN O O
GeneraMedix NN O O
Inc. NN O O
and/or NN O O
Ferrlecit NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
Injection NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Watson NN O O
Laboratories NN O O
Inc. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=240 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
infused NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
62.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
infused NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
minutes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Samples NN O O
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O O
iron NN O O
( NN O O
TI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
transferrin-bound NN O O
iron NN O O
( NN O O
TBI NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
36 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
post-dose NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
used NN O O
standard NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
2 NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
population NN O O
PK NN O O
( NN O O
PPK NN O O
) NN O O
analyses NN O O
with NN O O
ADAPT NN O O
5? NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
final NN O O
model NN O O
predicted NN O O
SFGC NN O O
area-under-the-curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUCpred NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maximal NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
Cmaxpred NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
ln-transformed NN O O
PK NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Ratios NN O O
of NN O O
means NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
. NN O O

Bioequivalence NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
if NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
For NN O O
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
ratios NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CIs NN O O
for NN O O
TI NN O O
baseline-corrected NN O O
Cmax NN O O
and NN O O
AUC0-36 NN O O
were NN O O
100.4 NN O O
( NN O O
96.5 NN O O
- NN O O
104.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
99.7 NN O O
( NN O O
94.2 NN O O
- NN O O
105.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
TBI NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
TI NN O O
baseline-corrected NN O O
Cmax NN O O
and NN O O
AUC0-36 NN O O
were NN O O
86.8 NN O O
( NN O O
82.7 NN O O
- NN O O
91.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
92.4 NN O O
( NN O O
85.6 NN O O
- NN O O
99.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
multi-compartmental NN O O
model NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
PK NN O O
of NN O O
TI NN O O
, NN O O
TBI NN O O
and NN O O
SFGC NN O O
. NN O O

Ratios NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CIs NN O O
for NN O O
SFGC NN O O
Cmaxpred NN O O
and NN O O
AUCpred NN O O
were NN O O
89.9 NN O O
( NN O O
85.9 NN O O
- NN O O
94.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
89.7 NN O O
( NN O O
85.7 NN O O
- NN O O
93.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
ratios NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
BE NN O O
criteria NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
power NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
and NN O O
PPK NN O O
modeling NN O O
approach NN O O
suggested NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
iron NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PPK NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
study NN O O
objectives NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
approach NN O O
which NN O O
required NN O O
considerably NN O O
more NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
vs NN O O
240 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24022375)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
person-centred NN O I-INT
dementia NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
agitation NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
enhance NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
10-month NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
Dementia NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
Mapping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DCM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
VIPS NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VPM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
education NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nursing NN O O
home NN O O
staff NN O O
about NN O O
dementia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
agitation NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
symptoms NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
among NN O O
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
10-month NN O O
three-armed NN O O
cluster-randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
DCM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
VPM NN O I-INT
with NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
624 NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
446 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Agitation NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
10-item NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Neuropsychiatric NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NPI-Q NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Cornell NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Dementia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSDD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Late-Stage NN O I-OUT
Dementia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QUALID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BARS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
DCM NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
VPM NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
NPI-Q NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
subscales NN O O
NPI-Q NN O I-OUT
agitation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NPI-Q NN O I-OUT
psychosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
QUALID NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
DCM NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CSDD NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
VPM NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
interventions NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
merit NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24027014)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
theory-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
Iranian NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
club NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
published NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
used NN O O
theory-based NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
in NN O O
community NN O O
lay NN O O
health NN O O
organizations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
theoretical NN O O
concepts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preventive NN O O
health NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
clubs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
municipal NN O I-PAR
district NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Tehran NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
equal NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
throughout NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
theory-based NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Screening NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
360 NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
clubs NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
's NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
theory-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
screened NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
's NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
15.93 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
5.57 NN O O
, NN O O
45.53 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
theory-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
self-report NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
program NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
implementation NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
settings NN O O
and NN O O
through NN O O
other NN O O
community NN O O
organizations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24032193)

[ NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
observation NN O O
on NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
retention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
needles NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
head NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
head NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
retention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
qualified NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
head NN O I-INT
needling NN O I-INT
retention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Retention NN O I-INT
needles NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
head NN O O
with NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
behavior NN O O
training NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
acupoints NN O O
included NN O O
Sishen NN O O
Xue NN O O
, NN O O
Dingshen NN O O
Sanxue NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
tranquilization NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Nao NN O O
Sanxue NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Shou NN O O
Zhisanxue NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
activities NN O O
on NN O O
hand NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Zozhi NN O O
Sonxue NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
activities NN O O
on NN O O
foot NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Needles NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
extremities NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
first NN O O
after NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
needles NN O O
on NN O O
head NN O O
were NN O O
remained NN O O
during NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
While NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
when NN O O
acupuncture NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
completely NN O O
accomplished NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

And NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
observation NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Estimation NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
developing NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PEP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
83.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/30 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
20/30 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
declined NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

And NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
trail NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
all 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
the NN O O
PEP NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
trail NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increasing NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O O
head NN O O
needle NN O O
retention NN O O
on NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24035299)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
phrenic NN O O
nerve NN O O
palsy NN O O
on NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
pneumonectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
phrenic NN O O
nerve NN O O
preservation NN O O
during NN O O
pneumonectomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
still NN O O
an NN O O
unanswered NN O O
question NN O O
. NN O O

So NN O O
far NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
direct NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
immediate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial 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
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
including NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
pneumonectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
written NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
take NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
preservation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
phrenic NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Upon NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
resection NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
paraphrenic NN O O
tissue NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pericardial NN O O
surface NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
ultrasonographic NN O I-INT
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
diaphragmatic NN O O
motion NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
lung NN O O
function NN O O
testing NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
induced NN O O
phrenic NN O O
nerve NN O O
palsy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
temporary NN O O
paralysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilateral NN O O
hemidiaphragm NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
mL/h NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
) NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
above-mentioned NN O O
catheter NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Temporary NN O I-OUT
phrenic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
palsy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
accomplished NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
suspected NN O O
catheter NN O O
dislocation NN O O
. NN O O

Spirometry NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
forced NN O O
vital NN O O
capacity NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
paralyzed NN O O
hemidiaphragm NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
phrenic NN O O
nerve NN O O
palsy NN O O
causes NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O I-INT
pneumonectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
already NN O O
compromised NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
phrenic NN O O
nerve NN O O
injury NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
whenever NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2405107)

Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-two NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
infusional NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
FU NN O I-INT
1,000 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2/d NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
also NN O O
received NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
bolus NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Patients 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
performance NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
laboratory NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
dominant NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
measurable NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
involvement NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
FU NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
FU NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
: NN O O
grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients 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
grades NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
4.7 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
and NN O O
FU NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
infusional NN O O
FU NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CDDP/FU NN O I-INT
as NN O O
routine NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24061784)

Baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
predicting NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment 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
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
The NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
differentially NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
possible NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
hydrobromide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prominent NN O I-PAR
repetitive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
data NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
final NN O O
outcome NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
response NN O O
predictors NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
149 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9.4 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
3.1 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
73 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
76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
ratings NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Global NN O I-PAR
Impression-Severity NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scored NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
compulsive NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
measured NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Yale-Brown NN O I-PAR
Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Twelve NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/5 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
citalopram NN O O
was NN O O
16.5 NN O O
( NN O O
6.5 NN O O
) NN O O
mg NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
A NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
demographic NN O O
( NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pubertal NN O O
status NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
baseline NN O O
illness NN O O
severity NN O O
ratings NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Adolescent NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Repetitive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scale-Revised NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Yale-Brown NN O I-OUT
Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Family NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Caregiver NN O I-OUT
Strain NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Several NN O O
baseline NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
principal NN O O
component NN O O
analysis NN O O
yielded NN O O
3 NN O O
composite NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autism/mood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
significantly NN O O
predicted NN O O
response NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
citalopram NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
entered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
more NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
composite NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
2 NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggests NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
anticipating NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
mitigating NN O O
the NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00086645 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24065423)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
filters NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
mediator NN O O
release NN O O
during NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
bypass NN O O
grafting NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Extracorporeal NN O O
circulation NN O O
used NN O O
during NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
bypass NN O O
grafting NN O O
triggers NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
with NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
activation NN O O
which NN O O
adversely NN O O
affects NN O O
ischaemic/reperfused NN O O
myocardium NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
protection NN O O
during NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
cardioplegia NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cooling NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O O
supply NN O O
from NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reactive NN O O
oxygen NN O O
species NN O O
scavenging NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
cardioplegia NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
myocardial NN O O
damage NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
undesirable NN O O
morphotic NN O O
blood NN O O
elements NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
filters NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
polymorphonuclear NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
( NN O O
PMN NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
revascularisation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PMN NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte NN O O
enzymes NN O O
, NN O O
lysozyme NN O O
and NN O O
beta-glucuronidase NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
revascularisation NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
circulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
cardioplegia NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
leukocyte NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
filters NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
filters NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
cardioplegia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
aortic NN O O
clamping NN O O
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
unclamping NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
25 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
cardioplegic NN O O
solution NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
lines NN O O
proximal NN O O
and NN O O
distal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
filter NN O O
during NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lysozyme NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
beta-glucuronidase NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
PMN NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
filtered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
cardioplegic NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
its NN O O
first NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
0.27 NN O O
? NN O O
0.07 NN O O
G/L NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
filter NN O O
passage NN O O
( NN O O
1.73 NN O O
? NN O O
0.049 NN O O
G/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
during NN O O
last NN O O
administration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PMN NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
filtered NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cardioplegic NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
before NN O O
filter NN O O
passage NN O O
( NN O O
0.66 NN O O
? NN O O
0.35 NN O O
G/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.64 NN O O
? NN O O
1.14 NN O O
G/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
beta-glucuronidase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
5.59 NN O O
? NN O O
1.63 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
aortic NN O O
unclamping NN O O
and NN O O
6.59 NN O O
? NN O O
1.98 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
after NN O O
25 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.19 NN O O
? NN O O
2.66 NN O O
and NN O O
12.83 NN O O
? NN O O
1.88 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Beta-glucuronidase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
collected NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
aortic NN O O
unclamping NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lysozyme NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lysozyme NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
pre-clamping NN O O
samples NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
With NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
leukocyte NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
filters NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
we NN O I-INT
found NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
beta-glucuronidase NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
reduced NN O O
PMN NN O O
activation NN O O
and/or NN O O
reduced NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infiltration NN O O
by NN O O
activated NN O O
PMN NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lysozyme NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
characteristic NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
PMN NN O O
degranulation NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24067301)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
promotes NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amygdala NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asperger NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
recently NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
that NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
emotion NN O O
recognition NN O O
in NN O O
individuals 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
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
condition NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
impaired NN O O
eye NN O O
gaze NN O O
and NN O O
facial NN O O
emotion NN O O
recognition NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
would NN O O
enhance NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
facial NN O O
sections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
vs NN O O
the NN O O
mouth NN O O
region NN O O
and NN O O
modulate NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
neurotypical NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Intranasal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
amygdala NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
facial NN O O
stimuli NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
network NN O I-OUT
involved NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
cognition NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
amygdala NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
functionally NN O O
associated NN O O
cortical NN O O
areas NN O O
mediate NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
AS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2406863)

Bismuth NN O I-INT
subsalicylate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastritis NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Campylobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
an NN O O
investigator-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
subsalicylate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
ethylsuccinate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
matched NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
salt NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastritis NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Campylobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
C. NN O O
pylori NN O O
was NN O O
cleared NN O O
from NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
77.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O O
locally NN O O
active NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
, NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Gastritis NN O O
resolved NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
but NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
receiving NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
cleared NN O O
of NN O O
C. NN O O
pylori NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
persistent NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

Heartburn NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
is NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
antimicrobial NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Erythromycin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
inactivated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
pH NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O O
colonized NN O O
with NN O O
C. NN O O
pylori NN O O
. NN O O

Relapse NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
when NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
bismuth NN O I-INT
and NN O O
an NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
agent NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
; NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
good NN O I-OUT
penetration NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
mucus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24069775)

A NN O O
shortened NN O O
versus NN O O
standard NN O O
matched NN O O
postpartum NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
eclampsia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
currently NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
ideal NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
eclampsia NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
Nigeria NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
limited NN O O
due NN O O
its NN O O
cost NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
inexperience NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
shortened NN O O
postpartum NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
Pritchard NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
fits NN O O
in NN O O
eclampsia NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
eclamptic NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
ward NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Maiduguri NN O I-PAR
Teaching NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
Pritchard NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
shortened NN O I-INT
postpartum NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
in NN O O
which NN O O
only NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
given NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
fetal NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
compared 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
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fits NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
sulphate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
shortened NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
shortened NN O O
postpartum NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
Pritchard NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eclampsia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24070810)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
nonpharmacologic NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
artificial NN O O
tears NN O O
and NN O O
cold NN O O
compress NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
or NN O O
could NN O O
enhance NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
antiallergic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
masked NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29.5?11.0 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O I-INT
Controlled NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
grass NN O I-INT
pollen NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
environmental NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stimulate NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-INT
allergic NN O I-INT
reaction NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
artificial NN O I-INT
tears NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
compress NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ATs NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O I-INT
epinastine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
volume-matched NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
Bulbar NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Bulbar NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
temperature NN O O
recovered NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
faster NN O O
with NN O I-INT
nonpharmaceutical NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Artificial NN O O
tears NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
other NN O O
treatments 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
effect NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
EH NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
combining NN O O
it NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
CC NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cold NN O O
compress NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ATs NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EH NN O I-INT
lowered NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
antigen-raised NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
pre-exposure NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Artificial NN O O
tear NN O O
instillation NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
ATs NN O O
or NN O O
EH NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cold NN O O
compress NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O I-INT
ATs NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EH NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
a NN O O
similar NN O O
cooling NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
all NN O O
measurement NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
EH NN O O
and NN O O
EH NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
CC NN O O
than NN O O
CC NN O O
or NN O O
ATs NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
After NN O O
controlled NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
, NN O O
CC NN O O
and NN O O
AT NN O O
treatment NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
conjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
CC NN O I-PAR
enhanced NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EH NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
symptoms NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
antigenic NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

Signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
conjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
generally NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
most NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ATs NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24074927)

Early NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
intensity NN O O
modulated NN O O
versus NN O O
conventional NN O O
pelvic NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LACC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
whole NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
WP-CRT NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
intensity NN O I-INT
modulated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
International NN O I-PAR
Federation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Gynecology NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Obstetrics NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
FIGO NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIB-IIIB NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
50.4 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
WP-CRT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
WP-IMRT NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
graded NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
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
version NN O I-OUT
3.0 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
graded NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Radiation NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
Oncology NN O I-OUT
Group NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
WP-CRT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
22 NN O O
received NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
WP-CRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
stage NN O O
IIB NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
had NN O O
stage NN O O
IIIB NN O O
disease NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IMRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
stage NN O O
IIB NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
had NN O O
stage NN O O
IIIB NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-CRT NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
21.7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
10.7-37.4 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O O
arm NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
21.6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
7.7-34.4 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
27 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-CRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=.651 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-CRT NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=.645 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WP-IMRT NN O O
arm NN O O
experienced NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
?2 NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
31.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
63.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.034 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O O
?3 NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4.5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
vs NN O O
27.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.047 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
WP-CRT NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
less NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
13.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
vs NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
WP-IMRT NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
WP-CRT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O I-OUT
studies NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
sizes NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
times NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
justify NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24077211)

Intrathecal NN O O
lentivirus-mediated NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin-10 NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
constriction NN O I-OUT
injury-induced NN O I-OUT
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O O
high-mobility NN O O
group NN O O
box NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
pain NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
peripheral NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
damage NN O O
or NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
neuroinflammation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
neuropathological NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
, NN O O
TNF-? NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IFN-? NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
advanced NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
high-mobility NN O O
group NN O O
box NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
HMGB1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
neuroinflammation NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O I-PAR
animal NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
lentivirus NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
IL-10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LV/hIL-10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intrathecally NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
IL-10 NN O O
on NN O O
allodynia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperalgesia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
constriction NN O O
injury-induced NN O O
( NN O O
CCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
rat NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
Sprague-Dawley NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
weighting NN O I-PAR
260 NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
320 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
Sham NN O O
( NN O O
Sham NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O I-INT
CCI?Normal NN O I-INT
Saline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
CCI?LV/hIL-10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LV/hIL-10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
CCI?LV/control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vector NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rats NN O I-INT
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
intrathecally NN O O
delivered NN O O
with NN O O
NS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
LV/control NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
vector NN O I-INT
LV/hIL-10 NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
?l NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Paw NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
thresholds NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PWMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
paw NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
thermal NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
PWTL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
one NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
CCI NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0 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
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Cerebrospinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
CSF NN O O
) NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
surgical NN O O
plane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
collected NN O O
CSF NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assay NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
IL-10 NN O O
, NN O O
rat NN O O
IL-1? NN O O
, NN O O
rat NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rat NN O O
TNF-? NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
( NN O O
ELISA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Animals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
sacrificed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
L4-5 NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
determination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
green NN O I-PAR
fluorescent NN O I-PAR
protein NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GFP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
expression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunohistochemical NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
anti NN O O
HMGB1 NN O O
antibodies NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
HMGB1 NN O O
protein NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
western NN O O
blot NN O O
analysis NN O O
after NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
delivery NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
LV/hIL-10 NN O I-INT
reverses NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
states NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HMGB1 NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CCI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
exogenous NN O O
overexpression NN O O
of NN O O
hIL-10 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CCI NN O O
model NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HMGB1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
RAGE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pAkt NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
CCI-induced NN O O
rats NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LV/hIL-10 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LV/control NN O O
( NN O O
vector NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
inhibits NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
HMGB1-RAGE NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CCI NN O O
rat NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Further NN O O
experimental NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
biological NN O O
roles NN O O
played NN O O
by NN O O
HMGB1 NN O O
in NN O O
IL-10-mediated NN O O
regulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
lentiviral-mediated NN O O
transfer NN O O
of NN O I-INT
IL-10 NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O I-OUT
CCI-induced NN O I-OUT
neuropathic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
anti-thermal NN O O
hyperalgesia NN O O
and NN O O
anti-mechanical NN O O
allodynia NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
partly NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decreased NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
HMGB1 NN O O
and NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
HMGB1-RAGE NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24083350)

Possible NN O O
etiology NN O O
of NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overlapping NN O I-OUT
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
dyspepsia NN O O
( NN O O
FD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
irritable NN O O
bowel NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
IBS NN O O
) NN O O
frequently NN O O
overlap NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
overlap NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
etiology NN O O
remains NN O O
poorly NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
reflux NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
derive NN O O
insights NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
underlying NN O O
etiology NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
626 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
esophagitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
classical NN O I-INT
healing NN O I-INT
concept NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
complete NN O I-INT
remission NN O I-INT
concept NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
until NN O O
esophageal NN O O
mucosal NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

Remission NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
without NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Gastro-intestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
HRQoL NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
disease-specific NN O O
, NN O O
psychometrically NN O O
validated NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcome NN O O
instruments NN O O
( NN O O
ReQuest? NN O O
, NN O O
GERDyzer? NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Symptomatic NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
reflected NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
ReQuest? NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ReQuest? NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
heartburn NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
symptoms NN O O
suggestive NN O O
of NN O O
FD NN O O
and NN O O
IBS NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
symptom NN O O
categories NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Therapy-associated NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
paralleled NN O O
by NN O O
substantial NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
continued NN O O
to NN O O
stabilize NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pantoprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
upper NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
gastro-intestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
overlapping NN O O
with NN O O
erosive NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
HRQoL NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
propose NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
erosive NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
slower NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
gastro-intestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Since NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
observed NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
immune-mediated NN O O
etiology NN O O
and NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
putative NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
factors NN O O
by NN O O
genome-wide NN O O
association NN O O
study NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
focus NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00325676 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24085050)

Pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Tacrolimus NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
atopic NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O O
preference NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pimecrolimus NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tacrolimus NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O O
% NN O O
is NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
seventeen NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
Tacrolimus NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
beyond NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
or NN O O
vehicle NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
formulations NN O O
is NN O O
equally NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
affecting NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hence NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
active NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24089423)

Group NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
recreational NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
an NN O O
increasingly NN O O
identified NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
preliminary NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
open NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
developed NN O O
two NN O O
group NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intelligence NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recreational NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
comprised NN O O
36 NN O O
weekly NN O O
3-h NN O O
sessions NN O O
led NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
therapists NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6-8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Coherence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Rosenberg NN O I-OUT
Self-Esteem NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
exploratory NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
conditions NN O O
reported NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.39 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
amelioration NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dropout NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
recreational NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
generally NN O O
improved NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
improved NN O O
regarding NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
needs NN O O
and NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
difficulties NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interventions NN O O
' NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
elements NN O O
, NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
additionally NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
specific NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
minimizing NN O O
dropout NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24090047)

Japan NN O O
useful NN O O
medication NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
schizophrenia NN O O
( NN O O
JUMPs NN O O
) NN O O
-long-term NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
resolution NN O O
and NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
rate NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
atypical NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
desirable NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotics NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
viewpoint NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
this NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
about NN O O
drug NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
remission NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
QOL NN O O
has NN O O
grown NN O O
recently NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Western NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
numerous NN O O
reports NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
in NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
olanzapine NN O O
and NN O O
risperidone NN O O
primarily NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
second-generation NN O O
antipsychotics NN O O
( NN O O
SGAs NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Japan NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
: NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
desirable NN O O
to NN O O
collect NN O O
data NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
SGAs NN O O
approved NN O O
after NN O O
olanzapine NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
study NN O O
under NN O O
healthcare NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
104-week NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
blonanserin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paliperidone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
switching NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
others NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
reasons NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intolerability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
include NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alleviation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aggravation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DISCUSSION NN O O
Because NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
evidence NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotics NN O O
for NN O O
facilitating NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
highly NN O I-PAR
valuable NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
perform NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
effectiveness NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
ordinary NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
UMIN NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
000007942 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24092940)

18F-FDG NN O I-INT
PET/CT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
lapatinib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HER2-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
Neo-ALTTO NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Molecular NN O O
imaging NN O O
receives NN O O
increased NN O O
attention NN O O
for NN O O
selecting NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
targeted NN O I-PAR
anticancer NN O I-PAR
therapies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Neo-ALTTO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
Lapatinib NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
Trastuzumab NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
Optimisation NN O O
) NN O O
enrolled NN O O
455 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HER2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
pathologic NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
pCR NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
lapatinib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
anti-HER2 NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
therapy NN O O
plus NN O O
weekly NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
early NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
anti-HER2 NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
predictive NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
pCR NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
F-FDG NN O I-INT
PET/CT NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
anti-HER2 NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
imaging NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
provided NN O O
central NN O O
validation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
independent NN O O
reviewers NN O O
, NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
assigned NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
performed NN O O
consensus NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-FDG NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
readings NN O O
. NN O O

Maximum NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SUVmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
metabolic NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventy-seven NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
86 NN O O
enrolled NN O O
patients NN O O
presented NN O O
an NN O O
evaluable NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-FDG NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
scan NN O O
; NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
68 NN O O
and NN O O
66 NN O O
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Metabolic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
tumors NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
targeted NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
highly NN O O
with NN O O
metabolic NN O O
responses NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

pCRs NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
SUVmax NN O O
reductions NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
SUVmax NN O O
reductions NN O O
for NN O O
pCR NN O O
and NN O O
non-pCR NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
54.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
32.8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
61.5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
34.1 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
F-FDG NN O I-OUT
PET/CT NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
were NN O O
71.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
using NN O O
European NN O O
Organization NN O O
for NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
criteria NN O O
; NN O O
pCR NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-FDG NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
responders NN O O
than NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
; NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
: NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Early NN O O
metabolic NN O O
assessment NN O O
using NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
F-FDG NN O O
PET/CT NN O O
can NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
pCR NN O O
after NN O O
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
trastuzumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lapatinib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
when NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24101715)

Group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
adapted NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
9-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
the NN O O
'Exploring NN O I-INT
Feelings NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
manual NN O O
( NN O O
Attwood NN O O
, NN O O
2004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Child NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
run NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
weekly NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
supervision NN O O
of NN O O
experienced NN O O
psychologists NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
blinded NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
addressed NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1-6 NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
attendance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
families NN O O
were NN O O
willing NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
acceptable NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
format NN O O
and NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
feasible NN O O
within NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
appreciated NN O O
by NN O O
families NN O O
and NN O O
attrition NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
small NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24101716)

The NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
MEAL NN O I-INT
Plan NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
parent-training NN O O
curriculum NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
eating NN O O
aversions NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
intake NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Feeding NN O O
problems NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
concern NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
growing NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
atypical NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
intake NN O O
may NN O O
place NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nutritional NN O O
and/or NN O O
related NN O O
medical NN O O
issues NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
chronic NN O O
vitamin NN O O
and NN O O
mineral NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
, NN O O
poor NN O O
bone NN O O
growth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
factors NN O O
emphasizes NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
and NN O O
disseminate NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
feeding NN O O
problems NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O O
feeding NN O O
concerns NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
evidence NN O O
has NN O O
largely NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
with NN O O
trained NN O O
therapists NN O O
working NN O O
in NN O O
highly NN O O
structured NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
seeks NN O O
to NN O O
fill NN O O
this NN O O
gap NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
by NN O O
describing NN O O
and NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-INT
MEAL NN O I-INT
Plan NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
behaviorally NN O O
based NN O O
parent-training NN O O
curriculum NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
feeding NN O O
problems NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
program NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
( NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

recruitment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
feeding NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
representing NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized-control NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
feeding NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
provide NN O O
provisional NN O O
support NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Implications NN O O
, NN O O
limitations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
line NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24103072)

Long-term NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
belatacept NN O O
in NN O O
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
kidneys NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
BENEFIT-EXT NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
kidneys NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
belatacept NN O I-INT
immunosuppression NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
remained NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
enter NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LTE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
LTE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
104 NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
LI NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
CsA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
260 NN O I-PAR
continued NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
91 NN O O
MI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
LI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
CsA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
LTE NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
MI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
LI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
CsA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
eight NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
MI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
LI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
CsA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
MI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
LI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
LTE NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
four NN O O
cases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
posttransplant NN O I-OUT
lymphoproliferative NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PTLD NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LTE NN O O
to NN O O
year NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
LI NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
CsA NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
PTLD NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LI NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
seronegative NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Epstein-Barr NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EBV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
calculated NN O I-OUT
GFR NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
year NN O O
5 NN O O
was NN O O
55.9 NN O O
? NN O O
17.5 NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
59.0 NN O O
? NN O O
29.1 NN O O
( NN O O
LI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
44.6 NN O O
? NN O O
16.4 NN O O
( NN O O
CsA NN O O
) NN O O
mL/min/1.73 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Continued NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
belatacept NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
versus NN O O
CsA NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24104511)

Correlation NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among 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
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
social NN O O
impairments NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
hallmark NN O O
deficit NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
many NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cognition NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
cognitive NN O O
gains NN O O
among NN O O
192 NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
kindergarten-through-second-grade NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
classrooms NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
year-long NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
gains NN O O
in NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
modestly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
independent NN O I-OUT
assessors NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teachers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Observed NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
commensurate NN O O
with NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
both NN O O
for NN O O
interventions NN O I-INT
that NN O O
directly NN O O
target NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
relevant NN O O
field NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24105031)

Supplementation NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
slow-release NN O I-INT
urea NN O I-INT
in NN O O
feed NN O O
blocks NN O O
for NN O O
Thai NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
nitrogen NN O I-PAR
utilization NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
biochemistry NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hematology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O I-PAR
Thai NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BW NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
3.0 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
Latin NN O O
square NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
four NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
inclusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
urea NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
U-cas NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
feed NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FB NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
180 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
dry NN O O
matter NN O O
( NN O O
DM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O O
intakes NN O O
were NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
U-cas NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
FB NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
obtained NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
when NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
U-cas NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
FB NN O O
at NN O O
180 NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
150 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
DM NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
U-cas NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
FB NN O O
at NN O O
180 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
DM NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4.1 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
others NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
N NN O O
retention NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
N NN O O
retention NN O O
to NN O O
N NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6.9 NN O O
g/day NN O O
and NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
biochemistry NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
different NN O O
among NN O O
treatments NN O O
except NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O I-INT
U-cas NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
180 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
DM NN O O
in NN O O
FB NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
U-cas NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
180 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
in NN O O
FB NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
biochemistry NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Thai NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
beef NN O I-PAR
cattle NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
rice NN O I-PAR
straw NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24107284)

Enhanced NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokine NN O O
removal NN O O
with NN O O
online NN O O
hemodiafiltration NN O O
over NN O O
high-flux NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis-related NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypercytokinemia NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis-related NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AKI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Besides NN O O
the NN O O
established NN O O
cytokines NN O O
, NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
VEGF NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
enhancing NN O O
vascular NN O O
leakage NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
cytokine NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
online NN O I-INT
hemodiafiltration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
combines NN O I-INT
convective NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diffusive NN O I-INT
solute NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-flux NN O I-INT
hemodialysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
sepsis-related NN O I-PAR
AKI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
online NN O I-INT
HDF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-flux NN O I-INT
HD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
as NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
high-flux NN O O
HD NN O O
, NN O O
online NN O O
HDF NN O O
provided NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
VEGF NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.029 NN O I-OUT
) 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 I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intradialytic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Online NN O I-OUT
HDF NN O O
revealed NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
high-flux NN O I-OUT
HD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
online NN O O
HDF NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis-related NN O O
AKI NN O O
could NN O O
provide NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VEGF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
high-flux NN O O
HD NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
online NN O O
HDF NN O O
would NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
hypercytokinemic NN O O
state NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sepsis-related NN O I-PAR
AKI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24112670)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
following NN O O
rib NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
morbidity NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
rib NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
remains NN O O
largely NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
retrospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
spanning NN O O
January NN O O
2003 NN O O
to NN O O
June NN O O
2011 NN O O
assessing NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
among NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rib NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ketorolac NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
202 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ketorolac NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
417 NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
ketorolac NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
.14 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
.04 NN O O
to NN O O
.46 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
ventilator-free NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
1.8 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit-free NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
2.1 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.3 NN O O
to NN O O
3.0 NN O O
) NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
nonunion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Early NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rib NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
without NN O O
apparent NN O O
risks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24113340)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
performing NN O O
eye-hand NN O O
integration NN O O
tasks NN O O
: NN O O
four NN O O
preliminary NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
low-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
report NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
four NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
low-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
premotor NN O O
cortices NN O O
on NN O O
eye-hand NN O O
integration NN O O
tasks NN O O
; NN O O
defining NN O O
the NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
real NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
repetitive NN O O
transcranial NN O O
magnetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
three NN O O
kinds NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
repetitive NN O O
transcranial NN O O
magnetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O O
eye-hand NN O O
integration NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
combined NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
eye-hand NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
when NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
repetitive NN O O
transcranial NN O O
magnetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
premotor NN O O
cortex NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
persistent NN O O
improvement NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
; NN O O
better NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
combining NN O O
high-frequency NN O O
repetitive NN O O
transcranial NN O O
magnetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
and NN O O
eye-hand NN O O
integration NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
evaluations NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
strongly NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24119994)

Entomological NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
insecticide-treated NN O O
bed NN O O
net NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Western NN O I-PAR
Myanmar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
insecticide-treated NN O I-INT
bed NN O I-INT
nets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ITN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Western NN O I-PAR
Myanmar NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
malaria NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ITN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
highly NN O O
variable NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
aggregate NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
coincident NN O O
entomological NN O O
investigation NN O O
measured NN O O
malaria NN O I-OUT
vector NN O I-OUT
abundance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
sleeping NN O I-OUT
habits NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
factors NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
ITN NN O I-INT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Entomological NN O O
surveys NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
using NN O O
different NN O O
catching NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
potential NN O I-OUT
malaria NN O I-OUT
vector NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
characterise NN O O
their NN O O
biting NN O I-OUT
habits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
salivary NN O I-INT
glands NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
dissected NN O I-INT
from NN O O
all NN O O
female NN O O
anophelines NN O O
caught NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
sporozoites NN O O
by NN O O
microscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O O
1995 NN O O
and NN O O
2000 NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
4,824 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
anopheline NN O I-PAR
mosquitoes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
caught NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
catching NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
916 NN O I-PAR
person NN O I-PAR
nights NN O I-PAR
yielded NN O I-PAR
3,009 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
anopheline NN O I-PAR
mosquitoes NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
pm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
am NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Except NN O O
for NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
annularis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
preference NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
outdoor NN O O
biting NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
major NN O O
species NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
outdoor NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Anopheles NN O O
epiroticus NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
subpictus NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
maculatus NN O O
( NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
aconitus NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
vagus NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
evening NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
6 NN O O
pm NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
pm NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1447/2837 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
bites NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
between NN O O
6 NN O O
pm NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
pm NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
sleeping NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
an NN O O
ITN NN O I-INT
during NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
one NN O O
An NN O O
. NN O O

annularis NN O O
mosquito NN O O
( NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
malaria NN O I-OUT
sporozoites NN O I-OUT
identified NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
salivary NN O O
glands NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Peak NN O I-OUT
vector NN O I-OUT
biting NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
and NN O O
mainly NN O O
occurred NN O O
outdoors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
limited NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ITN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
Western NN O I-PAR
Myanmar NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
biting NN O O
behaviour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prevalent NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
mosquito NN O O
vectors NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24122191)

Characterization NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
thermal NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Studies NN O O
investigating NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
burns NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
inconclusive NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
characterize NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
thermal NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TBSA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
HBOT NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
burn NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
HBOT NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Burn NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O O
LDI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
histologically NN O O
, NN O O
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cytokine NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
pre NN O O
HBOT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
post NN O O
HBOT NN O O
) NN O O
post NN O O
burn NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
and NN O O
microbiology NN O O
of NN O O
burns NN O O
tissue NN O O
samples NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
burn NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
WBC NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-1? NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interferon-? NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
burn NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
HBOT NN O O
. NN O O

HBOT NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
burn NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Slower NN O O
than NN O O
anticipated NN O O
recruitment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
considerably NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
planned NN O O
being NN O O
studied NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
< NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
TBSA NN O O
burn NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
HBOT NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
possibly NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
effect NN O O
worthy NN O O
of NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
our NN O O
methodology NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
burns NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24127304)

Increasing NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O O
: NN O O
offering NN O O
a NN O O
HPV NN O O
self-test NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
non-attendees NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
RACOMIP NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
Swedish NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RACOMIP NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
interventions NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
well-run NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
program NN O O
in NN O O
western NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
one NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
offering NN O O
non-attendees NN O O
a NN O O
high-risk NN O O
human NN O O
papillomavirus NN O O
( NN O O
HPV NN O O
) NN O O
self-test NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
screening NN O O
invitation NN O O
routine NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O O
routine NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
telephone NN O O
call NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8,800 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
30-62 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
Pap NN O I-PAR
smear NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
latest NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
rounds NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:5:5 NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
800 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
offered NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-INT
HPV NN O I-INT
self-test NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
4,000 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
telephone NN O I-INT
call NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4,000 NN O I-PAR
constituted NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
invitation NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
marginal NN O O
cost NN O O
per NN O O
cancer NN O O
case NN O O
prevented NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
self-testing NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
24.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
telephone NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
1.36 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.19-1.57 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
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RR NN O O
2.33 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.00-2.71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
nine NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
tested NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
high-risk NN O O
HPV NN O O
attended NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
cervical NN O O
smear NN O O
and NN O O
colposcopy NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
health-care NN O O
sector NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
will NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Offering NN O O
a NN O O
self-test NN O O
for NN O O
HPV NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
Pap NN O O
smears NN O O
increases NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
long-term NN O O
non-attendees NN O O
. NN O O

Offering NN O O
various NN O O
screening NN O O
options NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
participation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24132766)

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
for NN O O
semi-automatic NN O O
volumetry NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
CT NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Early NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
treatable NN O O
stage NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O O
by NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Accurate NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
growth NN O O
measurements NN O O
are NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
malignancy NN O O
. NN O O

Nodule NN O O
volumes NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
semi-automated NN O O
volumetric NN O O
software NN O O
. NN O O

Systematic NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
volume NN O O
measurements NN O O
between NN O O
packages NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
nodule NN O O
categorization NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
decisions NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
volumetric NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
solid NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
nodules NN O O
on NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
doubling NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VDT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
three NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
packages NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NELSON NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
round NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
nodule NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
using NN O O
three NN O I-INT
semi-automated NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
packages NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
P2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
P3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Manual NN O O
modification NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
when NN O O
automated NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
visually NN O O
inaccurate NN O O
. NN O O

VDT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VDT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
software NN O O
packages NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
P1 NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
25 NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
147 NN O O
nodules NN O O
were NN O O
present NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
examinations NN O O
( NN O O
volume NN O O
: NN O O
12.0-436.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O I-OUT
segmentation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
in NN O O
93.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
nodules NN O O
for NN O O
P1 NN O O
, NN O O
84.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
P2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
88.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
P3 NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
measured NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
P1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
packages NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

P2 NN O O
overestimated NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
38 NN O O
? NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P3 NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
? NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
consensus NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
nodule NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
categorization NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
80 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
P1 NN O I-OUT
& NN O O
P2 NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
P1 NN O O
& NN O O
P3 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
consensus NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
VDT NN O I-OUT
categorization NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
47 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
P1 NN O O
& NN O O
P2 NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
P1 NN O O
& NN O O
P3 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Software NN O I-INT
packages NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
nodule NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
yield NN O I-INT
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
volumetric NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VDT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
variation NN O O
affects NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
classification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
nodules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
especially NN O O
in NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24138011)

Aripiprazole NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
prior NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
change 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
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
exposure NN O O
( NN O O
PAE NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
aripiprazole NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
pooled NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
evaluating NN O O
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
subjects 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
6-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
PAE NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
AEs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
PAE NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
predicting NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
316 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
259 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
82.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
antipsychotic NN O I-PAR
na?ve NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
PAE NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aripiprazole-treated NN O O
AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
PAE NN O O
subjects NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
somnolence NN O O
( NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sedation NN O O
( NN O O
22.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
fatigue NN O O
( NN O O
17.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drooling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
akathisia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
marginally NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
10.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole-treated NN O O
AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
AE NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole-treated NN O O
PAE NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
endpoint NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.7 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
1.2 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
PAE NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-0.4 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
treatment NN O O
difference NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
2.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
identified NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
z-score NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
highest NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
weight NN O O
gain 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 I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
z-score NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AN NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
experience NN O O
AEs NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
somnolence NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
discontinuations NN O O
rates NN O O
from NN O O
AEs NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
good NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
AN NN O O
and NN O O
PAE NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
aripiprazole NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Registry NN O O
: NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Identifiers NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00332241 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT00337571 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24146058)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
glucosamine-chondroitin NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
feline NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
glucosamine-chondroitin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Glu-Ch NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
feline NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Cats NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
Glu-Ch NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
meloxicam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
orally NN O O
for NN O O
70 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
until NN O O
day NN O O
98 NN O O
. NN O O

Cats NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
veterinarian NN O O
on NN O O
five NN O O
occasions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
owner NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
form NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
thirty NN O O
cats NN O O
. NN O O

Pre-treatment NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
for NN O O
owner NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
veterinary NN O I-OUT
lameness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Owner NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
day NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Glu-Ch NN O O
were NN O O
discontinued NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
commenced NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
owner-assessed NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
day NN O O
70 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
98 NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Glu-Ch NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
p=0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
p=0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
temperament NN O I-OUT
p=0.04 NN O O
; NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
OA NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
introduced NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
cats NN O O
receiving NN O O
meloxicam NN O I-INT
medication NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
worsening NN O O
of NN O O
owner NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
once NN O O
the NN O O
placed NN O O
was NN O O
introduced NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Glu-Ch NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24147543)

Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
actinic NN O I-PAR
keratosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
treated NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
actinic NN O I-PAR
keratosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
5-aminolevulinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
AK NN O O
lesions NN O O
remained NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
cleared NN O O
all NN O O
AK NN O O
lesions NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
cleared NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
AK NN O O
lesions NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
residual NN O O
AK NN O O
lesions NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
cleared NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
erosion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
crust NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
AK NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
satisfactorily NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
imiquimod NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O I-INT
, NN O O
only NN O O
severe NN O O
cases NN O O
may NN O O
better NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
show NN O O
higher NN O O
efficacy NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
occur NN O O
frequently NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24156287)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
context NN O O
on NN O O
simulator-based NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
measurement NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
clinical NN O O
skill NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
readily NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
objective NN O O
structured NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
( NN O O
OSCE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
simulators NN O I-INT
can NN O O
enhance NN O O
test NN O O
validity NN O O
and NN O O
reliability NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
given NN O O
clinical NN O O
context NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
affect NN O O
student NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
context NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
measurement NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
simulator-based NN O I-INT
OSCE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
162 NN O I-PAR
first-year NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
lead-in NN O I-PAR
statements NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
measuring NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
manikin NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
statements NN O O
described NN O O
hypothetical NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
likelihoods NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
lead-in NN O O
that NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
lead-in NN O O
that NN O O
suggested NN O O
normality NN O O
yielded NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Student NN O I-PAR
performance NN O O
in NN O O
simulator-based NN O I-INT
OSCE NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
context NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
argue NN O O
that NN O O
construct NN O O
validity NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
viewed NN O O
in NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
present NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
cues NN O O
and NN O O
likelihoods NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Variations NN O O
in NN O O
construct NN O O
design NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
explored NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
competence NN O O
that NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
unpredictability NN O O
encountered NN O O
in NN O O
daily NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24158898)

Sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
triple-drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Antimicrobial NN O O
resistance NN O O
has NN O O
decreased NN O O
eradication NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
worldwide NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sequential NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedule NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
studies NN O O
published NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
Italy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
undertook NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
replicated NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
triple-drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
Lokmanya NN O I-PAR
Tilak NN O I-PAR
Municipal NN O I-PAR
General NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Mumbai NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
10-day NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
remaining NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
14-day NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Per-protocol NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
92.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
85.8-96.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
81.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
73.9-87.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intention-to-treat NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
88.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
80.9-93.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
79.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
71.1-85.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
therapy NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
14.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
23.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
sequential NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Follow NN O O
up NN O O
was NN O O
incomplete NN O O
in NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O I-INT
Sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
includes NN O I-INT
one NN O O
additional NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
( NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
) NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
contained NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Sequential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
eradicating NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24173178)

Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
actinic NN O I-PAR
keratosis NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Actinic NN O I-PAR
keratosis NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
lesion NN O O
which NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
sunlight NN O O
exposed NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

Diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
are NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
and NN O O
easy-to-apply NN O O
topical NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compare NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
actinic NN O O
keratosis NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
actinic NN O I-PAR
keratosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Modified NN O I-OUT
versions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Investigator NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
Scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
diclofenac NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.6 NN O O
and NN O O
6.6 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0,001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
17.4 NN O O
and NN O O
3.15 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
the NN O O
non-blinded NN O O
physician NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
blinded NN O O
physician NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
same NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.827 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
presented NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
( NN O O
93.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
38.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Erythema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
crusts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O O
tolerability NN O O
than NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24184410)

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
sweet NN O O
escape NN O O
from NN O O
social NN O O
pain NN O O
: NN O O
glucose NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
attenuate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ostracism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ostracism NN O O
causes NN O O
social NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
activate NN O O
regions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
representation NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
observed NN O O
that NN O O
acetominophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
pain NN O O
reliever NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O O
of NN O O
exclusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
taste NN O O
and NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O O
can NN O O
also NN O O
relieve NN O O
physical NN O O
pain 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
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
might NN O O
also NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ostracism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
an NN O O
appropriately NN O O
powered NN O O
experiment NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
25g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sucralose NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
ostracized NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
playing NN O I-PAR
Cyberball NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Strong NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ostracism NN O O
were NN O O
observed 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
effect NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
immediate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
delayed NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mood NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
social NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
unlike NN O O
physical NN O O
pain NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
is NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
lessen NN O O
pain NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioid NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24189342)

Central NN O O
5-HT4 NN O O
receptor NN O O
binding NN O O
as NN O O
biomarker NN O O
of NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
tonus NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
[ NN O O
11C NN O O
] NN O O
SB207145 NN O O
PET NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Identification NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
inform NN O O
on NN O O
extracellular NN O O
serotonin NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brains NN O O
of NN O O
living NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
enable NN O O
greater NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
brain NN O O
circuits NN O O
are NN O O
modulated NN O O
by NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
neurotransmission NN O O
. NN O O

Substantial NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
and NN O O
humans NN O O
indicates NN O O
an NN O O
inverse NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
central NN O O
5-HT NN O O
tonus NN O O
and NN O O
5-HT NN O O
type NN O O
4 NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
5-HT4R NN O O
) NN O O
density NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
5-HT4R NN O O
receptor NN O O
density NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
5-HT NN O O
tonus NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
brain NN O O
5-HT NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
brain NN O O
5-HT4R NN O O
binding NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Brain NN O I-OUT
5-HT4R NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
quantified NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
SB207145 NN O I-INT
positron NN O I-OUT
emission NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PET NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
5-HT4R NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
placebo NN O O
intervention NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
5-HT4R NN O O
binding NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.52 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
wherein NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT4R NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
adjusts NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extracellular NN O O
5-HT NN O O
tonus NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
the NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
5-HT4R NN O O
binding NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
biomarker NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
5-HT NN O O
tonus NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24201696)

Do NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
functionally NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults 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
Loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ageing NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
for NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
( NN O O
ACEi NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
people NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
ACEi NN O O
provide NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ACEi NN O O
therapy NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O O
people NN O O
undergoing NN O O
exercise NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O O
through NN O O
general NN O O
( NN O O
family NN O O
) NN O O
practices NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
received NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
perindopril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O O
20 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 I-OUT
between-group NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
Performance NN O I-OUT
Battery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
handgrip NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Limitations NN O I-OUT
Profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
perindopril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
75.7 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
6.8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O I-OUT
6-minute NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
306 NN O O
m NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
29.6 NN O O
m NN O O
perindopril NN O O
, NN O O
36.4 NN O O
m NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-8.6m NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
-30.1 NN O O
, NN O O
12.9 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.43 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
were NN O O
few NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
perindopril NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
functionally NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2420348)

Hypotension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
iloprost NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
prostacyclin NN O O
analogue NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24213956)

Combining NN O O
afferent NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mirror NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rehabilitating NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Mirror NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mesh NN O I-INT
glove NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
afferent NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
motor NN O O
impairment NN O O
after NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
hybrid NN O O
intervention NN O O
of NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
broaden NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
impairments NN O O
, NN O O
manual NN O O
dexterity NN O O
, NN O O
ambulation NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
motor NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
daily NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
extremity NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1.5 NN O O
hours/day NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days/week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Myoton-3 NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Box NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Block NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BBT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
10-Meter NN O I-OUT
Walk NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
MWT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
motor NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
kinematic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Motor NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Log NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ABILHAND NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
FMA NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
synergistic NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
abduction NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
BBT NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O I-OUT
MWT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
velocity NN O O
and NN O O
stride NN O O
length NN O O
in NN O O
self-paced NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
velocity NN O O
in NN O O
as-quickly-as-possible NN O O
task NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
manual NN O I-OUT
dexterity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ambulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MT NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
synergistic NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
abduction NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
than NN O O
CT. NN O I-INT
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
may NN O O
integrate NN O O
functional NN O O
task NN O O
practice NN O O
into NN O O
treatments NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
MG NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MT NN O I-INT
remain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24214165)

An NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
sensory NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
difficulties NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
4-8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
using NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
occupational NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
scored NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
1.2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
Goal NN O I-OUT
Attainment NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
scored NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
assistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
socialization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Usual NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
high NN O O
rigor NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
fidelity NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
provides NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this 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
. NN O I-PAR
Findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24214189)

QT/QTc NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
novel NN O O
xanthine NN O O
oxidase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
topiroxostat NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
QT NN O O
prolongation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
QT/QTc NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
ICH NN O O
E14 NN O O
guideline 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
new NN O I-INT
xanthine NN O I-INT
oxidase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
topiroxostat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
topiroxostat NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
or NN O O
180 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O O
single-center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
four-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fridericia NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
formula NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QTcF NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
QT/RR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.33 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
QT-interval NN O I-OUT
correction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
QTcF NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
largest NN O O
time-matched NN O O
difference NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O O
administration NN O O
was NN O O
13.6 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
with NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
11.2 NN O O
and NN O O
15.9 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
QTcF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
hardly NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
topiroxostat NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
largest NN O O
time-matched NN O O
difference NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O O
administration NN O O
was NN O O
2.9 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
with NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
0.6 NN O O
and NN O O
5.3 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-dose NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2.3 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
with NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
4.7 NN O O
milliseconds NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
post-dose NN O O
for NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
essentially NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sex NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Moxifloxacin NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
QT/QTc NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
topiroxostat NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
QT-interval NN O O
prolongation NN O O
in NN O O
males NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
females NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24214840)

Promoting NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
awareness NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
juncture NN O O
-- NN O O
where NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
providers NN O O
meet NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
population-based NN O O
screening NN O O
tests NN O O
for NN O O
ovarian NN O O
, NN O O
uterine NN O O
, NN O O
vaginal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vulvar NN O O
cancers NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
detection NN O O
can NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
recognizing NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
2008 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Centers NN O O
for NN O O
Disease NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Prevention NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
CDC NN O O
) NN O O
Inside NN O O
Knowledge NN O O
campaign NN O O
began NN O O
distributing NN O O
consumer NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
promoting NN O I-INT
awareness NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gynecologic NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
providers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
in-office NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CDC NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
materials NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
recognition NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
highlighted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
materials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
national NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nurse NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gynecologists NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,380 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Less NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
a NN O O
quarter NN O O
of NN O O
providers NN O O
( NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
CDC NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
education NN O O
materials NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
offices NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
provider NN O O
characteristics NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
CDC NN O O
materials NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
consistent NN O O
across NN O O
specialties NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancers NN O O
was NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
among NN O O
providers NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
CDC NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
providers NN O O
were NN O O
educated NN O O
about NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
symptoms NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
dissemination NN O O
of NN O O
materials NN O O
intended NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
intriguing NN O O
and NN O O
warrants NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Distributing NN O O
consumer NN O O
education NN O O
materials NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
provider NN O O
offices NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
priority NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Inside NN O O
Knowledge NN O O
campaign NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
where NN O O
women NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
interact NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
crucial NN O O
venues NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24215858)

Menopausal NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
RCT NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
nonhormonal NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
menopause-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vasomotor NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Peri- NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40-62 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
107 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
106 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
142 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
177 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
178 NN O O
) NN O O
capsules NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
interventions NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
90-minute NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
at-home NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
facility-based NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times/week NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
0.615 NN O O
g NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
times/day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Menopausal NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MENQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
355 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
54.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
338 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-PAR
assessments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.6/day NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
MENQOL NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.8 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-8 NN O O
from NN O O
better NN O O
to NN O O
worse NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O I-INT
yoga NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12-week NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
MENQOL NN O I-OUT
total NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
sexuality NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12-week NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
MENQOL NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O O
showed NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
MENQOL NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
All NN O O
women NN O O
become NN O O
menopausal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
seek NN O O
medical NN O O
advice NN O O
on NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
little NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
information NN O O
exists NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
yoga NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
menopausal NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
finding NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modest NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24216497)

The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
after NN O O
premedication NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
are NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
veterinary NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
via NN O O
direct NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
measurements NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lithium NN O O
dilution NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
( NN O O
LDCO NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
premedicated NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
tibial NN O I-PAR
plateau NN O I-PAR
leveling NN O I-PAR
osteotomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TPLO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
client-owned NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
dogs NN O O
were NN O O
premedicated NN O O
with NN O O
hydromorphone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
IV NN O O
and NN O O
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
0.01 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighteen NN O O
dogs NN O O
were NN O O
instrumented NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dorsal NN O O
pedal NN O O
arterial NN O O
catheter NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
dog NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
femoral NN O O
arterial NN O O
catheter NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
dogs NN O O
had NN O O
continuous NN O O
, NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVRI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
q NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
parameters NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
inhalant NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multimodal NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
premedicated NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24217336)

Improving NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
among NN O O
mothers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
address NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
autism NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
when NN O O
parents NN O O
are NN O O
learning NN O O
to NN O O
navigate NN O O
the NN O O
complex NN O O
system NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive NN O O
behavioral NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
problem-solving NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
decreases NN O O
parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
6 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
PSE NN O I-INT
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Settings NN O O
included NN O O
an NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
programs NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
serve NN O I-PAR
low-income NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
122 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
recently NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
mothers NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
eligibility NN O O
, NN O O
17.0 NN O O
% NN O O
declined NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
immediate NN O O
postdiagnosis NN O O
period NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Problem-solving NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
cognitive NN O O
intervention NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
30-minute NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
existing NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
( NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
research NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
formal NN O I-INT
mental NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
autism NN O O
clinic NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PSE NN O I-INT
and NN O O
63 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
follow-up NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
91.0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
intervention NN O O
mothers NN O O
( NN O O
78.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
PSE NN O I-INT
course NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
PSE NN O I-INT
mothers NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
serving NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
adjusted NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
aRR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.17 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.04 NN O O
to NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
symptoms NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
22.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
aRR NN O O
, NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.10 NN O O
to NN O O
1.08 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
Quick NN O O
Inventory NN O O
of NN O O
Depressive NN O O
Symptomatology NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
4.6 NN O O
with NN O O
PSE NN O O
vs NN O O
6.9 NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
; NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-1.67 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-3.17 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
The NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
PSE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
postdiagnosis NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
parents NN O O
are NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
navigate NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
service NN O O
delivery NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
work NN O O
will NN O O
monitor NN O O
these NN O O
families NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
trajectory NN O O
of NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01021384 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24225475)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fatigue NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
symptom NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fatigue NN O O
, NN O O
activities NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
living NN O O
( NN O O
ADL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
( NN O O
QOL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
block NN O O
randomisation NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
randomise NN O O
participants NN O O
into NN O O
case NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
and NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
, NN O O
chi-squared NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
covariance NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analysing NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
home-based NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Home-based NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inexpensive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accessible NN O I-OUT
programme NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
ADL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24229362)

Study NN O O
protocol NN O O
: NN O O
Rehabilitation NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Teenagers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
RESPECT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
During NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
network NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
friends NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sports NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
leisure NN O I-PAR
activities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
describe NN O O
school NN O O
related NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
physical NN O O
fitness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
problems NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
peers NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
RESPECT NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
nationwide NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
mixed-methods NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
looking NN O O
at NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
eastern NN O I-PAR
Denmark NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=120 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
western NN O I-PAR
Denmark NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=120 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESPECT NN O O
includes NN O I-PAR
Danish-speaking NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Denmark NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
achievement NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first-line NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VO2max NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first-line NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
are NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
validated NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interviews NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESPECT NN O O
includes NN O O
a NN O O
multimodal NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
ambassador-facilitated NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
includes NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
schoolteachers NN O O
and NN O O
classmates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
parents NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
each NN O O
have NN O O
two NN O O
ambassadors NN O O
assigned NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
class NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ambassadors NN O O
visit NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
at NN O O
alternating NN O O
2-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
and NN O I-INT
participate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
examines NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
structured NN O O
, NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
from NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
tested NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
powered NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DISCUSSION NN O O
RESPECT NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
population-based NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
healthy NN O O
classmates NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
ambassadors NN O I-INT
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
the NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
RESPECT NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
expanding NN O O
knowledge NN O O
on NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
also NN O O
facilitate NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
children NN O O
undergoing NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
for NN O O
long-term NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
file NN O O
. NN O O

NCT01772849 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT01772862 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24231167)

Examination NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aggression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
self-injury NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
identified NN O O
subtypes NN O O
of NN O O
aggression NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
206 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
narratives NN O O
were NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O O
interview NN O O
about NN O O
each NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
2 NN O O
most NN O O
pressing NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
subtypes NN O O
of NN O O
aggression NN O O
emerged NN O O
: NN O O
hot NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SIB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aggression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SIB NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
nonaggressive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
across NN O O
subtypes NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
study NN O O
findings NN O O
extend NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
aggression NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
biological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
and NN O O
individualized NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24231646)

Humoral NN O I-PAR
immunity NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Controlling NN O O
alloimmune NN O O
humoral NN O O
response NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
humoral NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL/METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
on NN O O
307 NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus/mycophenolate NN O I-INT
mofetil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tac/MMF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
cyclosporine/azathioprine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA/AZA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
antithymocyte NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
and NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Humoral NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
D0 NN O O
, NN O O
D15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
M12 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IgM NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
D15 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
?35 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
?26 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?35 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
D0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
M12 NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
B-cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
Tac/MMF NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
IgG NN O O
, NN O O
IgA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IgM NN O O
levels NN O O
than NN O O
CsA/AZA NN O O
( NN O O
?5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
?14.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
?34 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Hypogammaglobulinemia NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
D15 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HLA-sensitized NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
Tac/MMF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
15.9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
D0 NN O O
and NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
M12 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CsA/AZA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
D0 NN O O
and NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
M12 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
patients NN O O
sensitized NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
became NN O O
non-sensitized NN O O
at NN O O
M12 NN O O
with NN O O
Tac/MMF NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
CsA/AZA NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
humoral NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
with NN O O
Tac/MMF NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
CsA/AZA NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
kidney NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24234676)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
augmented NN O I-INT
sensorimotor NN O I-INT
input NN O I-INT
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
among 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
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
4-14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
and 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
conditions NN O O
for NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
juice-making NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
producing NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Seventeen NN O O
sighted NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
manually NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
to NN O O
perform NN O O
the NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
tactually NN O O
prompted NN O O
during NN O O
imitated NN O O
productions NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
words NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
matched NN O O
controls NN O O
heard NN O O
the NN O O
novel NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
watched NN O O
the NN O O
juice-making NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Performances NN O O
on NN O O
four NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
right NN O O
after NN O O
instruction NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
24-48 NN O O
h NN O O
post-instruction NN O O
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
??hands-on?? NN O O
, NN O O
participation NN O O
than NN O O
observation NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
verbal NN O O
and NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
offers NN O O
a NN O O
paradigm NN O O
for NN O O
exploring NN O O
the NN O O
instructional NN O O
advantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
participatory NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24237999)

Remission NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
rheumatoid NN O I-OUT
arthritis NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
both NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
remission NN O O
in NN O O
etanercept-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
RCT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Etanercept NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Methotrexate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
Radiographic NN O I-PAR
Patient NN O I-PAR
Outcomes NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
TEMPO NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=682 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
observational NN O I-PAR
registry NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
Arthritis NN O I-PAR
DMARD NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Utilization NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
RADIUS NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=4341 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Disease NN O O
Activity NN O O
Index NN O O
[ NN O O
CDAI NN O O
] NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
initiating NN O I-PAR
etanercept NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CDAI?2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
through NN O O
year NN O O
3 NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
remission NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
TEMPO NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
RADIUS NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
etanercept NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
showed NN O I-INT
similar NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
39 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
etanercept NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
54 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Remission NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
in NN O O
TEMPO NN O O
than NN O O
RADIUS NN O O
II NN O O
perhaps NN O O
from NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
populations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sequence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Generally NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
CDAI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
those NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Continued NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
likely NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
remission NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
0-6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Remission NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
year NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
etanercept-treated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O O
RA NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
?35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
( NN O O
TEMPO NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
setting NN O O
( NN O O
RADIUS NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
baseline NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
RA NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Continued NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
likely NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
remission NN O O
earlier NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24242260)

Testing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O O
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Puerto NN O I-PAR
Rico NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
SPACES NN O O
project NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Stigma NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
HIV NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
documented NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
barrier NN O O
for NN O O
accessing NN O O
quality NN O O
health-related NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
stigma NN O O
manifests NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
people NN O O
living NN O O
with NN O O
HIV NN O O
receive NN O O
substandard NN O O
services NN O O
or NN O O
even NN O O
be NN O O
denied NN O O
care NN O O
altogether NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
documented NN O O
extensively NN O O
, NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
these NN O O
negative NN O O
attitudes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
scarce NN O O
. NN O O

Interventions NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
be NN O O
implemented NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
formal NN O O
training NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interventions NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
published NN O O
have NN O O
several NN O O
limitations NN O O
that NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
surpassed NN O O
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

lack NN O O
of NN O O
comparison NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
research NN O O
designs NN O O
and NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
Latino NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
absent NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
intervention NN O O
efforts NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
epidemic NN O O
has NN O O
affected NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
disproportionately NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
describe NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
students NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
Puerto NN O I-INT
Rico NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
507 NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
introduced NN O O
into NN O O
our NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
; NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modes NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
developed NN O O
by NN O O
us NN O O
and NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
training NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
stigma NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24246210)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
multi-institutional NN O O
, NN O O
non-inferiority NN O O
phase NN O O
IV NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
imidafenacin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
fesoterodine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
imidafenacin NN O I-INT
over NN O O
fesoterodine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
overactive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
fesoterodine-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
OAB NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
voiding NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DMVF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
urgency NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
urgency NN O I-PAR
incontinence NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
twice-daily NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
imidafenacin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
fesoterodine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end-point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
DMVF NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
end-points NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
i NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
voiding NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
urgency NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
iii NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
urgency NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
iv NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
v NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
nocturia NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vi NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
variables NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
randomised NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
DMVF NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
-3.38 NN O O
? NN O O
3.63 NN O O
and NN O O
-2.45 NN O O
? NN O O
3.73 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
imidafenacin NN O O
and NN O O
fesoterodine NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Imidafenacin NN O O
was NN O O
non-inferior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
fesoterodine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O O
lower NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
two-sided NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
was NN O O
-0.53 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
six NN O O
secondary NN O O
end-points NN O O
and NN O O
variables NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Imidafenacin NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
non-inferior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
fesoterodine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
terms NN O I-INT
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24252844)

The NN O O
peroxisome NN O O
proliferator NN O O
activated NN O O
receptor-? NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
vascular NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
heightened NN O O
mortality NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CVD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Inflammatory NN O O
pathways NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O O
negatively NN O O
affect NN O O
vascular NN O O
physiology NN O O
and NN O O
promote NN O O
metabolic NN O O
disturbances NN O O
that NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
CVD NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
peroxisome NN O O
proliferator NN O O
activated NN O O
receptor-? NN O O
( NN O O
PPAR-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
promote NN O O
potent NN O O
vasculoprotective NN O O
and NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
RA NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-three NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
55.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
12.1 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
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
duration/arm NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
2-month NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
aorta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
reactive NN O I-OUT
hyperemia NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
RHI NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
. NN O O

RA NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
28-Joint NN O I-OUT
Count NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS-28 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O I-OUT
added NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
RA NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ie NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O O
stiffness NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
FMD NN O O
and NN O O
RHI NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
RA NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
improving NN O O
lipid NN O O
profiles NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
RA NN O I-INT
standard NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
significantly NN O O
improves NN O O
aortic NN O O
elasticity NN O O
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
minimal NN O O
safety NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
remain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
URL NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Unique NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00554853 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24256459)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Unstuck NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
On NN O I-INT
Target NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UOT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
executive NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
targeting NN O O
insistence NN O O
on NN O O
sameness NN O O
, NN O O
flexibility NN O O
, NN O O
goal-setting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
planning NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
self-regulatory NN O O
scripts NN O O
, NN O O
guided/faded NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
visual/verbal NN O O
cueing NN O O
. NN O O

UOT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
contextually-based NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
school NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
contexts NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
uses NN O O
EF NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
UOT NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3rd-5th NN O I-PAR
graders NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
UOT NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
SS NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
delivered NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Students NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
race NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
symptomotolgy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interventions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
'dose NN O O
' NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
of NN O O
pre-post NN O O
change NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
observations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent/teacher NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
problem-solving NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EF NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Schools NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
evaluators NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
parents NN O O
or NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Interventions NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
fidelity NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
scores NN O O
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
postintervention NN O O
indicated NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
UOT NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
SS NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
in NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
problem-solving NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
planning/organizing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
classroom NN O O
observations NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
UOT NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
greater NN O O
improvements NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
SS NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
in NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
rules NN O O
, NN O O
make NN O O
transitions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
be NN O O
flexible NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
made NN O O
equivalent NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
contextually-based NN O O
EF NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
UOT NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
classroom NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
flexibility NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
problem-solving NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O O
with NN O O
variable NN O O
background/training NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
successfully NN O O
implemented NN O I-INT
UOT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
mainstream NN O O
educational NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2426069)

[ NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
esophageal NN O O
cancer NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Mar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1981 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Sep. NN O I-PAR
1982 NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
came NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cooperative NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
proved NN O O
by NN O O
X-ray NN O O
, NN O O
cytology NN O O
and NN O O
histopathology NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
COF NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
Vincristine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
Pingyangmycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
Bleomycin NN O I-INT
A5 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
IM 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
6 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interval NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ending NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
was NN O O
5-6 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
preoperative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
caused NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
merely NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
and NN O O
resected NN O O
without NN O O
difficulty NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjective NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
various NN O O
degrees NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
shrinkage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
X-ray NN O I-OUT
films NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
5/25 NN O O
cases NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
preoperative NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
histopathological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
specimens NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
excessive NN O I-OUT
keratinization NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
cancerous NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
resected NN O O
specimens NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
degeneration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
squamous NN O I-OUT
epithelium NN O I-OUT
adjacent NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
combined NN O O
modality NN O O
is NN O O
worth NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24261547)

Family-centred NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Limited NN O O
capacity NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
often NN O O
evident NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
are NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
train NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
active NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
music-making NN O O
provides NN O O
unique NN O O
opportunities NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Family-centred NN O I-INT
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FCMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
endeavours NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
between NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
within NN O O
active NN O O
music-making NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
benefits NN O O
provided NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impacts NN O O
of NN O O
FCMT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
abilities NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
36-60 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
FCMT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programmes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Change NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
standardized NN O I-OUT
parent-report NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
interviews NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinician NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Emotional NN O I-OUT
Early NN O I-OUT
Childhood NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
FCMT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thematic NN O O
qualitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
interviews NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
parent-child NN O O
relationship NN O O
grew NN O O
stronger NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
FCMT NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
social NN O O
interactions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
parent-child NN O O
relationship NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
language NN O O
skills NN O O
or NN O O
general NN O O
social NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
preliminary NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
FCMT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
social NN O O
engagement NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24263699)

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
vision NN O O
between NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lighting NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IMPORTANCE NN O O
Patients NN O O
often NN O O
report NN O O
greater NN O O
visual NN O O
difficulties NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
than NN O O
expected NN O O
from NN O O
vision NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
discordance NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
worse NN O O
vision NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
home NN O O
than NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
vision NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
lighting NN O O
, NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
This NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2005-2009 NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
126 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Glaucoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Comprehensive NN O I-PAR
Eye NN O I-PAR
Clinics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Washington NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
St NN O I-PAR
Louis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Missouri NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
aged NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
consecutively NN O O
recruited NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
met NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
refused NN O I-PAR
participation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EXPOSURE NN O O
Participants NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
completion NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
masked NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
certified NN O I-INT
examiners NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
binocular NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
nonbacklit NN O I-OUT
chart NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
near NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
glare NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lighting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
than NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
matched-pair NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
DVA NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
read NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
lines NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
than NN O O
home NN O O
and NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
advanced NN O O
glaucoma NN O O
read NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
lines NN O O
better NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
read NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
lines NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
than NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
NVA NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
read NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
triplets NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
for NN O O
CS NN O O
with NN O O
glare NN O O
. NN O O

Lighting NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
factor NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
vision NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
DVA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NVA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CS NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
glare NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
lighting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.3 NN O O
times NN O O
and NN O O
2.8 NN O O
times NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
clinic NN O O
lighting NN O O
in NN O O
areas NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
DVA NN O O
and NN O O
NVA NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Home NN O I-OUT
lighting NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
below NN O O
that NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Vision NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
vision NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
differences NN O O
mainly NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
poor NN O O
home NN O O
lighting NN O O
. NN O O

Knowledge NN O O
that NN O O
vision NN O O
discrepancies NN O O
between NN O O
patient NN O O
report NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
testing NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
home NN O O
lighting NN O O
may NN O O
initiate NN O O
clinician-patient NN O O
discussions NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
home NN O O
lighting NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
vision NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
their NN O O
homes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24266796)

Stimulus NN O I-OUT
over-selectivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
temporal NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
mindfulness NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
potential NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
brief NN O O
mindfulness NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
over-selectivity NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
focused NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
between-subjects NN O O
design NN O O
( NN O I-INT
mindfulness NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
chosen NN O O
stimulus NN O O
selections NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
over-selectivity NN O O
task NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
stimulus NN O I-OUT
over-selectivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
TBI NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emergent NN O I-OUT
over-selectivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
mindfulness NN O O
induction NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
no- NN O O
intervention NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mindfulness NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
TBI-related NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24268858)

Low-fluence NN O I-INT
photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
serous NN O I-PAR
chorioretinopathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
one-year NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
photodynamic NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
PDT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
central NN O O
serous NN O O
chorioretinopathy NN O O
( NN O O
CSC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-arm NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
CSC NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
CSC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
placed NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
low-fluence NN O I-PAR
PDT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ranibizumab NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
low-fluence NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rescue NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
month NN O O
3 NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
subretinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
SRF NN O O
) NN O O
persisted NN O O
or NN O O
recurred NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SRF NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
rescue NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
logarithm NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
maintained NN O O
complete NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SRF NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
68.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
rescue NN O O
treatment 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
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CRT NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
until NN O O
month NN O O
6 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
the NN O O
differences NN O O
became NN O O
insignificant NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BCVA NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
except NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
indocyanine NN O O
green NN O O
angiography NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
eyes NN O O
; NN O O
88.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
choroidal NN O I-OUT
hyperpermeability NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
eyes 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
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
or NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
represents NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
low-fluence NN O O
PDT NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
ranibizumab NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
CSC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24272416)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
verbal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pictorial NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
spoken NN O O
language 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
. NN O I-PAR
Presently NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
consensus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
behavioral NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
targeting NN O O
language NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O I-INT
verbally-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Pivotal NN O I-INT
Response NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pictorially-based NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Picture NN O I-INT
Exchange NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
acquisition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
spoken NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
by NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonverbal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?9 NN O I-PAR
words NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
PRT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
received NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
247 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
across NN O O
23 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Dependent NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pictorial NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-eight NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
exited NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
very NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
programs NN O O
but NN O O
indicated NN O I-INT
PECS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
implement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24274627)

Does NN O O
alliance NN O I-OUT
predict NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
is NN O O
it NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
way NN O O
around NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Scholars NN O O
increasingly NN O O
recognize NN O O
that NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
alliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
common NN O O
assumption NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
alliance NN O I-OUT
predicts NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
issue NN O O
is NN O O
far NN O O
from NN O O
settled NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
causality NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
establishment NN O O
of NN O O
temporal NN O O
precedence NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
alliance NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
drives NN O O
subsequent NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
To NN O O
make NN O O
further NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
untangling NN O O
this NN O O
chicken-and-egg NN O O
question NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
employed NN O O
autoregressive NN O O
cross-lagged NN O O
modeling NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
149 NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
this NN O O
methodology NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
alliance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
treatment NN O O
made NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
unique NN O O
contributions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
predicting NN O I-OUT
subsequent NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
alliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
predicted NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
alliance NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
imply NN O O
that NN O O
alliance NN O I-OUT
temporally NN O O
precedes NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24277510)

Comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
smaller NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
thermoablation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PLA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
multifibre NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
connected NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
neodymium NN O I-INT
yttrium-aluminium-garnet NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
source NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
RFA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
expandable NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
electrode NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
lesions NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
PLA NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
lesions NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
RFA NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PLA NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
lesions NN O O
? NN O O
21 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0081 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
postablation NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
documented NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
PLA NN O I-PAR
; NN O O
12 NN O O
RFA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tumour NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-? NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RFA NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
RFA NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HCC NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lesions NN O O
? NN O O
21 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PLA NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
HCC NN O O
? NN O O
20 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24280031)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Biomedical NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
extremely NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
efficacious NN O O
technique NN O O
when NN O O
targeting NN O O
specific NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
in NN O O
major NN O O
depressive NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
approach NN O O
could NN O O
yield NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
relevant NN O O
cortical NN O O
regions NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
deep NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
to NN O O
bilateral NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
improves NN O O
social NN O O
relating NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
design NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
weekday NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
involved NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
to NN O O
bilateral NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
Hz NN O O
, NN O O
10-s NN O O
train NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
20-s NN O O
inter-train NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
1500 NN O O
pulses NN O O
per NN O O
session NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
HAUT-Coil NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sham NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
coil NN O O
was NN O O
encased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
helmet NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
deep NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
coil NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
effective NN O O
field NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
near NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
relating NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
relating NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O O
participants NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
condition NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
self-oriented NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
difficult NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
social NN O O
situations NN O O
from NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Deep NN O O
rTMS NN O O
to NN O O
bilateral NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
yielded NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
relating NN O O
impairment NN O O
and NN O O
socially-related NN O O
anxiety NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
should NN O O
employ NN O O
extended NN O O
rTMS NN O O
protocols NN O O
that NN O O
approximate NN O O
those NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
and NN O O
amplify NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24281134)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
postdischarge NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
information NN O O
acquired NN O O
shortly NN O O
after NN O O
admission NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O I-INT
Randomized NN O O
Study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Selective NN O I-INT
A1 NN O I-INT
Adenosine NN O I-INT
Receptor NN O I-INT
Antagonist NN O I-INT
Rolofylline NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
Hospitalized NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Decompensated NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Volume NN O I-PAR
Overload NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
Assess NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Effect NN O O
on NN O O
Congestion NN O O
and NN O O
Renal NN O O
Function NN O O
( NN O O
PROTECT NN O O
) NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Acute NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

Improved NN O O
prognostic NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
may NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
selected NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
extended NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
prognostic NN O O
model NN O O
included NN O O
37 NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
PROTECT NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
rolofylline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2033 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prespecified NN O O
outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
were NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rehospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
reason NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rehospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
reasons NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
180 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
variable NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
c-index NN O O
> NN O O
0.70 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
had NN O O
values NN O O
> NN O O
0.60 NN O O
; NN O O
c-indices NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
composite NN O O
outcomes NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
generally NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
single NN O O
predictor NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
variables NN O O
contributed NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
information NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
model NN O O
using NN O O
only NN O O
8 NN O O
items NN O O
( NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
peripheral NN O O
edema NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
sodium NN O O
, NN O O
urea NN O O
, NN O O
creatinine NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
albumin NN O O
) NN O O
performed NN O O
similarly NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
180 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
c-index NN O O
using NN O O
all NN O O
variables NN O O
was NN O O
0.72 NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
simplified NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
0.72 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
few NN O O
simple NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
predict NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
complex NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
predictive NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Better NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
are NN O O
required 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.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O

Unique NN O O
identifiers NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00328692 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT00354458 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24282036)

Prediction NN O O
of NN O O
gestational NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
two-step NN O O
and NN O O
one-step NN O O
methods NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
GDM NN O O
screening NN O O
: NN O O
fasting NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FPG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
two-step NN O O
50 NN O O
g NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
tolerance NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GTT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
GDM NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
GDM NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
non-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
736 NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
FPG NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
and 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
two-step NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
GCT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
GTT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
GDM NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Carpenter-Coustan NN O O
or NN O O
ADA NN O O
( NN O O
American NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
Association NN O O
) NN O O
criteria NN O O
in NN O O
two-step NN O O
50 NN O O
g NN O O
GCT NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
g NN O O
GTT NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
two-step NN O O
50 NN O O
g NN O O
GCT NN O O
at NN O O
24-28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
screen NN O O
negatives NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who 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
or NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
486 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
FPG NN O O
, NN O O
two-step NN O O
GCT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
one-step NN O O
GTT NN O O
methods NN O O
identified NN O O
GDM NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25/486 NN O O
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
15/248 NN O O
( NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
27/238 NN O O
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
ROC NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.623 NN O O
, NN O O
0.708 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.792 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
47.17 NN O O
, NN O O
68.18 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
87.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Specificities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
77.37 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
20.33 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
92.29 NN O O
, NN O O
97 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
98.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
superior NN O O
screening NN O O
alternatives NN O O
become NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
75 NN O O
g NN O O
GTT NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
preferred NN O O
for NN O O
GDM NN O O
screening NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24286965)

Continuous NN O O
glucose NN O O
monitoring NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
devices NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
continuous NN O O
glucose NN O O
monitoring NN O O
and NN O O
capillary NN O O
glucose NN O O
monitoring NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
: NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
normoglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
normoglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
, NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
capillary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
140 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fast NN O I-PAR
acting NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O I-INT
capillary NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
adjustment NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
made NN O O
every NN O O
4h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
adjustment NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Student NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
t-test NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
applied NN O O
for NN O O
mean NN O O
differences NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
X NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
qualitative NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
achieving NN O I-OUT
normoglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Continuous NN O O
monitoring NN O O
systems NN O O
are NN O O
as NN O O
useful NN O O
as NN O O
capillary NN O O
monitoring NN O O
for NN O O
achieving NN O O
normoglycemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24290135)

A NN O O
novel NN O O
methodology NN O O
for NN O O
generating NN O O
3D NN O I-INT
finite NN O I-INT
element NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
2D NN O I-INT
radiographs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Finite NN O I-INT
element NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
modelling NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
estimating NN O O
fracture NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient-specific NN O I-INT
FE NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
are NN O O
commonly NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
automatically NN O O
create NN O I-INT
personalised NN O I-INT
3D NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
2D NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
radiographs NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
geometrical NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femur NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
a-p NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
radiographs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
3D NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
shape NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
as NN O O
training NN O O
material NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O O
in NN O O
reconstructing NN O O
the NN O O
3D NN O O
model NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
2D NN O O
radiographs NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
geometry NN O O
parameters NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
input NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
3D NN O O
shape NN O O
of NN O O
another NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
femora NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
built NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
meshed NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
separating NN O O
a NN O O
cortical NN O O
and NN O O
trabecular NN O O
compartment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
material NN O O
properties NN O O
were NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
homogeneity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
texture NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
radiographs NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
principal NN O O
tensile NN O O
and NN O O
compressive NN O O
trabecular NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
FE NN O I-INT
models NN O I-INT
to NN O O
predict NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
experimental NN O O
biomechanical NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
DXA NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
reconstruction NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
3D NN O O
models NN O O
was NN O O
1.77 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
?1.17 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
error NN O O
being NN O O
smallest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
and NN O O
neck NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
greatest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trochanter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
FE NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
experimental NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
=64 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
FE NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
DXA NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
=24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
novel NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
automatically NN O O
constructing NN O O
a NN O O
patient-specific NN O I-INT
3D NN O I-INT
finite NN O I-INT
element NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
2D NN O I-INT
radiographs NN O I-INT
shows NN O I-OUT
encouraging NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
estimating NN O I-OUT
patient-specific NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
loads NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24292519)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
antithymocyte NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
haploidentical NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
antithymocyte NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
GVHD NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
SCT NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
ex NN O I-PAR
vivo NN O I-PAR
T-cell-depletion NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
haploidentical NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
224 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
hematological NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.chictr.org NN O O
as NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

ChiCTR-TRC-11001761 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
III-IV NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATG-6 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
9.1-23.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATG-10 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.7-8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-3.8 NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
EBV NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATG-10 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
17.1-33.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ATG-6 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
4.0-15.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
1-year NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
84.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
77.3-91.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
86.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
79.2-92.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ATG-6 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ATG-10 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.88 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
in NN O O
haploidentical NN O O
transplantation NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EBV NN O I-OUT
reactivation NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
ATG NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
exposes NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
GVHD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24293165)

Short-term NN O I-INT
amiodarone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
reversion NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
18 NN O O
months 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
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
vs. NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
conversion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
AF NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
included NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
amiodarone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
600 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4-6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
If NN O O
AF NN O O
persisted NN O O
, NN O O
electrical NN O I-INT
cardioversion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O O
9 NN O O
untreated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O O
ECV NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Bayesian NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighteen NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
AF NN O O
reversion NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
( NN O O
81.5 NN O O
% 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
13 NN O O
( NN O O
54.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
remained NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
required NN O O
ECV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
during NN O O
amiodarone NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Limiting NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O O
regaining NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
AF NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
reversion NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
rhythm NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24309381)

An NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
stigma NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
often NN O O
stigmatized NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
seek NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
care-seeking NN O O
. NN O O

Young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
care-seeking NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
participated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
life NN O I-INT
review NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
data NN O O
analyses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
doctors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
CSI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
increased NN O O
awareness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
stigma NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
stigma NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
doctors NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
attention NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
promising NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
lessons NN O O
learned NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
play NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
health-related NN O O
stigma NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24315475)

Radiation NN O O
and NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
doses NN O O
reductions NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
80-kV NN O O
tube NN O O
voltage NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O O
computed NN O O
tomographic NN O O
angiography NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
80-kilovoltage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
kV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomographic NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCTA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
on NN O O
qualitative NN O O
and NN O O
quantitative NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
radiation NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
23.0 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
23.0 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
load NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
retrospective NN O I-INT
electrocardiogram NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-gated NN O I-INT
dual-source NN O I-INT
CCTA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
standard-tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
120-kV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
low-tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
80-kV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
injection NN O O
flow NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
( NN O O
350 NN O O
mg NN O O
I/mL NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
4.5-5.5 NN O O
mL/s NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
120-kV NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.8-3.8 NN O O
mL/s NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80-kV NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Radiation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
figure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
merit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FOM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
coronary NN O O
segment NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
a NN O O
4-point NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
120-kV NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
80-kV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
57.8 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
30.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
effective NN O O
dose:2.7 NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.4 NN O O
? NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mSv NN O O
; NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent:57.1 NN O O
? NN O O
3.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
82.1 NN O O
? NN O O
6.1 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Image NN O I-OUT
noise NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
22.7 NN O O
? NN O O
2.1HU NN O O
for NN O O
120-kV NN O O
images NN O O
and NN O O
33.2 NN O O
? NN O O
5.2 NN O O
HU NN O O
for NN O O
80-kV NN O O
images NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Signal-to-noise NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SNR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contrast-to-noise NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CNR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RCA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
80-kV NN O O
than NN O O
120-kV NN O O
images NN O O
( NN O O
SNR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
RCA NN O O
: NN O O
16.5 NN O O
? NN O O
1.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
19.4 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
; NN O O
SNR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LMA NN O O
: NN O O
16.3 NN O O
? NN O O
2.0 NN O O
vs.19.6 NN O O
? NN O O
2.7 NN O O
; NN O O
CNR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
RCA NN O O
: NN O O
19.4 NN O O
? NN O O
2.3 NN O O
vs.22.9 NN O O
? NN O O
3.0 NN O O
; NN O O
CNR NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LMA NN O O
: NN O O
18.8 NN O O
? NN O O
2.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
22.7 NN O O
? NN O O
2.9 NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FOM NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
80-kV NN O O
than NN O O
120-kV NN O O
images NN O O
( NN O O
proximal NN O O
RCA NN O O
: NN O O
146.7 NN O O
? NN O O
45.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
93.4 NN O O
? NN O O
32.0 NN O O
; NN O O
LMA NN O O
: NN O O
139.1 NN O O
? NN O O
47.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
91.6 NN O O
? NN O O
31.1 NN O O
; NN O O
all 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
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
3.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.3 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.068 NN O O
) NN O O
despite NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
SNR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CNR NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
80-kV NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-INT
80-kV NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CCTA NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
23.0 NN O I-PAR
kg/m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
calcium NN O I-PAR
load NN O I-PAR
while NN O O
maintaining NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24315548)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cutting NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
high-pressure NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
fistula NN O I-PAR
stenoses NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
balloon NN O I-PAR
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cutting NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
high-pressure NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HPBA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
autogenous NN O I-PAR
fistula NN O I-PAR
stenoses NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
transluminal NN O I-PAR
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND 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
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysfunctional NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stenotic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
arteriovenous NN O I-PAR
fistulas NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AVFs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
or NN O O
HPBA NN O I-INT
if NN O O
conventional NN O O
PTA NN O O
had NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
residual NN O O
stenosis NN O O
> NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
516 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
439 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
technically NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
remaining NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suboptimal NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
eventually NN O O
randomized NN O O
: NN O O
36 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
HPBA NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
target NN O O
lesion NN O O
patencies NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
66.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
39.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HPBA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
96.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
80.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
HPBA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
perforation NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
non-procedure-related NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HPBA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
target NN O O
lesion NN O O
patency NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
HPBA NN O I-INT
following NN O O
suboptimal NN O O
conventional NN O O
PTA NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
AVF NN O O
stenoses NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
PTA NN O O
, NN O O
CBA NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
given NN O O
its NN O O
superior NN O O
patency NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24317552)

Activation NN O O
and NN O O
intermuscular NN O O
coherence NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O O
arm NN O O
muscles NN O O
during NN O O
proximal NN O O
muscle NN O O
contraction NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
upper NN O O
extremity NN O O
( NN O O
UE NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
unintended NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O O
muscle NN O O
activation NN O O
on NN O O
muscles NN O O
controlling NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
control NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
necessary NN O O
coordination NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O O
and NN O O
proximal NN O O
segments NN O O
during NN O O
functional NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
elbow NN O O
muscles NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
coordination NN O O
between NN O O
hand NN O O
muscles NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
grip NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
precision NN O I-INT
grip NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
constant NN O I-INT
extension NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
moment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
elbow NN O I-INT
joints NN O I-INT
, NN O O
inducing NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
submaximal NN O O
contraction NN O O
of NN O O
elbow NN O O
muscles NN O O
to NN O O
counter NN O O
the NN O O
applied NN O O
torque NN O O
. NN O O

Activation NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
hand NN O O
muscles NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
task NN O O
condition NN O O
using NN O O
surface NN O I-INT
electromyography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
concurrent NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
elbow NN O O
muscles NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extrinsic NN O O
finger NN O O
extensor NN O O
( NN O O
23.2 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
under NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
elbow NN O O
extensor NN O O
activation NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
extrinsic NN O O
finger NN O O
flexor NN O O
( NN O O
14.2 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
under NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
elbow NN O O
flexor NN O O
activation NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.130 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Elbow NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
induced NN O O
involuntary NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intrinsic NN O I-OUT
thumb NN O I-OUT
flexor NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
44.6 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
under NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
elbow NN O O
extensor NN O O
activation NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

EMG-EMG NN O O
coherence NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
elbow NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
intermuscular NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
distal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
pairs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
greatest NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
coherence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
?-band NN O O
( NN O O
13-25 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
under NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
elbow NN O O
flexor NN O O
activation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
involuntary NN O O
, NN O O
muscle-specific NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
distal NN O O
and NN O O
proximal NN O O
UE NN O O
muscles NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
UE NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24318457)

Intraluminal NN O O
exfoliated NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
sigmoidectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
sigmoid NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSES NN O O
To NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
in NN O O
colon NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
exfoliated NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
are NN O O
shed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
colonic NN O O
lumen NN O O
during NN O O
sigmoidectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
sigmoidectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
sigmoid NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-INT
ligatures NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
ligatures NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
cm NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
proximally NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
distally NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
dissection NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
ligatures NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
corresponding NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
ligated NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
specimen NN O I-INT
out NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
colonic NN O O
segment NN O O
ligated NN O O
was NN O O
irrigated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
sent NN O O
for NN O O
blind NN O O
cytological NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
colonic NN O O
segment NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
was NN O O
located NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
50 NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
3-5 NN O O
cm NN O O
colonic NN O O
segment NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
80 NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
colonic NN O O
segment NN O O
after NN O O
performing NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
. NN O O

Free NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
samples NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
colonic NN O O
segments NN O O
5-10 NN O O
cm NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
tumor NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intraluminal NN O O
exfoliated NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
eliminated NN O O
by NN O O
placing NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
during NN O O
sigmoidectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
eliminate NN O O
exfoliated NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
colectomy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
placing NN O O
bowel NN O O
ligatures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24320862)

Learning NN O O
the NN O O
'traceback NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
for NN O O
interscalene NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24324004)

Conduit NN O O
artery NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
lowlanders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
native NN O I-PAR
highlanders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
relationships NN O O
with NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
sympathoexcitation NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
detailing NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
vascular NN O O
adaptions NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
is NN O O
minimal NN O O
and NN O O
often NN O O
confounded NN O O
by NN O O
pathology NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
chronic NN O O
mountain NN O O
sickness NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
methodological NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
vascular NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
structure NN O O
in NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
lowlanders NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
hypoxia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
altitude NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
high-altitude NN O I-PAR
natives NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
5050 NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
highlanders NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
lowlanders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
highlanders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Sherpa NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
endothelium-dependent NN O I-OUT
flow-mediated NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelium-independent NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CIMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
via 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-INT
applanation NN O I-INT
tonometry NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cephalic NN O I-INT
venous NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
of NN O O
free NN O O
radical-mediated NN O O
lipid NN O O
peroxidation NN O O
( NN O O
lipid NN O O
hydroperoxides NN O O
, NN O O
LOOH NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nitrite NN O O
( NN O O
NO2- NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
soluble NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
lowlanders NN O O
, NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
sea NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
334 NN O O
m NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
days NN O O
3-4 NN O O
( NN O O
acute NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
12-14 NN O O
( NN O O
chronic NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
arrival NN O O
to NN O O
5050 NN O O
m. NN O O
Highlanders NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
once NN O O
at NN O O
5050 NN O O
m. NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
sea NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
lowlanders NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.9 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
GTN-induced NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
16.6 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
14.5 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
raised NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
6.0 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.3 NN O O
m NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
changes NN O O
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
12-14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
allometrically NN O O
scaling NN O O
FMD NN O O
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
for NN O O
altered NN O O
baseline NN O O
diameter NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
lowlanders NN O O
at NN O O
sea NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
, NN O O
highlanders NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
lumen NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?19 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
narrower NN O O
CIMT NN O O
and NN O O
wider NN O O
lumen NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
both NN O O
LOOH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NO2- NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
altitude NN O O
in NN O O
lowlanders NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O I-OUT
LOOH NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
GTN-induced NN O I-OUT
dilatation NN O I-OUT
evident NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
acute NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
, NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.53 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.69 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
5050 NN O O
m. NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
experiment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
healthy NN O O
lowlanders NN O O
) NN O O
conducted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
normobaric NN O I-INT
hypoxic NN O I-INT
chamber NN O I-INT
( NN O O
inspired NN O O
O2 NN O O
fraction NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
IO NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
; NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
evident NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
hypoxic NN O O
exposure NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
normoxic NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
5.7 NN O O
? NN O O
1.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.0 NN O O
?1.3 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
this NN O O
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FMD NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
largely NN O O
reversed NN O O
following NN O O
?1-adrenoreceptor NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
high-altitude NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
lowlanders NN O O
caused NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
was NN O O
mediated NN O O
partially NN O O
via NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
sympathoexcitation NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
a NN O O
lifetime NN O O
of NN O O
high-altitude NN O O
exposure NN O O
neither NN O O
intensifies NN O O
nor NN O O
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
impairments NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O I-INT
chronic NN O I-INT
high-altitude NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
arterial NN O O
remodelling NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24324379)

Using NN O O
the NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality-cognitive NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
virtual NN O I-INT
reality-cognitive NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR-CR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
objects NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
research NN O O
supports 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
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
elementary NN O O
components NN O O
: NN O O
abstraction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiple-baseline NN O O
, NN O O
single-subject NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taught NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
see NN O O
objects NN O O
in NN O O
context NN O O
by NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
pivotal NN O O
contextual NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
contextual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mixed NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
context-related NN O I-OUT
behaviours NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Larger-scale NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
usability NN O O
in NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
educational NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24327720)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
four-arm NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disproportionate NN O I-PAR
burden NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
inflammation-associated NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
such NN O O
as NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O O
D NN O O
[ NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cholecalciferol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1,000 NN O O
, NN O O
2,000 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
4,000 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D3 NN O O
orally NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
328 NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
housing NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Boston NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
MA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
winter NN O I-PAR
periods NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2007-2010 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Change NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-sensitivity NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interleukin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
TNF-? NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
292 NN O O
( NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sTNF-R2 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
supplementation NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
inversely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
and NN O O
adjusted NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
outcome NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
month NN O O
3-month NN O O
0 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
an NN O O
unselected NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O O
Americans NN O O
, NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
the NN O O
strong NN O O
independent NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
status NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
longer NN O O
supplemental NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D3 NN O O
duration NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
complex NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D3 NN O O
on NN O O
CRP NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
chronic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
for NN O O
possible NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
disparities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24335055)

Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
maximal NN O O
calcium NN O O
absorption NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker NN O O
for NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
sufficiency NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
beyond NN O O
which NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
increase NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
on NN O O
calcium NN O O
absorption NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
800 NN O O
IU NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
IU NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
4000 NN O O
IU NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D? NN O I-INT
for NN O O
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
dual NN O O
isotopes NN O O
of NN O O
stable NN O O
calcium NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
carrier NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
calcium NN O O
absorption NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
58.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.9 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1142 NN O O
? NN O O
509 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
was NN O O
63 NN O O
? NN O O
14 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
linear NN O O
trend NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D? NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
or NN O O
serum NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
absolute NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D? NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
?g NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
nonlinearity NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
absorption NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
serum NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
range NN O O
from NN O O
40 NN O O
to NN O O
130 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
. NN O O

Calcium NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
range NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
biomarker NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
nutritional NN O O
recommendations NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24336330)

TGF-beta NN O O
receptor NN O O
type-2 NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
cancer-associated NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
regulates NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
in NN O O
pre-menopausal NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Transforming NN O O
growth NN O O
factor-beta NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TGF-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
pleiotropic NN O O
cytokine NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
capability NN O O
to NN O O
act NN O O
as NN O O
tumour NN O O
suppressor NN O O
or NN O O
tumour NN O O
promoter NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

TGF-beta NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
type-2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TGFBR2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
ligand-binding NN O O
receptor NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
members NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TGF-? NN O O
family NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
mouse NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
experiments NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
Tgfbr2 NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
mammary NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
was NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
tumour NN O O
initiation NN O O
and NN O O
metastasis NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
cohort NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
564 NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
examined NN O I-INT
TGFBR2 NN O I-INT
expression NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=252 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
phosphorylation NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
downstream NN O O
target NN O I-INT
SMAD2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pSMAD2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=319 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
cancer-associated NN O I-INT
fibroblasts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAFs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assessed NN O O
links NN O O
to NN O O
clinicopathological NN O O
markers NN O O
, NN O O
prognostic NN O O
and NN O O
treatment-predictive NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
CAF-specific NN O O
TGFBR2 NN O O
expression NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
recurrence-free NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
CAF-TGFBR2 NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
marker NN O O
( NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
: NN O O
0.534 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
0.360-0.793 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.002 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CAF-specific NN O I-OUT
pSMAD2 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
associate NN O O
with NN O O
survival NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Experimentally NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TGF-? NN O I-OUT
signalling NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fibroblasts NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
modulated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
TGF-? NN O O
ligand NN O O
and NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
or NN O O
through NN O O
lentiviral NN O O
short NN O O
hairpin NN O O
RNA-mediated NN O O
TGFBR2-specific NN O O
knockdown NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
fibroblastic NN O O
TGF-? NN O O
pathway NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
cell NN O O
contact-dependent NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
clonogenicity NN O O
assays NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
knockdown NN O O
of NN O O
TGFBR2 NN O O
in NN O O
CAFs NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proliferation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clonogenic NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mouse NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
transfected NN O I-INT
CAFs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
co-injected NN O O
with NN O O
MCF7 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
mouse NN O I-PAR
xenograft NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O O
comprising NN O O
TGFBR2 NN O O
knockdown NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
were NN O O
slightly NN O O
bigger NN O O
and NN O O
displayed NN O O
increased NN O O
tumour NN O O
cell NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
fibroblast-related NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
possess NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
fibroblasts NN O O
confer NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
cell NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Regulation NN O O
of NN O O
tumour-stromal NN O O
cross-talk NN O O
through NN O O
fibroblastic NN O O
TGF-? NN O O
pathway NN O O
may NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
fibroblast NN O O
phenotype NN O O
, NN O O
emphasising NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
to NN O O
characterise NN O O
tumour NN O O
microenvironment NN O O
subtypes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24337476)

Humour-related NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
humour-related NN O I-INT
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
mentally NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
arms NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
stand NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
comedy NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
discussing NN O I-INT
comedy NN O I-INT
videos NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
humour-related NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
the NN O O
passive NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
qualitative NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
another NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scale NN O I-OUT
comparisons NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
largely NN O O
negative NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
marginally NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Interview NN O O
responses NN O O
indicated NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
self-esteem NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
mixed NN O O
, NN O O
justify NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24338168)

Low-dose NN O O
versus NN O O
standard-dose NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial-an NN O O
update NN O O
. NN O O

Prolonged NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III/IV NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
6-h NN O O
infusion 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
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
70 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
every NN O O
21-day NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,250 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
30-min NN O O
infusion 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
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
92 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
40-85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
the NN O O
120 NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
11.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7/60 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3/60 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
28.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
had NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
on NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Thus 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
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/60 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
20/60 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.37 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
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26 NN O O
vs. NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
vs. NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
49.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
54.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
arms 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

Main NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Low-dose NN O O
, NN O O
prolonged NN O O
infusion NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
with NN O O
favorable NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
less NN O O
financial NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24345834)

Dietary NN O I-INT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
10-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impressions-Improvement NN O O
scale NN O O
to NN O O
rate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
parents NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Child NN O O
Development NN O O
Inventory NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Checklist NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BASC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months 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
48 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
6.1 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
2.0 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
24 NN O O
received NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Despite NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
431 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CGI-I NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
models NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
rating NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
teachers NN O O
) NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
average NN O O
rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
BASC NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
group 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
teachers NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
parents NN O O
) NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
BASC NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DHA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Dietary NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
inadequate NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24350695)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nonlinear NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
hearing NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
speech NN O O
and NN O O
language NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nonlinear NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NLFC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
speech NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN 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
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population-based NN O I-PAR
longitudinal NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hearing NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LOCHI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
fitting NN O O
with NN O O
NLFC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Phonak NN O I-INT
Naida NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
SP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
UP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
hearing NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
prescribed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
NAL NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
DSL NN O I-INT
formula NN O O
. NN O O

Standardized NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
speech NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
receptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O O
ratings NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
SAMPLE NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
450 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
LOCHI NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
, NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
but NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consonant NN O I-OUT
articulation NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
use NN O O
NLFC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
substitution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
affricates NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
fricatives NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O O
using NN O O
NLFC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
using NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
amplification NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
allowing NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
demographic NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
: NN O O
0.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
- NN O O
6.7 NN O O
, NN O O
8.3 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
insufficient NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
NLFC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
amplification NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24352377)

Mitigation NN O O
of NN O O
sociocommunicational NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
oxytocin-induced NN O I-INT
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
medial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
activity NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
Sociocommunicational NN O O
deficits NN O O
make NN O O
it NN O O
difficult NN O O
for 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
to NN O O
understand NN O O
communication NN O O
content NN O O
with NN O O
conflicting NN O O
verbal NN O O
and NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
growing NN O O
prospects NN O O
for NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
direct NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
evidence NN O O
exists NN O O
for NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
core NN O O
symptom NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
slowing NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
directly NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sociocommunicational NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
behavioral NN O O
and NN O O
neural NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Tokyo NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
within-subject-crossover NN O O
, NN O O
single-site NN O O
experimental NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Single-dose NN O O
intranasal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Using NN O O
functional NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O O
psychological NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
psychological NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
making NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
social NN O O
information NN O O
with NN O O
conflicting NN O O
verbal NN O O
and NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
contents NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
made NN O O
judgments NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
contents NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
induce NN O O
enough NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
information-based NN O I-OUT
judgments NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NVJs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
NVJs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
medial NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
NVJs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
enabled NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
NVJs NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
mitigated NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
the NN O O
originally NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
medial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
neural NN O O
effects NN O O
was NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
effects 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
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
sociocommunicational NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
give NN O O
us NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
any NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
umin.ac.jp/ctr NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
UMIN000002241 NN O O
and NN O O
UMIN000004393 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24356715)

12-week NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
add-on NN O O
riluzole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
obsessive-compulsive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
obsessive-compulsive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
fail NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
adequately NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
from NN O O
preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
neurotransmitter NN O O
system NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
target 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 O
of NN O O
riluzole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
modulator NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
treatment-resistant NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
12-week 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
60 NN O I-PAR
treatment-resistant NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age=14.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Yale-Brown NN O I-PAR
Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CY-BOCS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
=28.2 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
3.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
riluzole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
final NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
CY-BOCS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Riluzole NN O O
was NN O O
fairly NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
although NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
five NN O O
instances NN O O
of NN O O
slight NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
transaminases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
CY-BOCS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
riluzole NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
or NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
riluzole NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
childhood-onset NN O I-PAR
OCD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
may NN O O
show NN O O
benefits NN O O
for NN O O
less NN O O
treatment-refractory NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fewer NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
medications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24365986)

Similar NN O O
MPA NN O O
exposure NN O O
on NN O O
modified NN O O
release NN O O
and NN O O
regular NN O I-PAR
tacrolimus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Concomitant NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
may NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
mycophenolate NN O I-OUT
mofetil NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Astellas NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
modified NN O O
release NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
tacrolimus NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TacMR NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
nonadherence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
whether NN O O
mycophenolic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
differs NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
tacrolimus NN O O
( NN O O
Tac NN O O
) NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
2-by-2 NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
twice-daily NN O I-PAR
Tac NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
continued NN O O
their NN O O
usual NN O O
Tac NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
switched NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
TacMR NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
formulation NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
profiles NN O O
using NN O O
limited NN O O
sampling NN O O
strategies NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
randomization NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

MPA NN O O
AUC NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Pawinski NN O O
formula NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
analyzing NN O O
visits NN O O
on NN O O
Tac NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TacMR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Tac NN O I-OUT
combined NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
MPA NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
42.24 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16.98 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
37.18 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13.75 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40.09 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16.69 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
mg?h?L NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
using NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.1327 NN O O
, NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.1109 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
MPA NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
altered NN O O
when NN O O
converting NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
Tac NN O O
to NN O O
TacMR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24366350)

Households NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
freely NN O I-PAR
distributed NN O I-PAR
bednets NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Madagascar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Malaria NN O O
infections NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Madagascar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Insecticide-treated NN O I-INT
bednets NN O I-INT
offer NN O O
effective NN O O
prevention NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
how NN O O
well NN O O
free NN O I-INT
bednet NN O I-INT
distribution NN O I-INT
programs NN O I-INT
reach NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
free NN O I-INT
bednet NN O I-INT
distribution NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Madagascar NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2007-2008 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interviews NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Principal NN O O
components NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
construct NN O O
a NN O O
wealth NN O O
and NN O O
malaria NN O O
knowledge NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Coverage NN O O
efficiency NN O O
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
coverage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
bednet NN O I-INT
owned NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Univariable NN O O
and NN O O
multivariable NN O O
regressions NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
bednet NN O I-INT
use NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Bednet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
560 NN O I-PAR
households NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Coverage NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
1.29 NN O O
to NN O O
1.56 NN O O
children NN O O
covered NN O O
per NN O O
bednet NN O O
owned NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
variable NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
bednet NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
9.10 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
yielding NN O O
a NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
bednet NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
96.4 NN O O
to NN O O
99.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
72.2 NN O O
to NN O O
88.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
households NN O O
without NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
free NN O I-INT
bednet NN O I-INT
distribution NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
adherence NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Household NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
bednet NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
household NN O O
income NN O O
or NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
distribution NN O O
to NN O O
priority NN O O
groups NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
overcome NN O O
traditional NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
adoption NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24371832)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Graptopetalum NN O I-INT
paraguayense NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Graptopetalum NN O I-INT
paraguayense NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WGP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
WGP NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
activities NN O O
( NN O O
catalase NN O O
( NN O O
CAT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
superoxide NN O O
dismutase NN O O
( NN O O
SOD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glutathione NN O O
peroxidase NN O O
( NN O O
GPx NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-two NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
WGP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

FG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
WGP NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
enzymes NN O O
activities NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation 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
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
WGP NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
antioxidative NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
WGP NN O I-INT
might NN O O
exert NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
MS NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT01463748 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24372367)

Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psycho-educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
coping NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
management NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psycho-educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
effective NN O O
coping NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Cancer NN O O
treatments NN O O
increase NN O O
survival NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
cause NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
psycho-educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2011-February NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Taiwan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
psycho-educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
paediatric NN O O
cancer NN O O
coping NN O O
scale NN O O
and NN O O
perceived NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Qualitative NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
content NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
coping NN O O
scores NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
symptoms NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
scores NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
effects NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Qualitative NN O O
results NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
positively NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
about NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
learnt NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
psycho-educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
was NN O O
acceptable NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
problems NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24375082)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
camel NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thymus NN O O
and NN O O
activation-regulated NN O O
chemokine NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. 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
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
camel NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
raw NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
boiled NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thymus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activation-regulated NN O I-OUT
chemokine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TARC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
childhood NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cow NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
boiled NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
raw NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measures NN O O
included NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
professionally NN O O
completed NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
TARC NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
milk NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
ml NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
regular NN O O
daily NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TARC NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
boiled NN O O
CM NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
raw NN O O
CM NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
too NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
raw NN O O
CM NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TARC NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
CM NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
wk NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
clinical NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
TARC NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
subsequent NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24384538)

Design NN O O
and NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
extended-release NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hazardous NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
prisoners NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
transitioning NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
prisoners NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
prevalence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
commonly NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
soon NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
release NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
linked NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
morbidity NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ART NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adherence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
risk-taking NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Extended-release NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
XR-NTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
reduces NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
alcohol NN O O
dependent NN O O
persons NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
it NN O O
remains NN O O
unexamined NN O O
among NN O O
criminal NN O O
justice NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
CJS NN O O
) NN O O
populations NN O O
transitioning NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
XR-NTX NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
HIV NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
via NN O O
reducing NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
after NN O O
prison NN O O
release NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O O
hazardous NN O O
drinking NN O O
and NN O O
alcohol NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
prisoners NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
study NN O O
participation NN O O
is NN O O
high NN O O
with NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
referred NN O O
who NN O O
met NN O O
eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
injections NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
release NN O O
accepted NN O O
injections NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
important NN O O
implementation NN O O
issues NN O O
are NN O O
identified NN O O
and NN O O
addressed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Medication-assisted NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O O
to NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
CJS NN O O
populations NN O O
transitioning NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
are NN O O
urgently NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
alcohol NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
release NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
HIV NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
public NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24384588)

Weight NN O O
and NN O O
lean NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
initiation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density 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
that NN O O
initiating NN O O
different NN O O
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
has NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
BMI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lean NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
( NN O O
LBM NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
explore NN O O
how NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A5224s NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sub-study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
A5202 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1857 NN O I-PAR
ART-naive NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-INT
abacavir-lamivudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABC/3TC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tenofovir NN O I-INT
DF-emtricitabine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TDF/FTC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
open-label NN O I-INT
efavirenz NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
atazanavir-ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATV/r NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
participants NN O O
underwent NN O O
dual-energy NN O I-INT
absorptiometry NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DXA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
composition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analyses NN O O
used NN O O
two-sample NN O O
t-tests NN O O
and NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A5224s NN O O
included NN O O
269 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
non-Hispanic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
RNA NN O I-PAR
4.6 NN O I-PAR
log10 NN O I-PAR
copies/ml NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
233 NN O I-PAR
cells/?l NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-randomization NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Assignment NN O O
to NN O I-INT
ATV/r NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
EFV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
3.35 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.88 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.67 NN O O
kg NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
ABC/3TC NN O O
and NN O O
TDF/FTC NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P?0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
lower NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
multivariable NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
ABC/3TC NN O O
vs. NN O O
TDF/FTC NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
ATV/r NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
EFV NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
LBM NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
positive NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
increased NN O O
LBM NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
hip NN O O
BMD NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
investigated NN O O
through NN O O
prospective NN O O
interventional NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
LBM NN O O
on NN O O
hip NN O O
BMD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24387919)

Whole-body NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
duration NN O O
for NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
organs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
scan NN O O
delays NN O O
and NN O O
contrast NN O O
injection NN O O
durations NN O O
for NN O O
contrast-enhanced NN O I-INT
whole-body NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
protocol NN O I-INT
A-scan NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
65 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
starting NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
B-105 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
C-145 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
110 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Contrast NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Qualitative NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
subtle NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

Homogenous NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
veins NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
assuredly NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
protocol NN O O
C. NN O O
CONCLUSION NN O O
With NN O O
protocol NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
acceptable NN O O
enhancement NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
whole-body NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24391123)

Addressing NN O O
dental NN O I-PAR
fear 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 I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
electronic NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Dental NN O O
care NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
unmet NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
dental NN O O
care NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
fear NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
; NN O O
oftentimes NN O O
they NN O O
require NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
regular NN O O
dental NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
placing NN O O
them NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
associated NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
visual NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
electronic NN O O
screen NN O O
media NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
teaching NN O O
materials NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O O
principle NN O O
in NN O O
designing NN O O
educational NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
an NN O O
innovative NN O O
strategy NN O O
using NN O O
2 NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
electronic NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
media NN O I-INT
was NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
fear NN O O
and NN O O
uncooperative NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
Boston NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
fear NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
child NN O O
completed NN O O
2 NN O O
preventive NN O O
dental NN O O
visits NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
scheduled NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
apart NN O O
( NN O O
visit NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
visit NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
visit NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
involved NN O I-INT
watching NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
DVD NN O I-INT
recording NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
typically NN O I-INT
developing NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
undergoing NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
goggles NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
involved NN O I-INT
watching NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
favorite NN O I-INT
movie NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
sunglass-style NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
eyewear NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
modeling NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
goggles NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
who NN O O
refused NN O O
or NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
wear NN O O
the NN O O
goggles NN O O
watched NN O O
the NN O O
movie NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
handheld NN O O
portable NN O O
DVD NN O O
player NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
both NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
's NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Venham NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Scales NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
tests NN O O
compared NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
visits NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
each NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Between NN O O
visits NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
0.8 NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
subjects NN O O
within NN O O
groups NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
D. NN O O
Significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
within NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
versus NN O O
C NN O O
pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
certain NN O O
electronic NN O O
screen NN O O
media NN O O
technologies NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
tools NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
fear NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
uncooperative NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O O
dental NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
strategies NN O O
using NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
sizes NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
from NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
relevant NN O O
for NN O O
nondental NN O O
providers NN O O
who NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
other NN O O
medical NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24393553)

Population NN O O
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DPP-4 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
linagliptin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Linagliptin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
highly NN O O
selective NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
acting NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
mellitus NN O O
( NN O O
T2DM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Linagliptin NN O I-INT
exhibits NN O O
non-linear NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
( NN O O
PK NN O O
) NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
saturable NN O O
binding NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
tissue NN O O
DPP-4 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
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
PK NN O O
and NN O O
PK/DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
linagliptin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O O
PK/DPP-4 NN O O
model NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
Japanese NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
simulation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Linagliptin NN O I-INT
plasma NN O O
concentration NN O O
and NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
measurements NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
multiple NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
dose NN O O
trial NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Modeling NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
FOCE NN O O
INTERACTION NN O O
estimation NN O O
method NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
NONMEM NN O O
V. NN O O
The NN O O
linagliptin NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration- NN O O
and NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition- NN O O
time NN O O
profiles NN O O
were NN O O
simulated NN O O
for NN O O
Japanese NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
linagliptin NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nonlinear NN O O
PK NN O O
of NN O O
linagliptin NN O O
in NN O O
T2DM NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
described NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
2-compartment NN O O
model NN O O
assuming NN O O
concentration-dependent NN O O
binding NN O O
to NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
compartment NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
DPP-4 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
integrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
by NN O O
relating NN O O
the NN O O
model-predicted NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
occupancy NN O O
with NN O O
linagliptin NN O I-INT
linearly NN O O
to NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
simulation NN O O
predicted NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
trough NN O O
DPP-4 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
steady-state NN O O
was NN O O
84.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
?80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
DPP-4 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
simulated NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
PK NN O O
of NN O O
linagliptin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O O
plasma NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
target-mediated NN O O
drug NN O O
disposition NN O O
model NN O O
relating NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
occupancy NN O O
with NN O O
linagliptin NN O O
to NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

Simulations NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
DPP-4 NN O O
inhibition NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
linagliptin NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
Japanese NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
T2DM NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24399100)

Utilization NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
complementary/alternative NN O I-INT
treatments 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
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
utilization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
complementary NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
578 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
case-control NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5-year NN O I-PAR
olds NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
interview NN O O
on NN O O
past NN O O
and NN O O
current NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty-three NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O O
families NN O O
received NN O O
more NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
DD NN O O
families NN O O
( NN O O
17.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
11 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
use NN O O
of NN O O
psychotropic NN O O
medications NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
complementary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
DD NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hispanic NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
used NN O O
CAM NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
non-Hispanic NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Variables NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunization NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
presence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
identified NN O I-OUT
neurogenetic NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
use NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
CAM NN O I-OUT
use NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
DD NN O O
. NN O O

Families NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
used NN O O
> NN O O
20 NN O O
hours NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
potentially NN O O
unsafe NN O O
or NN O O
disproven NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Underimmunized NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
marginally NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
received NN O O
potentially NN O O
unsafe NN O O
or NN O O
disproven NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurodevelopmental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
higher NN O O
parental NN O O
education NN O O
and NN O O
non-Hispanic NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
developmental NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
should NN O O
address NN O O
how NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
can NN O O
support NN O O
families NN O O
in NN O O
making NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
CAM NN O I-INT
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24402830)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
and NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ErbB2 NN O I-PAR
overexpressing NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lapatinib NN O O
is NN O O
approved NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HER2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-positive 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
who NN O O
have NN O O
progressed NN O O
on NN O O
prior NN O O
trastuzumab NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metastatic NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Vinorelbine NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
MBC NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HER2-positive NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
2:1 NN O O
to NN O O
lapatinib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1,250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/day NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lapatinib NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
capecitabine NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1,250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
QD NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
2,000 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/day NN O I-INT
orally NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Other NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
progressing NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
option NN O O
of NN O O
crossover NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
second NN O O
progression NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
exploratory NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
demographics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stratification NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
was NN O O
6.2 NN O O
months 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
4.2 NN O O
, NN O O
8.8 NN O O
( NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
8.3 NN O O
( NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
was NN O O
24.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
16.4 NN O O
, NN O O
NE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
19.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
16.4 NN O O
, NN O O
27.2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
patients NN O O
opted NN O O
to NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
PFS NN O O
was NN O O
3.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.7 NN O O
, NN O O
5.1 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2.1 NN O O
, NN O O
5.8 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
. NN O O

Lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
vinorelbine NN O O
offers NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HER2-overexpressing NN O I-PAR
MBC NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
having NN O O
displayed NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
rates NN O O
to NN O O
lapatinib NN O O
plus NN O O
capecitabine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24408892)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Korean NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
parent-assisted NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
teens NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Impaired NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
hallmark NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
often NN O O
requiring NN O O
treatment NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
life NN O O
span NN O O
. NN O O

PEERS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Enrichment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Relational NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
parent-assisted NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
skills NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
teens NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
PEERS NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
of NN O O
adolescents NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
adults NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
in NN O O
North NN O O
America NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
yet NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
cross-cultural NN O O
validation NN O O
trials 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
is NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O I-INT
Korean NN O I-INT
version NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
enhancing NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
through 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
.The NN O O
English NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
Manual NN O O
( NN O O
Laugeson NN O O
& NN O O
Frankel NN O O
, NN O O
2010 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
translated NN O O
into NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
professionals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Items NN O I-PAR
identified NN O O
as NN O O
culturally NN O O
sensitive NN O O
were NN O O
surveyed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
447 NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
material NN O O
was NN O O
modified NN O O
accordingly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
teens NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
intelligence NN O I-PAR
quotient NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Eligible NN O O
teens NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
TG NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
delayed NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
and NN O O
direct NN O O
observations NN O O
quantifying NN O O
social NN O O
ability NN O O
and NN O O
problems NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
scales NN O O
for NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
anxiety NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
behavioral NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O

Rating NN O O
scales NN O O
for NN O O
parental NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
parental NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
functioning NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
samples NN O O
t-tests NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
across NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CG NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
14.04 NN O O
? NN O O
1.64 NN O O
and NN O O
13.54 NN O O
? NN O O
1.50 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
IQ NN O O
( NN O O
99.39 NN O O
? NN O O
18.09 NN O O
& NN O O
100.67 NN O O
? NN O O
16.97 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
parental NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
domain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
play/leisure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subdomain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Korean NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Vineland NN O I-OUT
Adaptive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Adolescent NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Skills NN O I-OUT
Knowledge-Revised NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O O
outcome NN O O
reveal NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TG NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
confounding NN O O
variables NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
cultural NN O O
and NN O O
linguistic NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
intervention NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
teens NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Korea NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
modest NN O O
cultural NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
PEERS NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
play/leisure NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
represents NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
cross-cultural NN O O
validation NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24417452)

Evaluating NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
using NN O O
time NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
complex NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O I-PAR
limitations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Participating NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
F17/M30 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-11 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
spina NN O I-PAR
bifida NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Block NN O O
and NN O O
Waiting NN O O
List NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O O
children NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
22 NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dropped NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
leaving NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
gained NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
time-processing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
time-processing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
also NN O O
displayed NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
after NN O O
receiving NN O O
intervention NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
and NN O O
third NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
ES NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
time-processing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
medium NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
ES NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
managing NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
time-processing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
managing NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
intervention NN O O
using NN O O
time NN O O
aids NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intellectual NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
time NN O O
aids NN O O
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24418366)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
recent NN O I-PAR
bereavement NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Although NN O O
bereavement NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
bereavement NN O O
on NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
outcomes NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
bereaved NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
non-bereaved NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
Philadelphia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Pittsburgh NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomization NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
occurred NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PARTICIPANTS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
599 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bereavement NN O I-PAR
measure NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
missing NN O I-PAR
4-month NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
417 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O I-INT
Study-trained NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
managers NN O I-INT
offered NN O I-INT
guideline-concordant NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
physicians NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
sites NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
assisted NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
wish NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
take NN O I-INT
antidepressants NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
interpersonal NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O I-OUT
Bereavement NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
captured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Louisville NN O I-OUT
Older NN O I-OUT
Persons NN O I-OUT
Events NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
24-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDRS NN O I-OUT
?7 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDRS NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
?50 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Logistic NN O O
regressions NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
non-bereaved NN O O
participants NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
intervention NN O O
than NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
recently NN O O
bereaved NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Standard NN O O
depression NN O O
care NN O O
management NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
ineffective NN O O
among NN O O
recently NN O O
bereaved NN O O
older NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
attention NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
paid NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
to NN O O
emotional NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
context NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bereavement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24424141)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
soft NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
insufficiency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
SVI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
greater NN O O
benefits NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
commonly NN O O
held NN O O
view NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
SVI NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
ailment NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
RCTs NN O O
) NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
improves 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
and NN O O
is NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
an NN O O
effort NN O O
to NN O O
curb NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
common NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
rationing NN O O
is NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
systems NN O O
, NN O O
often NN O O
limiting NN O O
the NN O O
reimbursement NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
soft NN O O
tissue NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
draws NN O O
its NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
interventional NN O I-INT
RCT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
, NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
SVI NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-OUT
ligation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stripping NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
endovenous NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
ablation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
differentially NN O O
studies NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
simple NN O I-PAR
varicose NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
C2 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
191 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
soft NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
C3-4 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effectiveness NN O O
outcomes NN O O
measured NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
: NN O O
Qol NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
short NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
36 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EuroQol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberdeen NN O I-OUT
Varicose NN O I-OUT
Veins NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariable NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
confounding NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
saw NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
equal NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
apart NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
SF36 NN O O
domain NN O O
of NN O O
Bodily NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
C2 NN O O
saw NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
12.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
4.8-20.8 NN O O
] NN O O
points NN O O
over NN O O
C3-4 NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
also NN O O
suffered NN O O
more NN O O
recurrence 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
2.7 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.2-6.1 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.022 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
required NN O O
more NN O O
secondary NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
1.2-16.3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
rationing NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
severity NN O O
contradicts NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
. NN O O

Delaying NN O O
treatment NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
damage NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
irreversible NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT00759434 NN O O
Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24431427)

Multisensory NN O I-INT
temporal NN O I-INT
integration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
new NN O O
DSM-5 NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
ASDs NN O O
) NN O O
include NN O O
sensory NN O O
disturbances NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
well-established NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
sensory NN O O
disturbance NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
integrate NN O O
multisensory NN O O
information NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
unified NN O O
percept NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
arise NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
underlying NN O O
impairment 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
have NN O O
difficulty NN O O
perceiving NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
cross-modal NN O O
inputs NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cue NN O O
for NN O O
multisensory NN O O
integration NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
multisensory NN O O
processing NN O O
may NN O O
cascade NN O O
into NN O O
higher-level NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
impairing NN O O
day-to-day NN O O
functioning NN O O
on NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
speech NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
multisensory NN O O
temporal NN O O
processing NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
links NN O O
to NN O O
speech NN O O
processing NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
mapped NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
multisensory NN O I-INT
temporal NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
simple NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
onto NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
perceptually NN O O
bind NN O O
audiovisual NN O O
speech NN O O
signals NN O O
. NN O O

High-functioning NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Performance NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
multisensory NN O I-INT
temporal NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
varied NN O O
with NN O O
stimulus NN O O
complexity NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
less NN O O
precise NN O O
temporal NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
stimulus NN O O
complexity NN O O
. NN O O

Notably NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
speech-specific NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
multisensory NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Most NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
audiovisual NN O I-OUT
speech NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
strongly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
low-level NN O O
multisensory NN O O
temporal NN O O
processing NN O O
abilities NN O O
. NN O O

Collectively NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
represent NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
illustrate NN O O
links NN O O
between NN O O
multisensory NN O O
temporal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
speech NN O O
processing NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
strongly NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
low-level NN O O
sensory NN O O
processing NN O O
may NN O O
cascade NN O O
into NN O O
higher-order NN O O
domains NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24435893)

Early NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cost NN O I-INT
utility NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
alongside NN O O
the NN O O
Danish NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
DAISY NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-INT
utility NN O I-INT
of NN O O
early NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Cost NN O I-INT
utility NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O O
alongside NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
Danish NN O I-PAR
districts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
330 NN O I-PAR
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Psychosocial NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
lasting NN O O
8-12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O I-INT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
or NN O O
follow-up NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
societal NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
healthcare NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
informal NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
QALYs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
separately NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
caregiver NN O O
before NN O O
aggregation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QALY NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
care NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
cost NN O O
increases NN O O
with NN O O
informal NN O O
care NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
outweighed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
cost NN O O
savings NN O O
with NN O O
formal NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
intervention NN O O
being NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
exceed NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
threshold NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
alternative NN O O
scenario NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
threshold NN O O
values NN O O
used NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
perspective NN O O
was NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
formal NN O O
healthcare NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
multifaceted NN O O
, NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
intervention NN O O
programme NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
a NN O O
societal NN O O
perspective NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
recommendation NN O O
for NN O O
practice NN O O
in NN O O
settings NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Danish NN O O
setting NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
follow-up NN O O
with NN O O
referral NN O O
to NN O O
available NN O O
local NN O O
support NN O O
programmes NN O O
when NN O O
needed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
restrict NN O O
large NN O O
multifaceted NN O O
intervention NN O O
programmes NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
until NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
emerges NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
Database NN O O
as NN O O
ISRCTN74848736 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24436115)

No NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lymph NN O I-PAR
node-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24437202)

[ NN O O
Rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
dyscirculatory NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
climacteric NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
paper NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
dyscirculatory NN O I-PAR
encephalopathy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
climacteric NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
ozonotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
klimadynon NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
herbal NN O O
medicine NN O O
possessed NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-like NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
into NN O O
combined NN O O
rehabilitative NN O O
treatment NN O O
ensures NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
climacteric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
short-term NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24447434)

Phosphorylated NN O I-INT
p-70S6K NN O I-INT
predicts NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
no NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PI3K NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and/or NN O O
mitogen-activated NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
kinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MAPK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pathways NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
anti-estrogen NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
biomarker NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
validity NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
resistance NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
mammalian NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
rapamycine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mTOR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
might NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
biomarker NN O O
that NN O O
predicts NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
resistance NN O O
could NN O O
potentially NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
companion NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
downstream-activated NN O O
proteins NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PI3K NN O O
and/or NN O O
MAPK NN O O
pathways NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
intrinsic NN O I-OUT
tamoxifen NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
primary NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
recollected NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-3 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
observation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
constructing NN O O
a NN O O
tissue NN O I-INT
micro-array NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cores NN O O
from NN O O
563 NN O O
estrogen NN O O
receptor NN O O
? NN O O
positive NN O O
were NN O O
immunostained NN O O
for NN O O
p-AKT NN O O
( NN O O
Thr308 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p-AKT NN O O
( NN O O
Ser473 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p-mTOR NN O O
, NN O O
p-p706SK NN O O
and NN O O
p-ERK1/2 NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazard NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
markers NN O O
and NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Interactions NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
between NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
p-AKT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Thr308 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
p-mTOR NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
p-p70S6K NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
p-ERK1/2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Applying NN O O
a NN O O
conservative NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
, NN O O
p-p70S6K NN O I-INT
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
tamoxifen NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
p-p70S6K NN O O
negative NN O O
tumors NN O O
derived NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.24 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
tumor NN O O
did NN O O
express NN O O
p-p70S6K NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.02 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=0.95 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
0.004 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
systemically NN O O
untreated NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
p-p70S6K NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
expresses NN O I-PAR
p-p70S6K NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
marker NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
downstream NN O I-PAR
PI3K NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
MAPK NN O I-PAR
pathway NN O I-PAR
activation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O O
prognosis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
potential NN O I-INT
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PI3K/Akt/mTOR NN O O
pathway NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients 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- (24451146)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
osteopontin NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
correlative NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Osteopontin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
OPN NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
malignancy-associated NN O O
glycoprotein NN O O
that NN O O
contributes NN O O
functionally NN O O
to NN O O
tumor NN O O
aggressiveness NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
previously NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
elevated NN O O
OPN NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
measured NN O O
OPN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
tumors NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
624 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
462 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
667 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
octreotide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NCIC NN O I-PAR
CTG NN O I-PAR
MA.14 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
Mammary.14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
2,540 NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
688 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1,852 NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
46 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
22.6 NN O O
to NN O O
290 NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
normal NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33.9 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
30.2 NN O O
to NN O O
37.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
event-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
non-bone NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
recurrence NN O O
showed NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
60.7 NN O O
ng/ml NN O O
( NN O O
23.9 NN O O
to NN O O
543 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
period NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
would NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hormone NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
MA.14 NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
elevated NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
OPN NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
defined NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
elevated NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
OPN NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
around NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O O
warrants NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT00002864 NN O O
, NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00002864 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24457421)

Improved NN O O
frontoparietal NN O I-OUT
white NN O I-OUT
matter NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
attendance NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
after-school NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Aerobic NN O O
fitness NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
white NN O I-OUT
matter NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
diffusion NN O I-OUT
tensor NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DTI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
8-month NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
WMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI?85th NN O I-PAR
percentile NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
8- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
11-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Black NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
( NN O O
n=10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
sedentary NN O O
attention NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
offered NN O O
an NN O O
instructor-led NN O I-INT
after-school NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
school NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
DTI NN O I-OUT
scans NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tractography NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
isolate NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
fasciculus NN O O
and NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
intervention NN O O
affected NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
region NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
superior NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
fasciculus NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
teacher NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
executive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
WMI NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
sedentary NN O O
after-school NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24460069)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
during NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
during NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
positively NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Challenges NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
during NN O O
cancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
consistent NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective 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
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surrogate NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BRCA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
walks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
000 NN O I-INT
steps NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
walk NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pedometer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
counts NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
percentage NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
steps NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Adherence NN O I-OUT
average NN O O
reached NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
000 NN O O
steps NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer-specific NN O O
symptoms NN O O
[ NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.045 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
0.9 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
1.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
is NN O O
feasible NN O O
during NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
despite NN O O
increasing NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24467617)

Deslorelin NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pre-pubertal NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
genital NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Deslorelin NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
GnRH NN O O
agonist NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
contraception NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O O
. 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
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pre-pubertal NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
deslorelin NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
stimulatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
genital NN O O
tract NN O O
, NN O O
throughout NN O O
repeated NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Sicilian NN O I-PAR
hound NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

First NN O O
group NN O O
bitches NN O O
were NN O O
implanted NN O O
at NN O O
4.5 NN O O
, NN O O
9.0 NN O O
and NN O O
13.5 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
monitored NN O O
clinically NN O O
, NN O O
ultrasonographically NN O O
and NN O O
endocrinologically NN O O
, NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
13.5 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
bitches NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O I-INT
implanted NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
underwent NN O O
ovariohysterectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
thus NN O O
allowing NN O O
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
internal NN O I-OUT
genitalia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Control NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
bitches NN O O
were NN O O
ovariohysterectomized NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oestrus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
implant NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasmatic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
17-beta NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
evident NN O O
cornification NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
50-80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Estradiol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
oestrous NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
external NN O I-OUT
genitalia NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
juvenile NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ovaries NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ultrasonographically NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
structures NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
stayed NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
same NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
genital NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
still NN O I-OUT
juvenile NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
inactive NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
ovaries NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
thin NN O I-OUT
filiform NN O I-OUT
uterus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Deslorelin NN O O
suppressed NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pre-pubertal NN O O
bitches NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
oestrous NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
stimulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Juvenile NN O I-OUT
genitalia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
an NN O O
expected NN O O
side NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24472253)

Preschool-based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
preschool-based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
earlier NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preschool-based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
preschool NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
preschool NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
targeted NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
published NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
communication NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
from NN O O
video-taped NN O O
preschool NN O O
teacher-child NN O O
and NN O O
mother-child NN O O
interactions NN O O
, NN O O
Early NN O O
Social NN O O
Communication NN O O
Scales NN O O
, NN O O
Reynell NN O O
Developmental NN O O
Language NN O O
Scale NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Social NN O O
Communication NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
children NN O O
achieved NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
on NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sociability NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
no NN O O
moderating NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
specialist-delivered NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
preschool-based NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
may NN O O
produce NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
possibly NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
long-term NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
young NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
whether NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
information NN O O
-- NN O O
Joint NN O O
Attention NN O O
Intervention NN O O
and NN O O
Young NN O O
Children NN O O
With NN O O
Autism NN O O
; NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov/ NN O O
; NN O O
NCT00378157 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24473220)

Does NN O O
privatisation NN O O
of NN O O
vocational NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
improve NN O O
labour NN O O
market NN O O
opportunities NN O O
? NN O O
Evidence NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
field NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
paper NN O O
analyses NN O O
if NN O O
privatisation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vocational NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
labour NN O O
market NN O O
opportunities NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
sickness NN O I-PAR
absence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
field NN O O
experiment NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Public NN O I-PAR
Employment NN O I-PAR
Service NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Social NN O I-PAR
Insurance NN O I-PAR
Agency NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
2008-2010 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
4000 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
offered NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
public NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
find NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
employment NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
between NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
by NN O O
private NN O O
and NN O O
public NN O O
providers NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rehabilitation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
essentially NN O O
equal NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
providers NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
large NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
privatising NN O O
vocational NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24488157)

A NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
targets NN O O
responsive NN O O
parental NN O O
behaviors NN O O
increases NN O O
attachment NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Focused NN O I-INT
Playtime NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FPI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
parent-mediated NN O O
intervention NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
increase NN O O
responsive NN O O
parental NN O O
communication NN O O
( NN O O
Siller NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
J NN O O
Autism NN O O
Dev NN O O
Disord NN O O
43:540-555 NN O O
, NN O O
2013a NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
analyses NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
attachment NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
FPI NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
bigger NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
attachment-related NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
FPI NN O I-INT
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
an NN O O
observational NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
attachment-related NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
separation-reunion NN O O
episode NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
measure NN O O
evaluating NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
theoretical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24490842)

Examining NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
on NN O O
physiologic NN O O
markers NN O O
: NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
suggestions NN O O
for NN O O
holistic NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
athlete NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
Current NN O O
holistic NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
blends NN O O
both NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
psychological NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
is NN O O
limited NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
strategies NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
physiologic NN O O
( NN O O
salivary NN O O
cortisol NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
OR NN O O
OTHER NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
97 NN O I-PAR
college-aged NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20.65 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
4.38 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
little NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychological NN O I-PAR
strategies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
15-minute NN O I-INT
script NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
iPod NN O I-INT
led NN O O
the NN O O
participant NN O O
through NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
deep NN O I-INT
breathing NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
somatic NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cues NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
listened NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ambient NN O I-INT
nature NN O I-INT
sounds NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Two NN O O
samples NN O O
( NN O O
pretest NN O O
, NN O O
posttest NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
enzyme NN O O
immunoassay NN O O
kit NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
average 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

Descriptive NN O O
statistics NN O O
and NN O O
correlations NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Stress-O-Meter NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Perceived NN O I-OUT
Stress NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
F2,97 NN O O
= NN O O
15.62 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Females NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
pretest NN O I-OUT
Stress-O-Meter NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.15 NN O O
? NN O O
1.796 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Perceived NN O I-OUT
Stress NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
18.31 NN O O
? NN O O
5.833 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
males NN O O
( NN O O
4.25 NN O O
? NN O O
1.741 NN O O
and NN O O
15.272 NN O O
? NN O O
5.390 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
somatic NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O I-OUT
who NN O O
received NN O O
verbal NN O O
guidance NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
cortisol NN O O
level NN O O
was NN O O
uncorrelated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
stress NN O O
; NN O O
females NN O O
reported NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
include NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
when NN O O
assessing NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
providing NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24505318)

Addictive NN O I-OUT
internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
Korean NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
national NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
psychological NN O O
disorder NN O O
called NN O O
'Internet NN O I-OUT
addiction NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
newly NN O O
emerged NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
dramatic NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
worldwide NN O O
Internet NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
used NN O O
population-level NN O O
samples NN O O
nor NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
contextual NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
Internet NN O O
addiction NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
We NN O O
identified NN O O
57,857 NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13-18 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
olds NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Korean NN O I-PAR
nationally NN O I-PAR
representative NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
surveyed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
identify NN O O
associated NN O O
factors NN O O
with NN O O
addictive NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two-level NN O O
multilevel NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
fitted NN O O
with NN O O
individual-level NN O I-INT
responses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1st NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
nested NN O O
within NN O O
schools NN O O
( NN O O
2nd NN O O
level NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
characteristics NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Gender NN O O
differences NN O O
of NN O O
addictive NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
gender NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
associations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
addictive NN O O
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
school NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
parental NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
substance NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Female NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
addictively NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
coeducational NN O O
schools NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
also NN O O
revealed NN O O
significant NN O O
gender NN O O
differences NN O O
of NN O O
addictive NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
its NN O O
associated NN O O
individual- NN O O
and NN O O
school-level NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
multilevel NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
gender NN O O
differences NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
protect NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
addictive NN O I-OUT
Internet NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24506142)

Management NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
bowel NN O O
obstruction NN O O
with NN O O
self-expanding NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
stents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
multicentre NN O O
retrospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
factors NN O O
determining NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
UK NN O O
cancer NN O O
guidelines NN O O
recommend NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colonic NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
be NN O O
considered NN O O
for NN O O
stenting NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
self-expanding NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
stent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SEMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Considerable NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
practice NN O O
exists NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
expertise NN O O
, NN O O
technical NN O O
difficulties NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
yet NN O O
ill-defined NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
retrospective NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
following NN O O
colonic NN O O
stenting NN O O
for NN O O
large NN O O
bowel NN O O
obstruction NN O O
and NN O O
identify NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
successful NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
regional NN O O
programme NN O O
of NN O O
colonic NN O O
stenting NN O O
for NN O O
large NN O O
bowel NN O O
obstruction NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
outcome NN O O
including NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reoperation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
SEMS NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
inserted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
334 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
264 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
palliation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bridge NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Technical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
292 NN O O
( NN O O
87.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experiencing NN O O
a NN O O
complication NN O O
or NN O O
technical NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Reoperation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
stented NN O O
for NN O O
palliation NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
whom NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subsequently NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
colostomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
one-stage NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
anastomosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O O
( NN O O
67.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
stenting NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
bridge NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Technical NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
by NN O O
indication NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.60 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
operators NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
performed NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
3.34 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ASA NN O O
grade NN O O
?3 NN O O
predicted NN O O
a NN O O
worse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O O
0.43 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
through-the-scope NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
endoscopy NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
radiological NN O O
placement NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
90.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
74.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Experienced NN O O
operators NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
TTS NN O I-PAR
technique NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O O
bowel NN O O
obstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sicker NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extracolonic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
strictures NN O I-PAR
fared NN O I-PAR
less NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24517028)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Paracetamol NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
chelate NN O O
with NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
ferrous NN O O
ion NN O O
and NN O O
paracetamol NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
studies NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
aerobic NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
) NN O O
oxidation NN O O
of NN O O
ferrous NN O O
ion NN O O
to NN O O
ferric NN O O
ion NN O O
caused NN O O
in NN O O
iron-paracetamol NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
reactions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
iron NN O O
interacts NN O O
with NN O O
paracetamol NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ferrous NN O I-OUT
ion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Paracetamol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
g NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
co-ignested NN O O
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O O
( NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
by NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
using NN O O
saliva NN O O
drug NN O O
levels NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O

Concomitant NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
AUC8 NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
42.88 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.8-34.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
microg NN O O
h NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
-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
and NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
18.75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
to NN O O
15.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
microg NN O O
mL NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
tmax NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
originated NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameter NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C1/F NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
slightly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
V NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
/F NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
results NN O O
in NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
iron NN O O
and NN O O
paracetamol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24530652)

Alleviating NN O O
social NN O O
avoidance NN O O
: NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
testosterone NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
approach-avoidance NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Testosterone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
regulator NN O O
of NN O O
social-motivational NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
dominance-enhancing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social-anxiolytic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
systematically NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
causal NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O O
on NN O O
actual NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
approach-avoidance NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
sets NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
objective NN O I-PAR
implicit NN O I-PAR
measure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
Approach-Avoidance NN O I-OUT
Task NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
reaction NN O O
time NN O O
task NN O O
requiring NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
approach NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
avoid NN O I-OUT
visually NN O I-OUT
presented NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
happy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutral NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
diminished NN O O
avoidance NN O I-OUT
tendencies NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
angry NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Testosterone NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
approach-avoidance NN O I-OUT
tendencies NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
affiliation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
happy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
faces NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
testosterone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
reduces NN O O
automatic NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
threat NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
promotes NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
threat NN O I-OUT
approach NN O I-OUT
tendencies NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
findings NN O O
further NN O O
the NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
direct NN O O
treatment NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
persistent NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24532106)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
by NN O O
site NN O O
on NN O O
balance NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
DBS NN O O
on NN O O
balance NN O O
and NN O O
gait NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
STN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
GPi NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
balance NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Balance NN O O
testing NN O O
occurred NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postsurgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
PD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
on NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
off NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
and NN O O
DBS NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
tested NN O O
on NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
off NN O I-INT
DBS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
Postural NN O I-OUT
Instability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Gait NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
UPDRS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
we NN O I-OUT
call NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Balance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Gait NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Balance NN O I-OUT
Confidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Activities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Daily NN O I-OUT
Living NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Balance NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
best-treated NN O O
states NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
DBS NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Switching NN O O
DBS NN O O
on NN O O
improved NN O O
balance NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
scores NN O O
further NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
off NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
GPi 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
postsurgery NN O O
off NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
balance NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
STN NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
balance NN O O
function NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
STN NN O O
and NN O O
GPi NN O O
sites NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
balance NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
beyond NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
medically NN O O
treated NN O O
state NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
clinical NN O O
balance NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
off/off NN O O
state NN O O
and NN O O
self-reported NN O O
balance NN O O
confidence NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GPi NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
STN NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24534270)

Accumulated NN O I-INT
brisk NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
contributor NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
accumulated NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days/week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
brisk NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
was NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
arterial NN O O
stiffness NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30-55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
accumulated NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
walking NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
combined NN O O
and NN O O
telephone NN O O
support NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
covariate NN O O
. NN O O

Anthropometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids 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
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
surrogate NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
nitric NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
anthropometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
maintained NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
strong NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NOx NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
; NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
meeting NN O O
current NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
favorable NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24534682)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
multi-media NN O O
device NN O O
for NN O O
delivering NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
Le NN O O
Fort NN O O
I NN O O
osteotomy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
interactive NN O O
software NN O O
package NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
informing NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
Le NN O I-PAR
Fort NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
osteotomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
technique NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
complications 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
compare NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
delivery NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O I-INT
multi-media NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
graphic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
audio NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
delivering NN O I-INT
essentially NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
verbal NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
efficiencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
' NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
devices NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tablet NN O O
device NN O O
participants NN O O
scored NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
15.48 NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
audio NN O O
device NN O O
participants NN O O
scored NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
268 NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
multi-media NN O O
tablet NN O O
device NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2454375)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
disposition NN O O
of NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
carvedilol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
disposition NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
14C-labeled NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
C NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
dose-linear NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
reaches NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
probably NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
first-pass NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
66 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
are NN O O
achieved NN O O
within NN O O
1.2 NN O O
h. NN O O
C NN O O
is NN O O
extensively NN O O
distributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tissues NN O O
( NN O O
Vz NN O O
= NN O O
132 NN O O
l NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
eliminated NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
hepatic NN O O
metabolism NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
clearance NN O O
590 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
renal NN O O
clearance NN O O
4 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
6.4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
2.4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

administration NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
is NN O O
assumed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
absorption NN O O
dependent NN O O
since NN O O
no NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
formulation NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
half-life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radioactivity NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
is NN O O
39 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
C NN O O
is NN O O
excreted NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
metabolites NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
urinary NN O O
metabolites NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
carvedilol NN O O
glucuronide NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cleavage NN O O
products NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
beta-blocking NN O O
side NN O O
chain NN O O
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ring-hydroxylated NN O O
forms NN O O
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
recovered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
feces NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
demethylated NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
C NN O O
exhibits NN O O
only NN O O
minor NN O O
beta-blocking NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
metabolite NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
in NN O O
concentrations NN O O
ten NN O O
times NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
parent NN O O
compound NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24549163)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
control NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
REGENERATE-AMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
AMI NN O O
) NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
morbidity NN O O
worldwide NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
latest NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
advances NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
myocardial NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Preclinical NN O O
and NN O O
emerging NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
mononuclear NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BMCs NN O O
) NN O O
following NN O O
AMI NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
LVEF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
we NN O O
will NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
early NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
BMCs NN O O
following NN O O
AMI NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
REGENERATE-AMI NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
early NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
BMCs NN O O
improves NN O O
LVEF NN O O
after NN O O
AMI NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
enrol NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
demonstrating NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
motion NN O I-PAR
abnormality NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BMCs NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
LVEF NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventriculography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

ETHICS NN O O
AND NN O O
DISSEMINATION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Declaration NN O O
of NN O O
Helsinki NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O O
ethics NN O O
committee NN O O
( NN O O
NRES NN O O
Committee NN O O
London NN O O
West NN O O
London NN O O
: NN O O
07/Q0603/76 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clincialtrials.gov NN O O
( NN O O
NCT00765453 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
published NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
CONSORT NN O O
statement NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
presented NN O O
at NN O O
conferences NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
peer-reviewed NN O O
journals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24550145)

Two NN O O
to NN O O
ten NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
developmental NN O O
trajectories NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
targeted NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
follows NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Kasari NN O I-PAR
et NN O I-PAR
al NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8-10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
fully NN O O
utilize NN O O
the NN O O
available NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
linear NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
analytical NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
growth NN O O
trajectories NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
pointing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coordinated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
looking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
showing NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expressive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
five NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O O
by NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
original NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coordinated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
looking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
showing NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
pointing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
share NN O I-OUT
interest NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O I-OUT
trajectories NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
original NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
status NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
cross-lagged NN O O
panel NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
causal NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
pointing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
influence NN O O
growth NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24557758)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
insert NN O I-INT
Mydriasert NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
Mydriasert NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
insert NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
tropicamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
it NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
usually NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
eyedrops NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
tropicamide NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
154 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
1 NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
78 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
76 NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
pupillary NN O O
dilation NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse 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

In NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
sample NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pupillary NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eyedrops NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
mydriasis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Mydriasert NN O I-INT
had NN O O
less NN O O
mydriasis NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
eyedrops NN O O
after NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
less NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
60 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Mydriasert NN O I-INT
assures NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
mydriasis NN O O
for NN O O
retinal NN O O
angiography NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O O
or NN O O
safety NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
insert NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
usually NN O O
administered NN O O
eyedrops NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
total NN O O
drug NN O O
dose NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
insert NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24559095)

Decreased NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Yes-associated NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
luminal NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
impaired NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
response NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Yes-associated NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
oncogene NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
results NN O O
remain NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
gene NN O O
and NN O O
protein NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
subgroups NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
material NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
downregulating NN O O
YAP1 NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
studying NN O O
its NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
anti-estrogen NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
as NN O O
absent NN O O
, NN O O
weak NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O O
or NN O O
strong NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
144 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
564 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
expression NN O I-PAR
dataset NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1107 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analysed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
Cox NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
independence NN O O
. NN O O

WST-1 NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
viability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
luciferase NN O I-OUT
ERE NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
estrogen NN O O
responsive NN O O
element NN O O
) NN O O
construct NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
following NN O O
downregulation NN O O
of NN O O
YAP1 NN O O
using NN O O
siRNAs NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
ER+ NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Estrogen NN O I-PAR
Receptor NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomised NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
histological NN O O
grade NN O O
and NN O O
proliferation 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
0.016 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
ER- NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Estrogen NN O I-PAR
Receptor NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
positively NN O O
to NN O O
proliferation NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Notably NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
dataset NN O O
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
luminal NN O O
A NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
includes NN O O
low NN O O
proliferating NN O O
tumours NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
usually NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
subgroup NN O O
specificity NN O O
led NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
endocrine NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extensively NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
luminal NN O O
A NN O O
breast NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
randomised NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
material NN O O
, NN O O
absent NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
tamoxifen NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
upon NN O O
interaction NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

YAP1 NN O O
downregulation NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
progesterone NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PgR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
delayed NN O O
and NN O O
weaker NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
support NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Decreased NN O I-OUT
YAP1 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
aggressive NN O I-PAR
luminal NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
likely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decreased NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
sensitivity NN O I-INT
conferred NN O O
by NN O O
YAP1 NN O O
downregulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24559178)

Dentists NN O O
United NN O O
to NN O O
Extinguish NN O O
Tobacco NN O O
( NN O O
DUET NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
tobacco NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
dental NN O O
care NN O O
settings NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
exceptional NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
provide NN O O
brief NN O O
cessation NN O O
advice NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
tobacco-related NN O O
health NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
dental NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
limited NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Guided NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
multi-level NN O O
, NN O O
conceptual NN O O
framework NN O O
that NN O O
emphasizes NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
provider NN O O
beliefs NN O O
and NN O O
organizational NN O O
characteristics NN O O
as NN O O
drivers NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
tobacco NN O O
treatment NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
protocol NN O O
will NN O O
use NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
data NN O O
sources NN O O
( NN O O
patient NN O O
exit NN O O
interviews NN O O
, NN O O
provider NN O O
surveys NN O O
, NN O O
site NN O O
observations NN O O
, NN O O
chart NN O O
audits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
semi-structured NN O O
provider NN O O
interviews NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
implementing NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
tobacco NN O O
dependence NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
public NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
City NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
specific NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
comparative-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
research NN O O
trial NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
promising NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
guidelines-staff NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
best NN O I-INT
practices NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CBP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
provider NN O I-INT
performance NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CBP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
PF NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
provider NN O I-INT
reimbursement NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pay-for-performance NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
P4P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
examine NN O I-INT
potential NN O O
theory-driven NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
implementation NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
identify NN O O
baseline NN O O
organizational NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
treatment NN O O
practices NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
providers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tobacco NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
promising NN O O
implementation NN O O
strategies NN O O
is NN O O
additive NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
incorporating NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
CBP NN O O
, NN O O
PF NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P4P NN O O
) NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
CBP NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CBP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
PF NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
improving NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
cessation NN O O
assistance NN O O
to NN O O
smokers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
will NN O O
improve NN O O
knowledge NN O O
pertinent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
, NN O O
dissemination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O O
practices NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NCT01615237 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24564308)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ketamine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
dogs NN O I-INT
sedated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
acepromazine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxymorphone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
IV NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
each NN O O
; NN O O
K-P NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
ketamine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
; NN O O
K-D NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IoA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
dogs NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acepromazine NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
oxymorphone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ANIMALS NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
Beagles NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PROCEDURES NN O O
Each NN O O
dog NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
1-week NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
dog NN O O
was NN O O
anesthetized NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
full NN O O
recovery NN O O
, NN O O
acepromazine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.02 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
oxymorphone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
IV NN O O
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O O
minutes NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
IoA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
dog NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
IV NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
K-P NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
K-D. NN O I-INT
Cardiorespiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
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
and NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
IoA NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
findings NN O O
before NN O O
IoA NN O O
, NN O O
dogs NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
K-P NN O I-INT
or NN O O
K-D NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
IoA NN O O
; NN O O
K-P NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Propofol NN O O
decreased NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
IoA NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
treatments NN O O
caused NN O O
some NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
apnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypoventilation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Pao2 NN O O
< NN O O
80 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
In NN O O
dogs NN O O
, NN O O
K-P NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
maintained NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
propofol NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
K-D NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Supplemental NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
oxygen NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
provided NN O O
during NN O O
IoA NN O O
with NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24564346)

Are NN O O
'leaky NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
gluten NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dairy NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
diet NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parental NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
changes NN O O
upon NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
gluten NN O O
and/or NN O O
casein NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
diet NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
permeability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
'leaky NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
long NN O O
proposed NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
substantiated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explored NN O O
this NN O O
possible NN O O
association NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
gluten NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
on NN O O
IP NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

IP NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
lactulose NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
mannitol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
L/M NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
permeability NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Neither NN O O
the NN O O
L/M NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
gluten/dairy NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O O
observed NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Our NN O O
study NN O O
although NN O O
underpowered NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
small NN O O
differences NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
dietary NN O O
gluten/milk NN O O
, NN O O
IP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24573180)

Activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
chemoreflex NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
metaboreflex NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
work NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
chemoreceptor NN O O
( NN O O
CC NN O O
) NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
function NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
circulating NN O O
CC NN O O
stimuli NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
enhanced NN O O
CC NN O O
activity/sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
metaboreceptors NN O O
and NN O O
chemoreceptors NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
observed 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
isolate NN O O
the NN O O
metaboreflex NN O O
while NN O O
acutely NN O O
stimulating NN O O
or NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
metaboreflex NN O O
increased NN O O
CC NN O O
activity/sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
height NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
177.0 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2.1 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
85.8 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5.5 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
24.6 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1.1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
three NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
maximal NN O I-INT
voluntary NN O I-INT
contraction NN O I-INT
handgrip NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
postexercise NN O I-INT
circulatory NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PECO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
stimulate NN O O
the NN O O
metaboreflex NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
either NN O O
breathed NN O I-INT
room NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
, NN O I-OUT
hypoxia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
SPo2 NN O O
= NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
hyperoxia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FiO2 NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
PECO NN O O
to NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
chemoreflex NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
resting NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
without NN O O
handgrip NN O O
or NN O O
PECO NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ve NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
continuously NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
to NN O O
normoxic NN O O
PECO NN O O
, NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
during NN O O
hyperoxic NN O O
PECO NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
HR NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Relative NN O O
to NN O O
normoxic NN O O
PECO NN O O
, NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O O
during NN O O
hypoxic NN O O
PECO NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Ve 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
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
hypoxic NN O I-OUT
PECO NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
sum NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
and NN O O
PECO NN O O
individually NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
sensitized NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
metaboreflex NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metaboreflex NN O I-OUT
activates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
sensitize NN O O
the NN O O
CC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
help NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O O
CC NN O O
activity NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24576886)

Collagen NN O I-INT
cross-linking NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
photoactivated NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
infectious NN O I-PAR
keratitis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
corneal NN O I-PAR
melting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
corneal NN O I-INT
collagen NN O I-INT
cross-linking NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CXL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
photoactivated NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
photoactivated NN O I-INT
chromophore NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
infectious NN O I-INT
keratitis NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PACK NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
-CXL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
infectious NN O O
keratitis NN O O
with NN O O
corneal NN O O
melting NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
infectious NN O I-PAR
keratitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
coexisting NN O I-PAR
corneal NN O I-PAR
melting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
slit-lamp NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test 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

P NN O O
values NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
average NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
39.76 NN O O
? NN O O
18.22 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
46.05 NN O O
? NN O O
27.44 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
1.64 NN O O
? NN O O
0.62 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1.67 NN O O
? NN O O
0.48 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.68 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corneal NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
bigger NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
perforation NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Corneal NN O I-INT
CXL NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
photoactivated NN O I-INT
riboflavin NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
complication NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
21 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
whereas NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
corneal NN O O
perforation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
PACK-CXL NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
PACK-CXL NN O I-INT
may NN O I-INT
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
infectious NN O O
keratitis NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
corneal NN O O
melting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24599830)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phosphate-binding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Phosphorus NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
through NN O O
phosphorus-dependent NN O O
vascular NN O O
calcification NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
a NN O O
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
serum NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unlikely NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
reduces NN O O
vascular NN O O
calcification NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
CKD NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
phosphate-binding NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
attenuating NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
calcification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-dialysis NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
impact NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
phosphorus NN O I-PAR
binder NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
hard NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
113 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
3-4 NN O I-PAR
CKD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CAC NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O O
their NN O I-INT
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
End-points NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
event NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
36-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
CAC NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
end-point NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
confounders NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
independent NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
if NN O O
CAC NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
either NN O O
absent NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accelerated NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
annual NN O O
CAC NN O O
increase NN O O
> NN O O
75th NN O O
percentile NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
cohort NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
end-point NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
sevelamer NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dialysis NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
end-point NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
combining NN O I-INT
phosphorus-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sevelamer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
non-dialysis NN O O
CKD NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
absent NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
CAC NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O I-OUT
studies NN O O
should NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phosphorus-restricted NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
appropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
normal NN O O
ranges NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
concentration NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
non-dialyzed NN O O
CKD NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24602973)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
bispectral NN O O
index NN O O
monitoring NN O I-INT
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
depth NN O O
during NN O O
flexible NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bispectral NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
flexible NN O O
fiberoptic NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
( NN O O
FFB NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
questionable NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
procedural NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
awareness NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
sedation NN O O
depth NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
BIS NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
clinical NN O O
judgment NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
FFB NN O O
under NN O O
propofol NN O O
sedation NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
cohort NN O O
included NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
bronchoscopy NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
propofol NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
that NN O O
were NN O O
prospectively NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
guide NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
depth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BIS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
41 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
were NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
BIS NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
propofol NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
BIS NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
168.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
167.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
sedation-related NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
drop NN O O
and NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
rise NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
required NN O O
either NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
support NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O O
supplementation NN O O
by NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
O2 NN O O
mask NN O O
( NN O O
67.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
82.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
Ambu NN O O
face NN O O
mask NN O O
manual NN O O
ventilation NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
following NN O O
recovery NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
Brice NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Using NN O O
BIS NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
sedation NN O O
during NN O O
propofol NN O O
sedation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
FFB NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
relatively NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
offers NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24610180)

Do NN O O
physicians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
implicit NN O O
views NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O O
Americans NN O O
affect NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Total NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TKR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
( NN O O
OA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
OA NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
blacks NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
whites NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
TKR NN O I-INT
rates NN O O
are NN O O
lower NN O O
among NN O O
blacks NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
' NN O O
implicit NN O O
preferences NN O O
might NN O O
explain NN O O
racial NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
TKR NN O I-INT
recommendation 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
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
implicit NN O O
racial NN O O
bias NN O O
predicts NN O O
physician NN O O
recommendation NN O O
of NN O O
TKR NN O O
for NN O O
black NN O O
and NN O O
white NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
OA NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
web-based NN O O
instrument NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
implicit NN O O
racial NN O O
bias NN O O
on NN O O
physician NN O O
recommendation NN O O
of NN O O
TKR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
web-based NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
, NN O O
543 NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
scenario NN O I-INT
describing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
black NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
white NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
severe NN O I-INT
OA NN O I-INT
refractory NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Questionnaires NN O I-INT
evaluating NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
likelihood NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
recommending NN O I-INT
TKR NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
perceived NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
cooperativeness NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
implicit NN O I-INT
racial NN O I-INT
bias NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
TKR NN O I-INT
recommendation NN O O
, NN O O
implicit NN O O
racial NN O O
preference NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
medical NN O O
cooperativeness NN O O
stereotypes NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
implicit NN O O
association NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
implicit NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
whites NN O O
over NN O O
blacks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
medically NN O I-OUT
cooperative NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
whites NN O O
over NN O O
blacks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Physicians NN O O
reported NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
liking NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
whites NN O O
over NN O O
blacks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
believing NN O O
whites NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
medically NN O I-OUT
cooperative NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
blacks NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
reported NN O O
providing NN O O
similar NN O O
care NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
white NN O O
and NN O O
black NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
agreed NN O O
that NN O O
subconscious NN O O
biases NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
their NN O O
treatment NN O O
decisions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recommendation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
TKR NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
black NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
white NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.439 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neither NN O O
implicit NN O O
nor NN O O
explicit NN O O
racial NN O O
biases NN O O
predicted NN O O
differential NN O O
treatment NN O O
recommendations NN O O
by NN O O
race NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
recommend NN O I-OUT
TKR NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
implicit NN O O
association NN O O
test NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
race NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.960 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Physicians NN O I-PAR
possessed NN O O
explicit NN O O
and NN O O
implicit NN O O
racial NN O O
biases NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
those NN O O
biases NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
treatment NN O O
recommendations NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
biases NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
cooperativeness NN O O
of NN O O
blacks NN O O
versus NN O O
whites NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
influenced NN O O
treatment NN O O
decisions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24612915)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
recovery NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
from NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
after NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
recovery NN O O
profiles NN O O
from NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
inspired NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
stable NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
suitable NN O O
conditions NN O O
for NN O O
operation 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
, NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
2 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsions NN O I-INT
or NN O O
0.9 NN O O
% NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
eye NN O O
opening NN O O
, NN O O
extubation NN O O
and NN O O
exit NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
room NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exit NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
emulsion NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O O
group NN O O
[ NN O O
15.5 NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
9.0 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
20.0 NN O O
( NN O O
10.0 NN O O
) NN O O
min. NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
; NN O O
19.5 NN O O
( NN O O
8.3 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
23.6 NN O O
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
) NN O O
min. NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
noticeable NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
emulsion NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
drowsiness NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
score 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
Observer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Alertness/Sedation NN O I-OUT
score 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
Mini-Mental NN O I-OUT
State NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Modified NN O I-OUT
Aldrete NN O I-OUT
Post NN O I-OUT
Anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
Recovery NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
intravenous NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
emulsion NN O I-INT
may NN O O
effectively NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
quality NN O O
from NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24626980)

Short-term NN O O
speech-language NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
any NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Functional NN O O
Communicative NN O O
Profile NN O O
( NN O O
FCP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
Performance NN O O
( NN O O
SCP NN O O
) NN O O
of 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
based NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
short NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
diagnoses NN O I-PAR
, 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
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
short-term NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
mother NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
speech-language NN O I-INT
pathologists NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
part NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
graduate NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Samples NN O O
of NN O O
15-minute NN O O
interaction NN O O
sessions NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
and NN O O
speech-language NN O O
pathologist NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FCP NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
SCP NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistic NN O O
analysis NN O O
pointed NN O O
out NN O O
differences NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
space NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mediating NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
With NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
sessions NN O O
structured NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
FCP NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SCP NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
point NN O O
out NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
new NN O O
research NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24628747)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O O
versus NN O O
codeine/acetaminophen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
extremity NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Vicodin NN O O
[ NN O O
5/500 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
provides NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
analgesia NN O O
than NN O O
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Tylenol NN O O
# NN O O
3 NN O O
[ NN O O
30/300 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
Drug NN O O
Enforcement NN O O
Administration NN O O
( NN O O
DEA NN O O
) NN O O
Schedule NN O O
III NN O O
narcotics NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
extremity NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ED NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
3-day NN O O
supply NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
valid NN O O
and NN O O
reproducible NN O O
verbal NN O O
numeric NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
NRS NN O O
) NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
contacted NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
approximately NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
being NN O O
discharged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
recent NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
phone NN O O
contact NN O O
after NN O O
ED NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
compared NN O O
side-effect NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
26 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
to NN O O
39 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
NRS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
recent NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
medication NN O O
after NN O O
ED NN O O
discharge NN O O
was NN O O
7.6 NN O O
NRS NN O O
units NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
medications NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
were NN O O
3.9 NN O O
NRS NN O O
units NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
3.5 NN O O
NRS NN O O
units NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
0.4 NN O O
NRS NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
to NN O O
1.2 NN O O
NRS NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
medications NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
NRS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
approximately NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
clinically NN O O
or NN O O
statistically NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
when NN O O
prescribed NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
discharged NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
ED NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
extremity NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
or NN O O
statistically NN O O
important NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
side-effect NN O O
profiles NN O O
or NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
DEA NN O O
reclassifies NN O O
hydrocodone NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
Schedule NN O O
II NN O O
narcotic NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
recently NN O O
recommended NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
advisory NN O O
board NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
codeine/acetaminophen NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
reasonable NN O O
Schedule NN O O
III NN O O
substitute NN O O
for NN O O
hydrocodone/acetaminophen NN O O
at NN O O
ED NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
tentative NN O O
and NN O O
require NN O O
independent NN O O
validation NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
acute NN O O
pain NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24630545)

A NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
assessing NN O O
conservative NN O O
management NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
frozen NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
nonoperative NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
frozen NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
assesses NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
current NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
referrals NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
frozen NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
physiotherapy NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-month NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
referrals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
frozen NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
75 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
1 NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
single NN O O
independent NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
made NN O O
all NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Constant NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Oxford NN O I-OUT
Shoulder NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
36 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HADS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
exercise NN O O
class NN O O
group NN O O
improved NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
Constant NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
39.8 NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
71.4 NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
88.1 NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
shoulder NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
Oxford NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Constant NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
physiotherapy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
exercises NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
motion NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
physiotherapy NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
exercises NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HADS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment 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
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
HADS NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
home NN O O
exercises NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
hospital-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
class NN O I-INT
can NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
frozen NN O I-PAR
shoulder NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
visits NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
individual NN O O
physiotherapy NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
home NN O O
exercise NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24634631)

Postoperative NN O O
sleep NN O I-PAR
disturbances NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
zolpidem NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
fast-track NN O O
hip NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
pronounced NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
REM NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
nights NN O O
following NN O O
major NN O O
surgery NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
zolpidem NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sleep NN O O
architecture NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
fast-track NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
THA/TKA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stay NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty 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
undergoing NN O I-PAR
THA NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
TKA NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-PAR
setup NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
multimodal NN O I-PAR
opioid-sparing NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Polysomnography NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
nights NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
night NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
night NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zolpidem NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-OUT
Analgesic NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
data NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
American NN O I-OUT
Academy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Medicine NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Objective NN O O
sleep NN O O
data NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O O
stages NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
zolpidem NN O I-INT
group 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
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
objectively NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arousals NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
objective NN O O
data NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
one NN O O
night NN O O
's NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O I-INT
zolpidem NN O I-INT
would NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
sleep NN O O
architecture NN O O
following NN O O
major NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
postoperative NN O O
arousals NN O O
. NN O O

CITATION NN O O
Krenk NN O O
L NN O O
; NN O O
Jennum NN O O
P NN O O
; NN O O
Kehlet NN O O
H. NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
sleep NN O O
disturbances NN O O
after NN O O
zolpidem NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
fast-track NN O O
hip NN O O
and NN O O
knee NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24635039)

Brief NN O O
acceptance-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
intake NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Intake NN O O
no-show NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
vary NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
Swenson NN O O
& NN O O
Pekarik NN O O
, NN O O
1988 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
experiential NN O O
avoidance NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
attend NN O O
intake NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
intake NN O O
attendance NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
employing NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
experiential NN O O
acceptance-based NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
intakes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
orientation NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
acceptance-enhanced NN O I-INT
orientation NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
rates NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
retrospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
by NN O O
way NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
online NN O O
random NN O O
number NN O O
generator NN O O
. NN O O

Persons NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
orientation NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
show NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
persons NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
?48 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
?52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Persons NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
acceptance NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
did NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
show NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
persons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
?67 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
?48 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
?52 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
brief NN O O
acceptance-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
studied NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
potential NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
maximizing NN O O
client NN O O
attendance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24635110)

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy-induced NN O O
trismus NN O O
- NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Radiotherapy-induced NN O O
trismus NN O O
( NN O O
RTIT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
debilitating NN O O
condition NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
proven NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
RTIT NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
also NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
RTIT NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TheraBite NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Jaw NN O I-INT
Motion NN O I-INT
Rehabilitation NN O I-INT
System NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Maximum NN O I-OUT
interincisal NN O I-OUT
openings NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MIO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

Training NN O O
frequency NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
log NN O O
book NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
MIO NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
maintained NN O O
their NN O O
normal NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
MIO NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
MIO NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
week NN O O
6 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
MIO NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
MIO NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
month NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
2.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.040 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
3D NN O O
conformal NN O O
radiotherapy 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
MIO NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
RT NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
burdened NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intense NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
training NN O O
programme NN O O
during NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

MIO NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completed NN O O
RT NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
exception NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
need NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24637998)

Omitting NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
positron NN O I-PAR
emission NN O I-PAR
tomography-negative NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
relapse NN O O
: NN O O
Clinical NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preplanned NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
EORTC/LYSA/FIL NN O O
H10 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Combined-modality NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
positron NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
scan NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
adapt NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
started NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
EORTC/LYSA/FIL NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
H10 NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
whether NN O O
involved-node NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IN-RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
omitted NN O O
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
attaining NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
PET NN O I-PAR
scan NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ABVD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O O
combined-modality NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
HL NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Here NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preplanned NN O O
interim NN O O
futility NN O O
analysis NN O O
scheduled NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
after NN O O
documentation NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
PET-negative NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
testing NN O O
for NN O O
futility NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
trial NN O O
corresponds NN O O
to NN O O
testing NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
one-sided NN O O
superiority NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
1,137 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
favorable NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
85.8 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
early NN O O
PET NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
event NN O O
v NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
74.8 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
early NN O O
PET NN O I-INT
scan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
seven NN O O
events NN O O
v NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
independent NN O O
data NN O O
monitoring NN O O
committee NN O O
concluded NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
unlikely NN O O
that NN O O
we NN O O
would NN O O
show NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
advised NN O O
stopping NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
PET-negative NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
combined-modality NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
early NN O O
progressions NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
I/II NN O I-OUT
HL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
early NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
reveal NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
is NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24641638)

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obstetric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
accidental NN O I-PAR
dural NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
obstetric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
experiencing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
post-dural NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
headache NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
accidental NN O I-PAR
dural NN O I-PAR
puncture NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
establishment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
or NN O O
conservative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
required NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
group NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
post-dural NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
blood NN O O
patch NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
36 NN O O
( NN O O
73.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
patch NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
10.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
patch NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
post-dural NN O O
puncture NN O O
headache NN O O
in NN O O
obstetric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24652860)

Aerobic NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
older NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AT NN O O
-- NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
-80 NN O O
% NN O O
HR NN O O
reserve NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RT NN O O
-- NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
1RM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
had NN O O
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Training NN O O
groups NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
stair NN O I-OUT
ascent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
8-ft NN O I-OUT
up-and-go NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sit-to-stand NN O I-OUT
five-times NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PCS NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
? NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

AT NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
6MWT NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
stair NN O O
ascent NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bodily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
? NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
handgrip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MH NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-INT
AT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
functionality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
PCS NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
older NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24656872)

Factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fruits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
socio-economic NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fruits NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
basic NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Porto NN O I-PAR
Alegre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
RS NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Brazil NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
nested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
field NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
collection NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
through NN O O
structured NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
24-hour NN O O
recalls NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
12-16 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
again NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
2-3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
serving NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fruits NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
80 NN O I-OUT
g NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
g NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
non-recommended NN O I-OUT
foods NN O I-OUT
such NN O O
as NN O O
candy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chocolate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
soft NN O I-INT
drinks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
Poisson NN O O
regression NN O O
with NN O O
robust NN O O
estimation 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
388 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2-3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
87.4 NN O O
% NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
consume NN O O
one NN O O
daily NN O O
serving NN O O
of NN O O
fruits NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fruit NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
income NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
four NN O I-OUT
minimum NN O I-OUT
wages NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
paternal NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12-16 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
paternal NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.033 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high-sugar NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
beverages NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12-16 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
consumed NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
daily NN O O
serving NN O O
of NN O O
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetables NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
early NN O I-OUT
feeding NN O I-OUT
practices NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
income NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24658964)

Older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
profit NN O I-PAR
more NN O O
from NN O O
higher NN O I-INT
imatinib NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
than NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subanalysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
CML-Study NN O O
IV NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
on NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
German NN O O
CML-Study NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
five-arm NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
optimization NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
BCR-ABL-positive NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
imatinib NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IM400 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
imatinib NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IM800 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
?65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
regarding NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
full NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
imatinib NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
could NN O O
then NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
tolerability NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
828 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IM400 NN O O
or NN O O
IM800 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IM400 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
382 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
IM800 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
402 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
IM400 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
IM800 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
?65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
?65 NN O O
years NN O O
on NN O O
IM800 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
median NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
466 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
?65 NN O O
years NN O O
vs. NN O O
630 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
< NN O O
65 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Older NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
IM800 NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
molecular NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
molecular NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
fast NN O O
as NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
dose NN O O
imatinib NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
younger NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Five-year NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00055874 NN O O


-DOCSTART- (24660272)

Custom NN O O
tray NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
scaling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Scaling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
root NN O I-INT
planing NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SRP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
non-surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
periodontitis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
various NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
therapies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
procedure NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
using NN O O
customized NN O O
trays NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
An NN O O
examiner-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O O
prescription NN O O
custom-tray NN O O
application NN O O
( NN O O
Perio NN O O
Tray NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
1.7 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Perio NN O I-INT
Gel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
extended NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
impressions NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
brushed NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
toothbrush NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
acclimation NN O O
phase NN O O
to NN O O
standardize NN O O
oral NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
while NN O O
trays NN O O
were NN O O
fabricated NN O O
) NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
initiating NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

SRP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
three NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
pocket NN O I-OUT
probing NN O I-OUT
depth NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
applications NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
and NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
three-month NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
10 NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
finished NN O O
the NN O O
three-month NN O O
extension NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
use NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
0.21 NN O O
mm NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
BI NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
dropped NN O O
by NN O O
0.14 NN O O
; NN O O
clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
weeks NN O O
following NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
0.65 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.17 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
BI NN O O
significantly NN O O
dropped NN O O
by NN O O
0.17 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
following NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O O
were NN O O
0.77 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.13 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
BI NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
0.14 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.00 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
three-month NN O O
extension NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-SRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O O
were NN O O
0.72 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.13 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
BI NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
deeper NN O O
pockets NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
> NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
relationship NN O O
for NN O O
PPD NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
use NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
0.48 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
0.04 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
1.40 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.60 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
SRP NN O O
by NN O O
1.57 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.58 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
extension NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-SRP NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
1.50 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.55 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
BI NN O O
at NN O O
23 NN O O
weeks NN O O
post-SRP NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
reductions NN O O
cited NN O O
above NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
PPD NN O O
and NN O O
BI NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
PPD NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
-1.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
for NN O O
pockets NN O O
> NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
SRP NN O I-INT
with NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
locally NN O O
administered NN O O
using NN O O
prescription NN O O
customized NN O O
trays NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
periodontitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24661050)

Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
vortices NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
vector NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
mapping NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
main NN O O
determinants NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
filling NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Swirling NN O O
flow NN O O
, NN O O
organized NN O O
in NN O O
vortices NN O O
, NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
adequate NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
apply NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
echocardiographic NN O I-INT
flow-mapping NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vector NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
mapping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VFM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
vortices NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
filling NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
transthoracic NN O I-INT
echocardiographic NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
intracardiac NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
VFM NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Aloka NN O I-INT
Alpha-10 NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
VFM NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
vortex NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
its NN O O
rotation NN O O
direction NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
location NN O O
inside NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
, NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
apical NN O O
long-axis NN O O
view NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
filling NN O O
parameters NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
vortex NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
identified NN O O
following NN O O
each NN O O
transmitral NN O O
filling NN O O
wave NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
anterior NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
visualized NN O I-OUT
vortices NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
higher NN O O
significance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
early NN O O
filling NN O O
( NN O O
V1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
atrial NN O O
contraction NN O O
( NN O O
V2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
vortex NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
V1 NN O O
and NN O O
V2 NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
filling NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
varying NN O O
roles NN O O
of NN O O
vortices NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
different NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vector NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
mapping NN O I-INT
allowed NN O O
visualization NN O O
and NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
parameters NN O O
defining NN O O
vortex NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
inside NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
between NN O O
vortices NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
phases NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cardiac NN O O
cycle NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
optimizing NN O O
cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24662027)

Pegylated NN O I-INT
feline NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
cats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Neutropenia NN O O
can NN O O
often NN O O
be NN O O
corrected NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
granulocyte-colony NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
off-label NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
commercial NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HuG-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
animals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
HuG-CSF NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Here NN O O
, NN O O
feline NN O O
( NN O O
Fe NN O O
) NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
produced NN O O
in NN O O
Pichia NN O O
pastoris NN O O
, NN O O
pegylated NN O O
( NN O O
Peg NN O O
) NN O O
FeG-CSF NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
cats NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial 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
of NN O O
PegFeG-CSF NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
FeG-CSF NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
HuG-CSF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
FIV-infected NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
FIV-uninfected NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=19 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HuG-CSF-induced NN O I-PAR
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Daily NN O O
FeG-CSF NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
induced NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
HuG-CSF NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weekly NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
PegFeG-CSF NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
FeG-CSF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PegFeG-CSF NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
the NN O O
most NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
and NN O O
sustainable NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
FIV-uninfected NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
FIV-infected NN O I-PAR
cats NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O I-INT
HuG-CSF-treated NN O I-INT
cats NN O I-INT
developed NN O I-OUT
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suggesting NN O O
cross-reactive NN O O
antibodies NN O O
to NN O O
endogenous NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
severe NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
. NN O O

Strikingly NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O I-INT
PegFeG-CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O O
to NN O O
rescue NN O O
cats NN O O
with NN O I-INT
HuG-CSF-induced NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
returned NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Thus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PegFeG-CSF NN O I-INT
appears NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
in NN O O
feline NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24662947)

Multicenter NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
endostatin NN O I-INT
adenovirus NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial 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 I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
endostatin NN O I-INT
adenovirus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E10A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
operation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
E10A NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-six NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
E10A NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
29.9 NN O O
versus NN O O
39.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.154 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
endostatin NN O O
had NN O O
longer NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.03 NN O O
versus NN O O
3.60 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
: NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
E10A NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
benefited NN O O
prior NN O O
chemotherapy-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycles NN O O
( NN O O
6.50 NN O O
versus NN O O
3.43 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
; NN O O
8.27 NN O O
versus NN O O
4.27 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
; NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
80.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
92.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
E10A NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
E10A NN O O
plus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
approach NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24666361)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
topical NN O O
tretinoin NN O I-INT
cream NN O O
0?1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
Topical NN O I-PAR
Tretinoin NN O I-PAR
Chemoprevention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Topical NN O I-INT
tretinoin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
prescribed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
frequent NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
barriers NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O O
or NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
retinoid NN O O
irritation NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
baseline NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
This NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
324 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
Topical NN O I-PAR
Tretinoin NN O I-PAR
Chemoprevention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
apply NN O I-INT
tretinoin NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ears NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
local NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
One NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
ninety-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
) NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
photodamage NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
[ NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
0?15 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0?04-0?54 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OR NN O I-OUT
0?46 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?27-0?77 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tretinoin NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
topical NN O O
medications NN O O
at NN O O
enrolment NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1?88 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?15-3?08 NN O O
) NN O O
predicted NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
indications NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
concurrent NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
topical NN O O
medications NN O O
may NN O O
worsen NN O O
irritation NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
tretinoin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24673076)

[ NN O I-INT
Encephalopathy NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
tongue NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
apparatus NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ETTAA NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
encephalopathy NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
tongue NN O I-INT
acupoint NN O I-INT
apparatus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ETTAA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighty-four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tongue NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
behavior NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
sensory NN O O
integration NN O O
training NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ETTAA NN O O
was NN O O
added NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
apparatus NN O O
was NN O O
switched NN O O
on NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
every NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
childhood NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CARS NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
42.39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.86 NN O O
vs NN O O
32.15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.12 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
44.58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.76 NN O O
vs NN O O
39.72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.11 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
totally NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
[ NN O O
90.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
38/42 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
[ NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28/42 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
tongue NN O I-INT
acupuncture NN O I-INT
group NN O O
is NN O O
apparently NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
ETTAA NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
training NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
curative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24675775)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
eggs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
egg-yolk NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-OUT
lutein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
macular NN O O
pigment NN O O
optical NN O O
density NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Increasing NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lutein NN O O
and NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
lutein NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
eggs NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lutein NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
egg-yolk NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
buttermilk NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lutein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
macular NN O O
pigment NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Naturally NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
eggs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
made NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
xanthophylls NN O O
lutein NN O O
and NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
feed NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
laying NN O O
hens NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
one NN O O
added NN O O
one NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
egg NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lutein NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
egg-yolk NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
three NN O O
added NN O O
one NN O I-INT
lutein NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
egg NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
egg NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
five NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
individuals NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
modify NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
lutein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
macular NN O I-OUT
pigment NN O I-OUT
densities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
day NN O O
45 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O

Macular NN O I-OUT
pigment NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
heterochromatic NN O O
flicker NN O O
photometry NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
lutein NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lutein NN O O
enriched NN O O
egg NN O O
and NN O O
egg NN O O
yolk-based NN O O
beverage NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
strong NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
receiving NN O O
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
eggs NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
430 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
macular NN O I-OUT
pigment NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
groups NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
daily NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
lutein NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zeaxanthin NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
egg NN O I-INT
yolks NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
egg NN O I-INT
yolk-based NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
show NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
lutein NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zeaxanthin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
supplements NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT00527553 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24679061)

Clonidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Marked NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
occurs NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low-dose NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
blunts NN O O
central NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
outflow NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
inducing NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
instability NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-by-2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
separate NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
atherosclerotic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
10,010 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
135 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
just NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
continued NN O O
until NN O O
72 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clonidine NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
primary-outcome NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
367 NN O O
and NN O O
339 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
with NN O O
clonidine NN O O
, NN O O
1.08 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.93 NN O O
to NN O O
1.26 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
329 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
clonidine NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
295 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.11 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.95 NN O O
to NN O O
1.30 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2385 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
47.6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
1854 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
37.1 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.32 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.24 NN O O
to NN O O
1.40 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
3.20 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.17 NN O O
to NN O O
8.73 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
clonidine NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
noncardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
it NN O O
did NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Institutes NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
others NN O O
; NN O O
POISE-2 NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01082874 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24682707)

Interview NN O O
skills NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interview NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
manualized NN O O
12-week NN O O
group-delivered NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
intervention NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
social-pragmatic NN O O
skills NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
job NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18-36 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
ISC NN O I-INT
or NN O O
waitlist NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
larger NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
social-pragmatic NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
mock NN O O
job NN O O
interview NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
distal NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
were NN O O
medium/large NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
treatment NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
job-interview NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24684165)

Triple NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
solar NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
investigator-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Post-inflammatory NN O O
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
concern NN O O
when NN O O
treating NN O O
solar NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fluocinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
hydroquinone NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
tretinoin NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
to NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
solar NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hands NN O O
dorsum NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
post-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
investigator-blinded NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single-centre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sunscreen NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
sunscreen NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
recovery NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Melanin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
lentigo NN O O
were NN O O
objectively NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
narrowband NN O O
reflectance NN O O
spectrophotometer NN O O
. NN O O

Lentigines NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
colour NN O I-OUT
homogeneity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
solar NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
combination NN O O
25 NN O O
? NN O O
7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
22 NN O O
? NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduced 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
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
melanin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
combination NN O O
297 NN O O
? NN O O
69 NN O O
vs. NN O O
273 NN O O
? NN O O
66 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
reduced 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
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
blisters NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
cryotherapy NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Triple NN O O
combination NN O O
cream NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
solar NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
melanin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lentigines NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
neither NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
cryotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24684867)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
single-incision NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
3-port NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
appendicitis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Proponents NN O O
of NN O O
single-incision NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SILS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
claim NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
faster NN O O
recovery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
long-term NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
multiport NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparisons NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
SILS NN O I-INT
or NN O O
3-port NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
appendicitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
SILS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
3-port NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
opiate NN O O
usage NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
score NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
conversions NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
opiate NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cosmetic NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
halted NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
interim NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
SILS NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pain NN O O
score NN O O
: NN O O
4.4 NN O O
? NN O O
1.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.5 NN O O
? NN O O
1.5 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
higher NN O I-OUT
inpatient NN O I-OUT
opiate NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hydromorphone NN O O
use NN O O
: NN O O
3.9 NN O O
? NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
vs NN O O
2.8 NN O O
? NN O O
1.7 NN O O
mg 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
3-port NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
SILS NN O I-INT
averaged NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
% NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
? NN O O
17 NN O O
minutes NN O O
vs NN O O
38 NN O O
? NN O O
11 NN O O
minutes NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
1 NN O O
SILS NN O I-OUT
case NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
converted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3-port NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O I-INT
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
usage NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
image NN O O
and NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
were NN O O
excellent NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
by NN O O
most NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3-port NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
better NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
attractiveness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4.0 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.4 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
SILS NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
score NN O O
18.4 NN O O
? NN O O
2.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
16.4 NN O O
? NN O O
3.0 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
SD NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Single-incision NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
appendectomy NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
more NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
longer NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
improving NN O O
short-term NN O O
recovery NN O O
or NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
body NN O O
image NN O O
and NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
appearance NN O O
were NN O O
excellent NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24685085)

[ NN O O
Prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
graduated NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
in NN O O
post-operative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMWH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
graduated NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GCS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
GCS NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VTE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
post-operative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gynecologic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
institute NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
LMWH+GCS NN O I-INT
or NN O O
GCS NN O I-INT
as NN O O
VTE NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Altogether NN O I-PAR
247 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VTE NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
GCS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
GCS NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
% NN O O
Vs. NN O O
8.1 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
dehiscence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable 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

Multivariable NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
age NN O O
over NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
VTE NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Dual NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GCS NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
major NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
better NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
GCS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
LMWH NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
convenient NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
operation NN O O
time NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
highest NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
VTE NN O I-OUT
post-operatively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24687182)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
inference NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ACT NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Check NN O I-INT
Strategy NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
inference NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metacognitive NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
inference NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HF-ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HF-ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
1-hr NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
explicit NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inference NN O I-INT
generation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
categories NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferences NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
increasingly NN O I-INT
independent NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inference NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metacognitive NN O I-OUT
ability 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

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
comprehension NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
inference NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ACT NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Check NN O I-INT
Strategy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
participants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
generate NN O I-OUT
inferences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
reading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
certain NN O I-OUT
metacognitive NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
skills NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
generalize NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
contexts NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
inference NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
research NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
explicitly NN O O
teaching NN O O
inference NN O O
generation NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
a NN O O
reading NN O I-OUT
inference NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HF-ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2468745)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
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
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
breast 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
chemotherapeutic NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
advanced 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
14 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
or NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Enrollment NN O O
was NN O O
closed NN O O
on NN O O
October NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
1984 NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
165 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
160 NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
20.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
151 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
126 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.16 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
70 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
104 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
initially NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
273 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
268 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
responses NN O O
among NN O O
77 NN O O
patients NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
after NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
dose-limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
doxorubicin 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

Severe NN O O
alopecia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
61.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
life-table NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cardiac NN O O
event NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
cardiotoxicity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
active NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
it NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
marginally NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
mitoxantrone NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
standard NN O O
drugs NN O O
to NN O O
palliate NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
settings NN O O
where NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
consideration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24689172)

Safety NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
use NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
ring-necked NN O I-PAR
pheasants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Phasianus NN O I-PAR
colchicus NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Coccidiosis NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
threat NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
welfare NN O O
of NN O O
game NN O I-PAR
farm-reared NN O I-PAR
pheasants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
against NN O O
pheasant NN O O
specific NN O O
coccidia NN O O
, NN O O
information NN O O
regarding NN O O
its NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
species NN O O
is NN O O
lacking 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
gather NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
when NN O O
fed NN O O
to NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
ring-necked NN O I-PAR
pheasants NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
coccidiosis NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
poultry NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Pheasant NN O I-PAR
chicks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
approximately NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
day-old NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
blocked NN O O
by NN O O
sex NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
given NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
diets NN O O
continuously NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
wk 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
overall NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
pathology NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
gross NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histopathologic NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
lasalocid NN O I-INT
fed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
125 NN O O
ppm NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
ring-necked NN O I-PAR
pheasants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24691455)

A NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
positive-pressure NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation 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
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
ventilator NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-INT
positive-pressure NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NIPPV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
critical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
mini-ventilator NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
NIPPV NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
between NN O O
three NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
ventilated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
mini-ventilator NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
were NN O O
ventilated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O I-INT
critical NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
ventilator NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
settings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
mechanical NN O O
ventilation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
underwent NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
C NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
58.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALI NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
NIPPV NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
critical NN O O
care NN O O
ventilator NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
mini-ventilator NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24694748)

Cobedding NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
twin NN O I-INT
premature NN O I-INT
infants NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
calming NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
cobedding NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
preterm NN O I-INT
twins NN O I-INT
has NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
heel NN O O
lancing NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
twins NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
sets NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
heel NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
sampling NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
cobedding NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
incubator NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
separate NN O I-INT
incubators NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
heel NN O O
blood NN O O
sampling NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
heel NN O O
blood NN O O
sampling NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Infants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O O
cried NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
heel NN O O
lancing NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cobedding NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
42.6 NN O O
? NN O O
19.8 NN O O
seconds NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.4 NN O O
? NN O O
21.7 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
heel NN O O
lancing NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9.8 NN O O
? NN O O
2.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
8.06 NN O O
? NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
heel NN O O
lancing NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
24.3 NN O O
? NN O O
7.4 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
vs. NN O O
20.8 NN O O
? NN O O
7.4 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
with NN O I-INT
cobedding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Cobedding NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
comforting NN O O
measure NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
twin NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
heel NN O O
lancing NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24694924)

An NN O O
oxytocin-induced NN O O
facilitation NN O O
of NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
touch NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O O
inversely NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Social NN O O
communication NN O O
through NN O O
touch NN O O
and NN O O
mutual NN O O
grooming NN O O
can NN O O
convey NN O O
highly NN O O
salient NN O O
socio-emotional NN O O
signals NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
involve NN O O
the NN O O
neuropeptide NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
OXT NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
species NN O O
. NN O O

Less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
modulatory NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
OXT NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
human NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
touch NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PLC NN O O
) NN O O
-controlled NN O O
within-subject NN O O
pharmaco-functional NN O O
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fMRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
intranasal NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
synthetic NN O I-INT
OXT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
IU NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
facilitate NN O O
both NN O O
neural NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
touch NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
context- NN O O
( NN O O
female NN O O
vs NN O O
male NN O O
touch NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
trait- NN O O
( NN O O
autistic NN O O
trait NN O O
load NN O O
) NN O O
specific NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
rationale NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
manipulate NN O O
the NN O O
reward NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
touch NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
actual NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
stimulation NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
heterosexual NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
believed NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
touched NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
woman NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
although NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
fact NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
identical NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
touch NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
always NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
experimenter NN O I-PAR
blind NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
OXT NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
pleasantness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
female NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
male NN O I-OUT
touch NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
insula NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
precuneus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
orbitofrontal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregenual NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
cingulate NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
OXT NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
autistic-like NN O O
traits NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
together 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
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
perceived NN O O
hedonic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
heterosexual NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
touch NN O O
is NN O O
facilitated NN O O
by NN O O
OXT NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
its NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
context NN O O
are NN O O
blunted NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
traits NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24710131)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
10-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
randomised 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
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
early NN O O
low-dose NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
use 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
on NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Retrieval NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
open NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
disease-modifying NN O I-INT
antirheumatic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMARDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
DMARD NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
since NN O O
inclusion NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
studied NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Secondary NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
; NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
223 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CV NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
incident NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
Swedish NN O O
Hospital NN O O
Discharge NN O O
and NN O O
Cause NN O O
of NN O O
Death NN O O
Registries NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
Composite NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Relative NN O I-OUT
HRs NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional-hazards NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
models NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Within NN O O
2041 NN O O
person-years NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
incident NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
112 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
events NN O O
of NN O O
111 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
nine NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
age-adjusted NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
hazards NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HRs NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
not NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
1.8 NN O O
( NN O O
0.9 NN O O
to NN O O
3.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.98 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
to NN O O
2.6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
3.7-fold NN O O
increased NN O O
relative NN O O
hazard NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
11.4 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
inception NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
use NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
RA NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prednisolone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ISRCTN20612367 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24713181)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O I-INT
mass NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemiparetic NN O O
gait NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
body NN O I-INT
mass NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BMI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
spatiotemporal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
kinematic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kinetic NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O O
12-week NN O O
ambulation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Academic NN O O
medical NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Chronic NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Linear NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BMI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
selected NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
gait NN O I-INT
parameters NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
quantitative NN O I-INT
gait NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Spatiotemporal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
kinematic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kinetic NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
that NN O O
controlled NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
stroke NN O O
type NN O O
( NN O O
ischemic NN O O
versus NN O O
hemorrhagic NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
interval NN O O
poststroke NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
impairment NN O O
( NN O O
Fugl-Meyer NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
walking NN O O
speed NN O O
found NN O O
BMI NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
step NN O O
width NN O O
( NN O O
m NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.364 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
positively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
abduction NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nonparetic NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
stance NN O O
( NN O O
deg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.177 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.040 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
initial NN O O
contact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
paretic NN O O
limb NN O O
( NN O O
deg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-0.222 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.023 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
push-off NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
W/kg NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
paretic NN O O
limb NN O O
( NN O O
W/kg NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
-0.142 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
When NN O O
walking NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
speed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
step NN O I-OUT
width NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
hiking NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
paretic NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
paretic NN O I-OUT
limb NN O I-OUT
dorsiflexion NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
paretic NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
push-off NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
stroke NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
BMI NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
gait NN O O
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
BMIs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24713222)

Hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
catheter NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
catheter NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
tunneled NN O I-INT
cuffed NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
thrombus-related NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Specific NN O O
mechanical NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
tunneled NN O I-INT
cuffed NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
decrease NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
and NN O O
infection NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
currently NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
proven NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
design NN O O
over NN O O
another NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Single-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
302 NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tunneled NN O I-INT
cuffed NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
temporary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Palindrome NN O I-INT
Symmetric NN O I-INT
Tip NN O I-INT
Dialysis NN O I-INT
Catheter NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
HemoStar NN O I-INT
Long-Term NN O I-INT
Hemodialysis NN O I-INT
Catheter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOMES NN O O
& NN O O
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
assisted NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
bloodstream NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRBSIs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rheologic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urokinase NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
assisted NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
135.9 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
Palindrome NN O O
and NN O O
136.5 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
HemoStar NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Definite NN O O
CRBSI NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
0.24 NN O O
and NN O O
0.10/1,000 NN O O
catheter-days NN O O
for NN O O
Palindrome NN O O
and NN O O
HemoStar NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Removal NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
resolved NN O O
with NN O O
thrombolysis NN O O
were NN O O
0.53 NN O O
and NN O O
0.43/1,000 NN O O
catheter-days NN O O
for NN O O
Palindrome NN O O
and NN O O
HemoStar NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Urokinase NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
Palindrome NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
HemoStar NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
urokinase NN O I-OUT
infusions/1,000 NN O I-OUT
catheter-days NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
35 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
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
catheters NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
never NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
Palindrome NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
HemoStar NN O O
( NN O O
333 NN O O
and NN O O
304mL/min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Single-center NN O O
nonblinded NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Primary NN O I-OUT
assisted NN O I-OUT
patency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
catheter NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Palindrome NN O I-INT
catheter NN O O
required NN O O
less NN O O
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
achieved NN O O
higher NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
HemoStar NN O I-INT
catheter NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
mechanical NN O O
catheter NN O O
design NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
catheter NN O O
rheology NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
risks NN O O
for NN O O
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hence NN O O
catheter NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24716586)

Application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Itch NN O O
Severity NN O O
Score NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
plaque NN O I-PAR
psoriasis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Clinically NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
and NN O O
responder NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Itch NN O O
Severity NN O O
Score NN O O
( NN O O
ISS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
0-10 NN O O
numeric NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
pruritus NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
psoriasis NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
b NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
oral NN O O
Janus NN O O
kinase NN O O
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
197 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
plaque NN O I-PAR
psoriasis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
ISS NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
daily NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
good NN O O
and NN O O
recommended NN O O
research NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
analyses NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
CID NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
or NN O O
within-group NN O O
difference NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
CIR NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
within-patient NN O O
change NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ISS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CID NN O O
and NN O O
CIR NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psoriasis NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
anchor NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
CID NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ISS NN O O
was NN O O
1.64 NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ISS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
placebo-adjusted NN O O
) NN O O
exceeded NN O O
CID NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
CIR NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ISS NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
87.2 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
reached NN O I-INT
?30 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O O
versus NN O O
29.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CID NN O O
and NN O O
CIR NN O O
analyses NN O O
play NN O O
vital NN O O
roles NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ISS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24716680)

Spironolactone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
with NN O O
preserved NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Mineralocorticoid-receptor NN O O
antagonists NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
spironolactone 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
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assigned NN O O
3445 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
spironolactone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aborted NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
With NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
3.3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
320 NN O O
of NN O O
1722 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
18.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
351 NN O O
of NN O O
1723 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
20.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.89 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.77 NN O O
to NN O O
1.04 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spironolactone 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
206 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
12.0 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
245 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
14.2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.83 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.69 NN O O
to NN O O
0.99 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
reason NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
doubling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperkalemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
reduced NN O O
hypokalemia NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
frequent NN O O
monitoring NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
3.0 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
deciliter NN O O
( NN O O
265 NN O O
?mol NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
higher NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
dialysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preserved NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
with NN O I-INT
spironolactone NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
causes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aborted NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
arrest NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Heart NN O O
, NN O O
Lung NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Blood NN O O
Institute NN O O
; NN O O
TOPCAT NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00094302 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24722560)

Cytokine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
Saccharomyces NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diarrhea-dominant NN O O
irritable NN O O
bowel NN O O
syndrome NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
This NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
Saccharomyces NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
on NN O O
proinflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
cytokines NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diarrhea-dominant NN O I-PAR
irritable NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IBS-D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
other NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
document NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
as NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
histology NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
750 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
IBS-D NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ispaghula NN O I-INT
husk NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
factor-? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
IL-10/IL-12 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cytokines NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Bowel-related NN O I-OUT
IBS-D NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
diary NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
baseline NN O O
histological NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
infiltrates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.017 NN O O
and NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
epithelial NN O I-OUT
mitosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
intraepithelial NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.024 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
S. NN O I-INT
boulardii NN O I-INT
with NN O O
ispaghula NN O O
husk NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
with NN O O
ispaghula NN O O
husk NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
cytokine NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
histology NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IBS-D NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
well-powered NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24722763)

Directed NN O I-INT
forgetting NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rehearsal NN O O
strategies NN O O
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
demographically NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
strategically NN O O
manipulated NN O O
by NN O O
cueing NN O O
participants NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
learn NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
forget NN O I-INT
each NN O O
list NN O O
word NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
recognition NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
distinguish NN O O
between NN O O
autonoetic NN O O
and NN O O
noetic NN O O
states NN O O
of NN O O
awareness NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Remember/Know NN O O
paradigm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
recognised NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
to-be-forgotten NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
TD NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
to-be-learned NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
deficit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
evident NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Remember NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
reflect NN O O
autonoetic NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
episodic NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
Know NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
elaborative NN O O
encoding NN O O
deficit NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
link NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
previously NN O I-OUT
established NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
episodic NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
impairments NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
encoding NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
employed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24727325)

Association NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
let-7 NN O O
miRNA-complementary NN O O
site NN O O
variant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
' NN O O
untranslated NN O O
region NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS NN O O
gene NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NCCTG NN O I-PAR
N0147 NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
let-7 NN O O
microRNA-complementary NN O O
site NN O O
( NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
) NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
' NN O O
untranslated NN O O
region NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS NN O O
gene NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
disrupt NN O O
let-7 NN O O
binding NN O O
and NN O O
upregulate NN O O
KRAS NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
LCS6 NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
association NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
KRAS NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinicopathologic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NCCTG NN O I-PAR
N0147 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
EXPERIMENTAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
assayed NN O O
by NN O O
real-time NN O I-INT
PCR NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
extracted NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
2,834 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
paired NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
977 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
two-sample NN O O
t NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
baseline NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
KRAS NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
status NN O O
between NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
LCS6 NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Log-rank NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
models NN O O
assessed NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
DFS NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
identified NN O O
432 NN O O
( NN O O
15.2 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
143 NN O O
( NN O O
14.6 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
heterozygous NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
homozygous NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
LCS6 NN O I-OUT
G-allele NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2,402 NN O O
of NN O O
2,834 NN O O
( NN O O
84.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
and NN O O
834 NN O O
of NN O O
977 NN O O
( NN O O
85.4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
homozygous NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
LCS6 NN O I-OUT
T-allele NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Genotype NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highly NN O O
concordant NN O O
( NN O O
99.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
paired NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
tumor NN O O
tissue NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
977 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

G-allele NN O I-OUT
carriers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Caucasians NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
races NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
LCS6 NN O I-OUT
genotype NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
KRAS NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinicopathologic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
log-rank NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
; NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.929 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.76-1.14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
combining NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
genotype NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
KRAS NN O I-OUT
mutation NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
association NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
polymorphism NN O O
in NN O O
colon NN O O
cancers NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
germline NN O O
LCS6 NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
KRAS NN O O
mutation NN O O
status NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24730708)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
facial NN O O
scanning NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND 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
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
impairments NN O O
and NN O O
restricted NN O O
, NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
current NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
ASD NN O O
focus NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
agitation NN O O
and NN O O
obsessive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
agents NN O O
target NN O O
core NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
facial NN O O
scanning NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
reduced NN O O
eye NN O O
contact NN O O
or NN O O
increased NN O O
mouth NN O O
fixation NN O O
, NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
reports NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
elevated NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
impact NN O O
facial NN O O
scanning NN O O
patterns NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
intervention NN O O
via NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonselective NN O O
?-adrenergic NN O O
antagonist NN O O
and NN O O
known NN O O
anxiolytic NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
facial NN O O
scanning NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
wished NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
eye NN O O
contact NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mouth NN O O
fixation NN O O
with NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
sessions NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
counterbalanced NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
double-blinded NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
each NN O O
session NN O O
, NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
faces NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fixation NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
, NN O O
nose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mouth NN O O
regions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
stimuli NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
fixation NN O O
patterns NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differ NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
mouth NN O I-OUT
fixation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positively NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
communication NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASD NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
eye NN O O
fixation NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
appears NN O O
typical NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
mouth NN O O
fixation NN O O
suggests NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
focus NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
facial NN O O
scanning NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24732316)

The NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
and NN O O
miRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
in NN O O
RTOG NN O O
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
9708 NN O O
and NN O O
9905 NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
functional NN O O
germline NN O O
variant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3'-UTR NN O O
of NN O O
KRAS NN O O
with NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
microRNA NN O O
( NN O O
miRNA NN O O
) NN O O
signatures NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
prospective NN O O
RTOG NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/MATERIALS NN O O
The NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
with NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
case-control NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
467 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
582 NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
miRNA NN O O
and NN O O
DNA NN O O
were NN O O
isolated NN O O
for NN O O
expression NN O O
profiling NN O O
and NN O O
genotyping NN O O
from NN O O
tumor NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
9708 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9905. NN O I-PAR
miRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
genotype NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
tumor NN O O
characteristics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
variant NN O O
allele NN O O
type NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
type NN O O
1 NN O O
cancers NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
was NN O O
enriched NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancers NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
RTOG NN O O
9708/9905 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
miRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
differed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
lymphovascular NN O O
invasion NN O O
and NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
years NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
variant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
wild-type NN O I-PAR
alleles NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
100 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.3 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
variant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
genetic NN O O
marker NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
tumor NN O O
miRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
patient NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
lymphovascular NN O O
invasion NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
, NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
altered NN O O
tumor NN O O
biology NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
miRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
KRAS-variant NN O O
likely NN O O
impacts NN O O
endometrial NN O O
tumor NN O O
biology NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2474057)

LNH-84 NN O O
regimen NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
737 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1984 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
737 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LNH-84 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
comprising NN O O
three NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1,200 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
vindesine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACVB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consolidation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
asparaginase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
courses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cytarabine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
teniposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AraCVmB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
intermediate-grade NN O O
ML NN O O
, NN O O
221 NN O O
highgrade NN O O
ML NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
unclassified NN O O
ML NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
advanced NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
stage NN O O
IIE NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
disseminated NN O O
nodes NN O O
; NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
extranodal NN O O
sites NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
a NN O O
tumoral NN O O
mass NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
cm NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
hundred NN O O
fifty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
went NN O O
into NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
63 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
respond NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ACVB NN O O
courses NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
from NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
2-year NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
late NN O O
intensification NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
persistent NN O I-OUT
fibronecrotic NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
150 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mainly NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
ACVB NN O O
courses NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
dying NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-three NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.500 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
fever NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
grade NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
a NN O O
documented NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
grade NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
LNH-84 NN O O
regimen NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
scheme NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
aggressive NN O O
ML NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24740733)

Correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurophysiological NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
parotid NN O I-INT
gland NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
verification NN O O
of NN O O
facial NN O O
nerve NN O O
transmission NN O O
. NN O O

Parotid NN O O
gland NN O O
tumor NN O O
surgery NN O O
sometimes NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
facial NN O O
nerve NN O O
paralysis NN O O
. NN O O

Malignant NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
benign NN O O
tumors NN O O
determine NN O O
nerve NN O O
function NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
postoperative NN O O
observations NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
histological NN O O
and NN O O
neurophysiological NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
correlations NN O O
of NN O O
histological NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neurophysiological NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-operatively NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
included NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
House-Brackmann NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
H-B NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neurophysiological NN O I-OUT
diagnostics NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
electroneurography NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
ENG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compound NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mimetic NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
electromyography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blink-reflex NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mainly NN O O
grade NN O O
I NN O O
of NN O O
H-B NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
both NN O O
pre- NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.5-2.4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
lobes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medium NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2.5-3.4 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
lobes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
scored NN O O
at NN O O
grade NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
mainly NN O O
VI NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
. NN O O

CMAP NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
mandibular NN O O
marginal NN O O
branch NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
at NN O O
about NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O O
tumors NN O O
CMAPs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
recorded NN O O
following NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
branch NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
BR NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
H-B NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ENG NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
revealed NN O O
positive NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
facial NN O O
nerve NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Neurophysiological NN O O
studies NN O O
detected NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
silent NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mandibular NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
branch NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Needle NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ENG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BR NN O I-OUT
examinations NN O I-OUT
allow NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
muscles NN O I-OUT
reinnervation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
regeneration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2474103)

Moderate NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thiazide NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
some NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Homeostatic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin-aldosterone NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
counteract NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
restriction NN O O
. NN O O

Angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
are NN O O
also NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
sole NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
low-renin NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
blockade NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
renin NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
particularly NN O O
effective NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
thiazide NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
will NN O O
reduce NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
further NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24749259)

[ NN O I-INT
Dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
use NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adrenergic NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
trimeperidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
haemodynamics NN O O
and NN O O
vegetative NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
analgesia NN O O
and NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
vagotonia NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hypokinetic NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
haemodynamics NN O I-INT
( NN O O
second NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Richmond NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safer NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
trimeperidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
breathing NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
use NN O O
allows NN O O
keeping NN O O
optimal NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
haemodynamics NN O O
and NN O O
vegetative NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
parameters NN O O
on NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24752311)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
PAX4 NN O O
genetic NN O O
variants NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
antidiabetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
PAX4 NN O I-INT
variants NN O I-INT
with NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
antidiabetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabtes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
209 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
T2DM 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
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
repaglinide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
rosiglitazone NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
rs6467136 NN O O
GA+AA NN O O
carriers NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
2-h NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0063 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
cumulative NN O O
attainment NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
2-h NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Plog NN O O
rank=0.0093 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
GG NN O O
homozygotes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
defective NN O O
?-cell NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
rs6467136 NN O O
GA+AA NN O O
carriers NN O O
exhibited NN O O
greater NN O O
decrements NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
2-h NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.0143 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
GA+AA NN O O
carriers NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
attain NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2-h NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Plog NN O O
rank=0.0091 NN O O
and NN O O
0.007 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
single-nucleotide NN O O
polymorphisms NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
repaglinide NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
PAX4 NN O O
variant NN O O
rs6467136 NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O I-INT
rosiglitazone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24761456)

Evidence-based NN O I-INT
narratives NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
prescribing NN O O
guidelines NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Physicians NN O O
adopt NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
guidelines NN O O
with NN O O
variable NN O O
consistency NN O O
. NN O O

Narratives NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
stories NN O O
, NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
dissemination NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
recommendations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
whether NN O O
evidence-based NN O I-INT
narrative NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
summary NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
recall NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
prescribing NN O O
guidelines NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Emergency NN O O
Physicians NN O O
( NN O O
ACEP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
experiment NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
whether NN O O
narrative NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
summary NN O I-INT
promoted NN O O
short-term NN O O
recall NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
themes NN O O
contained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ACEP NN O O
opioid NN O O
guideline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experiment NN O O
was NN O O
modeled NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
free-recall NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
regional NN O O
conference NN O O
, NN O O
emergency NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EPs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
read NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
summary NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
guideline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
narrative NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
fictional NN O O
narrative NN O O
was NN O O
constructed NN O O
to NN O O
match NN O O
the NN O O
summary NN O O
in NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
reading NN O O
the NN O O
text NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
listed NN O O
all NN O O
content NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
could NN O O
recall NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
reviewers NN O O
independently NN O O
scored NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
themes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
themes NN O I-OUT
recalled NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
participant NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
arm NN O O
that NN O O
recalled NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
themes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
that NN O O
contained NN O O
falsely NN O I-OUT
recalled NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
extraneous NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Ninety-five NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty-two NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
themes NN O I-OUT
recalled NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
3.1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
narrative NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
2.0 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
summary NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
1.1 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
= NN O O
0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
1.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
three NN O O
themes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
recalled NN O O
the NN O O
theme NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
narrative NN O O
arm NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
summary NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
one NN O O
theme NN O O
, NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
summary NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
two NN O O
themes NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
summary NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
contain NN O O
falsely NN O I-OUT
recalled NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
extraneous NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
narrative NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Physicians NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
narrative NN O O
about NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
guidelines NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
recall NN O O
guideline NN O O
content NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
summary NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
guidelines NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
incorporation NN O O
of NN O O
narratives NN O O
in NN O O
dissemination NN O O
campaigns NN O O
improves NN O O
guideline NN O O
adoption NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O


-DOCSTART- (24763663)

MRI-detected NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
: NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
implication NN O O
in NN O O
intensity-modulated NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
With NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
imaging NN O O
and NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
in NN O O
nasopharyngeal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
( NN O O
NPC NN O O
) NN O O
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reassessed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
a NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
MRI NN O O
) NN O O
-detected NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
in NN O O
NPC NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intensity-modulated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IMRT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
We NN O O
retrospectively NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
749 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
MRI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
subsequently NN O I-INT
histologically NN O I-INT
diagnosed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nondisseminated NN O I-INT
NPC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
IMRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
MRI-detected NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
for 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
, NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
metastasis-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DMFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LRFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
site NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
I NN O O
sites NN O O
inside NN O O
pharyngobasilar NN O O
fascia NN O O
and NN O O
clivus NN O O
vs. NN O O
type NN O O
II NN O O
sites NN O O
outside NN O O
pharyngobasilar NN O O
fascia NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
DMFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LRFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
in NN O O
NPC NN O O
were NN O O
83 NN O O
vs. NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
vs.75 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
vs. NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
vs. NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
the NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
MRI-detected NN O O
skull-base NN O O
invasion NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factor NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
IMRT NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
classification NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
invasion NN O O
has NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
subclassifications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
T3 NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
intensities NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
to NN O O
prove NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24767206)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
on NN O O
acute NN O O
non-ST NN O O
segment NN O O
elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
reperfusion NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
non-ST- NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSTEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
reperfusion NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
151 NN O I-PAR
NSTEMI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
reperfusion NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
76 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
75 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCI NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
when NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

Parameters NN O O
including NN O O
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days 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

RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
PCI NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
TIMI-2 NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
78.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
better NN O O
than NN O O
TIMI-2 NN O O
was NN O O
manifested NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
96.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
100.0 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

Tirofiban NN O O
treatment NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
poor NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
( NN O O
19.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
34.7 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MACE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tirofiban NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
vs NN O O
4 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.75 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
vs NN O O
1 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.56 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tirofiban NN O O
treatment NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
NSTEMI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tirofiban NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
TIMI NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
myocardial NN O O
perfusion NN O O
after NN O O
PCI NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
MACE NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24781441)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
2-year NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
monthly NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LAI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
psychotic NN O I-PAR
worsening NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Positive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Negative NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
405 NN O O
mg/4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
LAI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
264 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
olanzapine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
260 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Dosing NN O O
thereafter NN O O
was NN O O
flexible NN O O
( NN O O
150-405 NN O O
mg/4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
LAI NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
5-20 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
stable NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
Positive NN O O
and NN O O
Negative NN O O
Syndrome NN O O
Scale NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
57 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
psychiatrically NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
previous NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
nonadherent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
month NN O O
before NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
all-cause NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
( NN O O
645 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
LAI NN O O
, NN O O
678 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.61 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
53.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LAI NN O O
, NN O O
51.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.60 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
relapse NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
20.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LAI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
18.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postbaseline NN O O
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LAI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
mean NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
1.80 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
20 NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
0.43 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
6 NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
or NN O O
safety NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
post-injection NN O O
delirium/sedation NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-OUT
LAI NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
oral NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
LAI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
olanzapine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
3-hour NN O O
post-injection NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
precautionary NN O O
procedures NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
post-injection NN O O
delirium/sedation NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24785600)

Hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
morcellation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
electrical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
endometrial NN O O
polyps NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
morcellation NN O I-INT
or NN O O
bipolar NN O I-INT
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
for NN O O
removing NN O O
endometrial NN O I-OUT
polyps NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
office NN O O
setting NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
office NN O I-INT
hysteroscopic NN O I-INT
morcellation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
121 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
polyp NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
office NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcomes NN O O
assessed NN O O
were NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
polypectomy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
insertion NN O O
to NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O O
instrumentation NN O O
, NN O O
completeness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
polyp NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
a NN O O
100-mm NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
seconds NN O O
for NN O O
morcellation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
seconds NN O O
for NN O O
electrosurgical NN O O
resection 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
polyps NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
completely NN O I-OUT
removed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
61 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
62 NN O O
( NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
morcellation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
49 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
women NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
12.5 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
1.5-100.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
favored NN O O
morcellation NN O I-INT
by NN O O
16.1 NN O O
points NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
( NN O O
35.9 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
52.0 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
-24.7 NN O O
to NN O O
-7.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
found NN O O
office NN O O
polypectomy NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
acceptable NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
woman NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
group NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
unacceptable NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
during NN O O
hysteroscopic NN O O
polypectomy NN O O
, NN O O
morcellation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
quicker NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
acceptable NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
completely NN O I-OUT
remove NN O I-OUT
endometrial NN O I-OUT
polyps NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
electrosurgical NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01509313 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24799074)

Development NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vitro/in NN O O
vivo NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O O
release NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Perindopril NN O I-INT
erbumine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
BCS NN O O
( NN O O
Biopharmaceutics NN O O
Classification NN O O
System NN O O
) NN O O
class NN O O
3 NN O O
drug NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
solubility NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
permeability NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enzyme NN O O
that NN O O
converts NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
Angiotensin NN O O
Converting NN O O
Enzyme NN O O
, NN O O
ACE NN O O
) NN O O
into NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
causing NN O O
the NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
inactive NN O O
heptapeptide 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
develop NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
drug NN O O
product NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
salt NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
between NN O O
PE NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
still NN O O
licensed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perindopril NN O O
arginine NN O O
( NN O O
PA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
licensed NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
prepare NN O O
PE NN O O
tablets NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
direct NN O O
compression NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
different NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
prepared NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
which NN O O
F3-coded NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
selected NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
releasing NN O O
of NN O O
98.03 NN O O
% NN O O
active NN O O
substance NN O O
at NN O O
45th NN O O
minute NN O O
. NN O O

Bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
planned NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
cross-designed NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
single-center NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
peroral NN O I-PAR
route NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
Perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Perindoprilat NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
perindopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perindoprilat NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
reference NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
AUC0-t NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
105.946 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
100.218-112.002 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
110.437 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
102.534-118.948 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
109.542 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
98.364-121.992 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
115.729 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
101.031-132.565 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
bioequivalence NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24803366)

Virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
virtual NN O I-INT
reality NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treatment-as-usual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
simulated NN O I-INT
job NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
virtual NN O I-INT
character NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
didactic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
attended NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
laboratory-based NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
found NN O O
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
easy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enjoyable NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
felt NN O O
prepared NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
future NN O I-OUT
interviews NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
live NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
job NN O I-OUT
interview NN O I-OUT
role-play NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
self-confidence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.060 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

VR-JIT NN O I-OUT
simulation NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
preliminary NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
VR-JIT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
using NN O O
computer NN O O
software NN O O
or NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
internet NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24807158)

Poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
palliative NN O I-INT
chemoradiotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
subset NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bulky NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
offered NN O O
concurrent NN O O
chemoradiotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
CRT NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
palliative NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inoperable NN O O
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
how NN O O
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
influenced NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
188 NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
received NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
vinorelbine NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
3-week NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
94 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fractionation NN O I-INT
42 NN O I-INT
Gy/15 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
subset NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
cm NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
108 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
cm NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
smaller NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
76 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
tumors NN O O
larger NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
was NN O O
9.7 NN O O
and NN O O
13.4 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
temporary NN O O
decline NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
tumors NN O O
larger NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
cm NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
gradual NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HRQOL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hospitalizations NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
large NN O O
tumor NN O O
size NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
tumors NN O O
larger NN O O
than NN O O
7 NN O O
cm NN O O
apparently NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24817216)

Reliable NN O O
LC-MS/MS NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
estimation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rilpivirine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
application NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
incurred NN O O
sample NN O O
reanalysis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
precise NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
stable NN O O
isotope NN O O
dilution NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography-tandem NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
method NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
validated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
rilpivirine NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
non-nucleoside NN O O
reverse NN O O
transcriptase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rilpivirine NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
deuterated NN O O
analogue NN O O
, NN O O
rilpivirine-d6 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
internal NN O O
standard NN O O
( NN O O
IS NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
extracted NN O O
by NN O O
liquid-liquid NN O O
extraction NN O O
with NN O O
methyl-tert-butyl NN O O
ether NN O O
and NN O O
diethyl NN O O
ether NN O O
solvent NN O O
mixture NN O O
from NN O O
50 NN O O
?L NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
chromatography NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
on NN O O
Gemini NN O O
C18 NN O O
( NN O O
150 NN O O
? NN O O
4.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
?m NN O O
) NN O O
analytical NN O O
column NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
run NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
2.2 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
precursor NN O O
? NN O O
product NN O O
ion NN O O
transitions NN O O
for NN O O
rilpivirine NN O O
( NN O O
m/z NN O O
367.1 NN O O
? NN O O
128.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IS NN O O
( NN O O
m/z NN O O
373.2 NN O O
? NN O O
134.2 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
triple NN O O
quadrupole NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
ionization NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
linearity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
0.5-200 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
rilpivirine NN O O
( NN O O
94.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
IS NN O O
( NN O O
99.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
spiked NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
and NN O O
reproducible NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
IS-normalized NN O I-OUT
matrix NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
rilpivirine NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.98 NN O O
to NN O O
1.02 NN O O
across NN O O
three NN O O
quality NN O O
controls NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bench NN O I-OUT
top NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
freeze-thaw NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wet NN O I-OUT
extract NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rilpivirine NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
spiked NN O O
plasma NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
rilpivirine NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
assay NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
reanalysis NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
% NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
repeat NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
values NN O O
was NN O O
within NN O O
?15 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24821891)

Sociopsychological NN O O
tailoring NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
disparities NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Interventions NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
sociopsychological NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
behaviors NN O I-INT
have NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
disparities NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
limited NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
assessed NN O O
their NN O O
impact NN O O
in NN O O
multiethnic NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
multimedia NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IMCP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
expanded NN O O
health NN O O
belief NN O O
model NN O O
sociopsychological NN O O
factors NN O O
could NN O O
promote NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiethnic NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
an NN O O
IMCP NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
colorectal NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
self-efficacy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
knowledge NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
barriers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
readiness NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
preference NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
experiences NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nontailored NN O I-INT
informational NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
delivered NN O O
before NN O O
office NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
record-documented NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
12-month NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
postvisit NN O I-OUT
sociopsychological NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discussion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
clinician NN O I-OUT
recommendation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
office NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
1,164 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
ethnicity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
49.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
non-Hispanic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
27.2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Hispanic/English NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Hispanic/Spanish NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
offices NN O I-PAR
around NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Sacramento NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Rochester NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Bronx NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
Denver NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Colorado NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
San NN O I-PAR
Antonio NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
ethnicity/language NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
previsit NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
IMCP NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
readiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
preference NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discussion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recommendation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
the NN O O
followup NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
132 NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
IMCP NN O O
and NN O O
123 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
difference NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-4.3 NN O O
to NN O O
5.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IMCP NN O I-OUT
effects NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
ethnicity/language NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sociopsychological NN O O
factor NN O O
tailoring NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
nontailored NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
encouraging NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
screening NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multiethnic NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
despite NN O O
enhancing NN O O
sociopsychological NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
visit NN O O
behaviors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
sociopsychological NN O O
tailoring NN O O
in NN O O
addressing NN O O
screening NN O O
disparities NN O O
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24830937)

Oral NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metabolically NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIMS NN O O
We NN O O
undertook NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
metabolically NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normal-weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MONW NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
MONW NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypomagnesemia NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MgCl2 NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
382 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
individuals NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
or NN O O
overweight NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
?100 NN O O
mg/dL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
?3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
?150 NN O I-OUT
mg/dL NN O O
and/or 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
?140 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
defined NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MONW NN O O
phenotype NN O O
. NN O O

Hypomagnesemia NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
serum NN O O
magnesium NN O O
concentration NN O O
?1.8 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions 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
groups NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.9 NN O O
% NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-46.5 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
-5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-12.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
mg/dL 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
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-47.4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.1 NN O O
% NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O I-INT
MgCl2 NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O O
individuals NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Oral NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
MONW NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24835171)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
spinal NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
networks NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
neural NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
, NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
and NN O O
glycinergic NN O O
neurons NN O O
are NN O O
first NN O O
excitatory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
become NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mature NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
developmental NN O O
shift NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
mainly NN O O
to NN O O
strong NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cation-chloride NN O O
K-Cl NN O O
cotransporter NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
KCC2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
down-regulation NN O O
of NN O O
Na-K-Cl NN O O
cotransporter NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
NKCC1 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
maturation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
down-regulation NN O O
of NN O O
co-transporter NN O O
KCC2 NN O O
after NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
transection NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
depolarising NN O O
( NN O O
excitatory NN O O
) NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
GABA NN O O
and NN O O
glycine NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
synaptic NN O O
efficiency NN O O
. NN O O

Furosemide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
loop NN O O
diuretic NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
selectively NN O O
and NN O O
reversibly NN O O
block NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
postsynaptic NN O O
potentials NN O O
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
excitatory NN O O
postsynaptic NN O O
potentials NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
spinal NN O O
neurons NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
diuretic NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
block NN O O
the NN O O
cation-chloride NN O O
co-transporters NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
changes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
inhibitory NN O I-PAR
networks NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Non-invasive NN O O
electrophysiological NN O O
techniques NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
presynaptic NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
postsynaptic NN O O
inhibition NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
synaptic NN O O
transmission NN O O
between NN O O
muscle NN O O
afferent NN O O
terminals NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
motoneurons NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
. NN O O

Orally NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
furosemide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
commonly NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
interneuronal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
70 NN O O
min NN O O
from NN O O
intake NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
experiments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
subjects NN O O
while NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
synaptic NN O O
transmission NN O O
between NN O O
muscle NN O O
afferent NN O O
terminals NN O O
and NN O O
soleus NN O O
motoneurons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
indirect NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
reversible NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cation-chloride NN O O
transport NN O O
system NN O O
induce NN O O
modulations NN O O
of NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
neuronal NN O O
activity NN O O
at NN O O
spinal NN O O
cord NN O O
level NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24839882)

Communication NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
sequential NN O O
multiple NN O O
assignment NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
beginning NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
speech-generating NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SGD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
blended NN O O
, NN O O
adaptive NN O O
treatment NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
blended NN O I-INT
developmental/behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JASP+EMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
augmentation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
SGD NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
stages NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stage NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
2 NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
2 NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
adapted NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
sessions NN O O
or NN O O
adding NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
SGD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
early NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
comments NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
sample NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Primary NN O O
aim NN O O
results NN O O
found NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
communicative NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
words NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comments NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
all NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
blended NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
began NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
SGD NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JASP+EMT+SGD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
spoken NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
JASP+EMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
adaptive NN O O
intervention NN O O
beginning NN O O
with NN O O
JASP+EMT+SGD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
intensifying NN O O
JASP+EMT+SGD NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
slow NN O O
responders NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
make NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
spoken NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
blended NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
joint NN O O
engagement NN O O
and NN O O
play NN O O
skills NN O O
and NN O O
incorporates NN O O
an NN O O
SGD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
further NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
tailoring NN O O
design NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
information-Developmental NN O O
and NN O O
Augmented NN O O
Intervention NN O O
for NN O O
Facilitating NN O O
Expressive NN O O
Language NN O O
( NN O O
CCNIA NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov/ NN O O
; NN O O
NCT01013545 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24839884)

Internet-based NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
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
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
supplement NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
E-mail NN O I-INT
invitations NN O I-INT
were NN O O
sent NN O O
to NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Interactive NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Network NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
study NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
informed NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
collection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
outcome NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
took NN O I-INT
place NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Internet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
parent- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
teacher-rated NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-H NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
recruitment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
57 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
states NN O I-PAR
satisfied NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
eligibility NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1.3 NN O O
grams NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O O
57 NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
teachers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-5.3 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
-2.6 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
1.9-point NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
-2.2 NN O O
to NN O O
5.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
rare NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participant NN O O
feedback NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Internet-based NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
therapies NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
feasible NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
marked NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
completing NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
larger NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
definitively NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
registration NN O O
information-Omega-3 NN O I-INT
Fatty NN O I-INT
Acids NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O O
Treatment NN O O
in NN O O
Autism NN O O
Spectrum NN O O
Disorder NN O O
; NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
; NN O O
NCT01694667 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24840596)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
pivotal NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Accumulating NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
documenting NN O O
specific NN O O
motivational NN O O
variables NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
paradigm NN O I-INT
, NN O O
can NN O O
positively NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
interventions 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 I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
applied NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pivotal NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
structured NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
school NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
utterance NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
PRT NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
targeted NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
untargeted NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
variables NN O O
that NN O O
produce NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
communication NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24852722)

Causes NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
examining NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
BCG NN O O
REVAC NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
masking NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
blocking NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
. NN O O

BCG NN O O
protection NN O O
varies NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
places NN O O
( NN O O
nearest NN O O
the NN O O
equator NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
low NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O

Understanding NN O O
this NN O O
variation NN O O
can NN O O
inform NN O O
the NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
new NN O O
vaccines NN O O
against NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
main NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
this NN O O
variation NN O O
: NN O O
under NN O O
masking NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
vaccines NN O O
are NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
blocking NN O O
new NN O O
vaccines NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
BCG NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
masking NN O O
and NN O O
blocking NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
by NN O O
studying NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O O
vaccination NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
revaccination NN O O
) NN O O
time NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Manaus NN O I-PAR
close NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Salvador NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
south NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
equator NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
socio NN O I-PAR
economic NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
neighborhood NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
239,934 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
vaccine NN O O
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
at NN O O
school NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Protection NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
BCG NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
school NN O O
age NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
Salvador NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7-53 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
Manaus NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
t0 NN O O
39-40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.686 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
revaccination NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
protection NN O O
was NN O O
modest NN O O
in NN O O
Salvador NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3-33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.022 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
absent NN O O
in NN O O
Manaus NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
to NN O O
27-23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.932 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Vaccine NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
neonatal NN O O
vaccination NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
Salvador NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
22-54 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
Manaus NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11-53 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BCG NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
marked NN O O
when NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
school NN O O
age NN O O
but NN O O
absent NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
points NN O O
towards NN O O
blocking NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
dominant NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O

New NN O O
tuberculosis NN O O
vaccines NN O O
that NN O O
overcome NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
pass NN O O
this NN O O
blocking NN O O
effect NN O O
could NN O O
confer NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
situations NN O O
where NN O O
BCG NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
protective NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24859114)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
glycemic NN O O
load NN O O
on NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
successful NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
. NN O O

Diet NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
that NN O O
maximize NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
improve NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
composition NN O O
on NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
are NN O O
sparse NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
glycemic NN O O
load NN O O
( NN O O
GL NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
during NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
every NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-mo NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-INT
energy-restricted NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
differing NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
GL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
food NN O O
was NN O O
provided NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
self-selected NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GL-level NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
individuals NN O O
losing NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
weight NN O O
reported NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
achieving NN O O
less NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
decrements NN O O
in NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Decrements NN O O
in NN O O
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
subsequent NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
regain NN O O
when NN O O
diets NN O O
were NN O O
self-selected NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
GL NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
influence NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
lesser NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
on NN O O
provided-food NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
may NN O O
deter NN O O
successful NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
by NN O O
attenuating NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
eating NN O O
behavior NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2486557)

The NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Angina NN O O
( NN O O
RITA NN O O
) NN O O
Trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Randomised NN O O
Intervention NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Angina NN O O
( NN O O
RITA NN O O
) NN O O
Trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
term NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
a NN O O
register NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
arteriography NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fourteen NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
being NN O O
maintained NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
arteriographically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
if NN O O
the NN O O
participating NN O O
cardiologist NN O O
and NN O O
surgeon NN O O
agree NN O O
that NN O O
equivalent NN O O
revascularisation NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
satisfy NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
entry NN O O
criteria NN O O
are NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
prospective NN O O
stratification NN O O
into NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
implies NN O O
an NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
assigned NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
all NN O O
randomised NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
recruit NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
major NN O O
trial NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
include NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
angioplasty NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Other NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
employment NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24874588)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surfactant NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
biofilm NN O O
formation NN O O
on NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Biofilms NN O I-INT
are NN O O
sessile NN O O
communities NN O O
of NN O O
bacteria NN O O
embedded NN O O
in NN O O
self-produced NN O O
extracellular NN O O
polysaccharide NN O O
matrix NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
bacterial NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Topical NN O O
surfactant NN O O
use NN O O
on NN O O
silicone NN O O
nasal NN O O
splints NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
surfactant-containing NN O O
nasal NN O O
solutions NN O O
on NN O O
biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
surface NN O O
of NN O O
silicone NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
splints NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
septoplasty NN O I-INT
to NN O O
receive NN O O
surfactant-containing NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
surfactant NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
48th NN O O
, NN O O
72th NN O O
and NN O O
96th NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
pieces NN O O
of NN O O
splint NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
and NN O O
prepared NN O O
for NN O O
scanning NN O I-OUT
electron NN O I-OUT
microscopic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
samples NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
surfactant NN O O
used NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
samples NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
48th NN O O
, NN O O
72th NN O O
and NN O O
96th NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
48th NN O O
hour NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
regarding NN O O
72th NN O O
and NN O O
96th NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Surfactant-containing NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
have NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
biofilm NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
surface NN O O
of NN O O
silicone NN O O
nasal NN O O
splints NN O O
especially NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
Surfactant-containing NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
septal NN O I-OUT
dressing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24885551)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
short-term NN O O
inpatient NN O I-INT
Dialectical NN O I-INT
Behavior NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Borderline NN O I-PAR
Personality NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
condition NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
substantial NN O O
mortality NN O O
, NN O O
burden NN O O
and NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

DBT NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
model NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
published NN O O
research NN O O
articles NN O O
showing NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O O
treatment NN O O
while NN O O
presenting NN O O
severe NN O O
parasuicidal NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
making NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Center NN O O
for NN O O
Personality NN O O
Disorders NN O O
Jelgersma NN O O
developed NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
12-week NN O O
inpatient NN O O
DBT NN O O
program NN O O
that NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
rapidly NN O O
reduces NN O O
core NN O O
borderline NN O O
symptoms NN O O
like NN O O
suicidal NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
minimizes NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
inpatient NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
enhances NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
outpatient NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
cost- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
experimental NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parasuicidal NN O I-PAR
gestures NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
reporting NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
degrees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
outpatient NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
regular NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
GGZ NN O I-PAR
Rivierduinen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intensified NN O I-INT
inpatient NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
DBT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Personality NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
Jelgersma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
suicide NN O I-OUT
attempts/self-harming NN O I-OUT
acts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
borderline NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
psychopathological NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O O
are NN O O
gathered NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
measurement NN O O
) NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
factorial NN O O
design.Participants NN O O
will NN O O
complete NN O O
three-monthly NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
: NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
recruitment NN O O
started NN O O
in NN O O
March NN O O
2012 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
end NN O O
in NN O O
December NN O O
2014 NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O I-PAR
Highly NN O I-PAR
suicidal NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
can NN O I-PAR
pose NN O O
a NN O O
dilemma NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
professionals NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
seems NN O O
inevitable NN O O
under NN O O
some NN O O
circumstances NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
harmful NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
own NN O O
right NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
outlines NN O O
the NN O O
background NN O O
and NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
surplus NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
inpatient NN O O
DBT NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24886549)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
on NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Penang NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Malaysia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Studies NN O O
all NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
smoking NN O O
relapses NN O O
occur NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
quit NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
abstinence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
quit NN O O
date NN O O
among NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Penang NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Malaysia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Quit NN O I-PAR
Smoking NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Penang NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Malaysia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
attended NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1st NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
31st NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
urn NN O O
design NN O O
method NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
quit NN O I-INT
attempt NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
about NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
cigarettes NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13.78 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7.0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
36.9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
46.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
verified NN O O
smoking NN O O
status NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.669 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.395-1.133 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
71.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
successfully NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
bio-chemically NN O I-OUT
verified NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
48.6 NN O I-OUT
% 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
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
quit NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
0.375 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.217-0.645 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
phone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
quit NN O O
attempt NN O O
revealed NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
abstinence NN O O
rates NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
few NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
stop NN O O
smoking NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
that NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
further NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
TCTR20140504001 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24887304)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
ranolazine NN O I-INT
on 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
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24898318)

Improving NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
competence NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
11-week NN O O
equine NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
is NN O O
growing NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
promoting NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
competence NN O I-INT
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
mental NN O O
, NN O O
emotional NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
disorders NN O O
in NN O O
adulthood NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
programs NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
collaboration NN O O
with NN O O
schools NN O O
are NN O O
particularly NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
target NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
skill NN O O
building NN O O
, NN O O
utilize NN O O
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
instructional NN O O
style NN O O
, NN O O
provide NN O O
opportunities NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O O
participation NN O O
and NN O O
self-direction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
include NN O O
explicit NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
youth NN O O
social NN O O
competence NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
relatively NN O O
new NN O O
but NN O O
popular NN O O
approach NN O O
that NN O O
incorporates NN O O
these NN O O
characteristics NN O O
is NN O O
human NN O I-INT
animal NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
educational NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
11-week NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
facilitated NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EFL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
competence NN O O
and NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
5th-8th NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
counselors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
school-based NN O I-PAR
recruitment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
competence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Researchers NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
children NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
53 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
waitlisted NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
11-week NN O O
EFL NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
once-weekly NN O O
, NN O O
90-min NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
and NN O O
team-focused NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
served NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
wait-listed NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
and NN O O
participated NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
rated NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
pretest NN O O
and NN O O
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
independent NN O O
raters NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
reported NN O O
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
checklist NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
weekly NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.55 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pretest NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
referral NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
trajectories NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.500 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.003 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
-.062 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
11-week NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24898574)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
excitability NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
temporal NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
tinnitus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
hints NN O O
for NN O O
cross-modal NN O O
plasticity NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
excitability NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
changed NN O O
after NN O O
repetitive NN O I-INT
transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
cortex NN O O
highlighting NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
cross-modal NN O O
plasticity NN O O
in NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
brain NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
temporal NN O I-INT
low-frequency NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motor NN O O
cortex NN O O
plasticity NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
tinnitus NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
116 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
tinnitus NN O I-PAR
different NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
cortical NN O O
excitability NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
ten NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
protocols NN O O
all NN O O
including NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
temporal NN O I-INT
cortex NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
improvement NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
five NN O O
points NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tinnitus NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
( NN O O
TQ NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Variables NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
were NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
short-interval NN O I-OUT
intra-cortical NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SICI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intracortical NN O I-OUT
facilitation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
silent NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
RMT NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
about NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
stimulator NN O O
output NN O O
near-significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

SICI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SICI NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
non-responders NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
pattern NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Minor NN O I-OUT
RMT NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
systematic NN O O
re-examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
RMT NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
issues NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
SICI NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
reflect NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
GABAergic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
directly NN O O
or NN O O
indirectly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
rTMS NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24898665)

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
follicular NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
tositumomab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iodine NN O I-INT
I-131 NN O I-INT
tositumomab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24902456)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
postprocedure NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
3 NN O O
distinct NN O O
standard NN O O
sedation NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
postprocedure NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
distinct NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
complications NN O O
requiring NN O O
provider NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
colonoscopies NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
approached NN O O
for NN O O
enrollment NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
convenience NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Mini-Mental NN O I-INT
State NN O I-INT
Examination NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MMSE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Telephone NN O I-OUT
Interview NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
Status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TICS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
TICS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
34.53 NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
34.96 NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
TICS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
34.76 NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
36.26 NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
propofol-alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
TICS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
35.09 NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
35.98 NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.924 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
sedation NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
postprocedure NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
jaw NN O I-OUT
lift NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24910215)

Intramedullary NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
device NN O O
against NN O O
volar NN O O
plating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
of NN O O
extra-articular NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O O
articular NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
fractures NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
our NN O O
institutional NN O O
experience NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
results NN O O
using NN O O
Sonoma NN O O
Wrx NN O O
( NN O O
Sonoma NN O O
Orthopedic NN O O
Products NN O O
, NN O O
Santa NN O O
Rosa NN O O
, NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
extra-articular NN O O
and NN O O
simple NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL 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
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
extra-articular NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
simple NN O I-PAR
intra-articular NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
closed NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AO NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
A2.2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
A2.3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
A3.1 NN O I-PAR
C2.1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
C2.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
I NN O O
received NN O O
intramedullary NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Sonoma NN O I-INT
Wrx NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
and NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
received NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
locking NN O I-INT
plate NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Radiographic NN O O
criteria NN O O
of NN O O
acceptable NN O O
healing NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
36.81 NN O O
? NN O O
7.11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
48.97 NN O O
? NN O O
5.9 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 I-OUT
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
5.45 NN O O
? NN O O
1.09 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5.70 NN O O
? NN O O
1.04 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
radiographic NN O O
evaluation NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
inclination NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volar NN O I-OUT
tilt NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
group 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
wrist NN O I-OUT
rotational NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
last NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Sonoma NN O I-INT
Wrx NN O I-INT
Device NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
reliable NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
achieving NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
distal NN O O
radius NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
reasonable NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
this NN O O
device NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
complications NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
extensive NN O O
soft NN O O
tissue NN O O
dissection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24914426)

Antibacterial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fluoride NN O O
varnish NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O O
plus NN O O
fluoride NN O O
in NN O O
disabled NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoride NN O O
varnish NN O O
vs NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
chlorhexidine-thymol NN O O
varnish NN O O
plus NN O O
a NN O O
gel NN O O
containing NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O O
and NN O O
fluoride NN O O
on NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
and NN O O
caries NN O O
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
disabled NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Ninety NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
Fluor NN O I-INT
Protector NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Cervitec NN O I-INT
Plus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine- NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
thymol NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Cervitec NN O I-INT
Gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine-0.2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
toothbrushing NN O I-INT
only NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mutans NN O I-OUT
streptococci NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lactobacilli NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visible NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VPI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GBI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
stages NN O O
: NN O O
T0 NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
general NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
; NN O O
T1 NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
T2 NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
T3 NN O O
, NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mann-Whitney NN O I-OUT
U-tests 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
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
parameters NN O O
at NN O O
T1 NN O O
and NN O O
T2 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
among NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
T3 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
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
materials NN O O
that NN O O
include NN O O
both NN O O
fluoride NN O O
and NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O O
as NN O O
routine NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
restorations NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
hygiene NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
future NN O I-OUT
restorative NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thus NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24915013)

Mechanical NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
conjunctiva NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
map NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
marginal NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
regions NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
regions NN O O
when NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
evening NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
noncontact NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
wearers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
27.7 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mechanical NN O I-INT
sensitivity NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
locations NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adnexa NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cornea NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
marginal NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bulbar NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tarsal NN O I-INT
conjunctiva NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Cochet-Bonnet NN O I-INT
esthesiometer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.12-mm NN O I-INT
diameter NN O I-INT
filament NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
female NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
male NN O O
; NN O O
age NN O O
28.9 NN O O
? NN O O
9.9 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
returned NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
when NN O O
this NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
cornea NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
the NN O O
bulbar NN O O
and NN O O
tarsal NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
central NN O O
marginal NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
marginal NN O I-OUT
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
between NN O O
upper NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
eyelids NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
tarsal NN O I-OUT
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
lower NN O O
tarsal NN O O
conjunctiva NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
locations NN O O
investigated NN O O
( NN O O
Bonferroni NN O O
adjusted NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
work NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
marginal NN O I-OUT
conjunctiva NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
sensitive NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
the NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
regions NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24915929)

Quantifying NN O O
narrative NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
computational NN O O
linguistic NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
narrative NN O O
coherence NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
neurodevelopmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
serious NN O O
difficulties NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
language NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
social NN O O
functioning NN O O
and NN O O
ritualistic/repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
( NN O O
American NN O O
Psychiatric NN O O
Association NN O O
in NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
manual NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
disorders NN O O
: NN O O
DSM-5 NN O O
, NN O O
5th NN O O
edn NN O O
. NN O O

American NN O O
Psychiatric NN O O
Association NN O O
, NN O O
Arlington NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
substantial NN O O
heterogeneity NN O O
exists NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O O
expression NN O O
, NN O O
impairments NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O O
discourse NN O O
skills NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
narrative NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
storytelling NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
universally NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
( NN O O
Tager-Flusberg NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
Handbook NN O O
on NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
3rd NN O O
edn NN O O
. NN O O

Wiley NN O O
, NN O O
New NN O O
York NN O O
, NN O O
pp NN O O
335-364 NN O O
, NN O O
2005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
applied NN O O
a NN O O
computational NN O I-INT
linguistic NN O I-INT
tool NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Latent NN O I-INT
Semantic NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
objectively NN O O
characterize NN O O
narrative NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically-developing NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
across NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
narrative NN O O
contexts NN O O
that NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
demands NN O O
placed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
narrator NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
produced NN O O
narratives NN O I-OUT
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
semantic NN O O
content NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
controls NN O O
when NN O O
narrating NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
picture NN O O
book NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
produced NN O O
narratives NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O O
in NN O O
semantic NN O O
quality NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
demanding NN O O
narrative NN O O
recall NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
pattern NN O O
is NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
detected NN O O
from NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
hand-coded NN O O
picture NN O O
book NN O O
narratives NN O O
in NN O O
prior NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
extends NN O O
findings NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
narrative NN O O
context NN O O
that NN O O
proves NN O O
particularly NN O O
challenging NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
LSA NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
quantitative NN O O
, NN O O
objective NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
efficient NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
narrative NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24916506)

PTK2 NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
immunochemotherapy NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Addition NN O O
of NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
fludarabine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FC NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CLL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Whether NN O O
baseline NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
can NN O O
identify NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
immunochemotherapy NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
genome-wide NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
552 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
REACH NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
FC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
R-FC NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
CLL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O I-PAR
independent NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
derived NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
282 NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
CLL8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
FC NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
R-FC NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
treatment-na?ve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Genes NN O O
specific NN O O
for NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O I-INT
R-FC NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
assessing NN O O
treatment-gene NN O O
interactions NN O O
in NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

REACH NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
protein NN O O
tyrosine NN O O
kinase NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
PTK2 NN O O
) NN O O
messenger NN O O
RNA NN O O
levels NN O O
derived NN O O
greater NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O I-INT
R-FC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
independent NN O O
of NN O O
known NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Examination NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
PTK2 NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
CLL8 NN O O
patients NN O O
yielded NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
PTK2 NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
blunted NN O I-OUT
R-dependent NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
independent NN O O
trials NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
PTK2 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
CLL NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
R-FC NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
FC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PTK2 NN O O
expression NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
biomarker NN O O
for NN O O
patient NN O O
selection NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
as NN O O
# NN O O
NCT00090051 NN O O
( NN O O
REACH NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
# NN O O
NCT00281918 NN O O
( NN O O
CLL8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2491829)

Failure NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thioquanine NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
1200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
22.5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
24 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24919961)

Video-feedback NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
Positive NN O O
Parenting NN O O
adapted NN O O
to NN O O
Autism NN O O
( NN O O
VIPP-AUTI NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
program NN O O
Video-feedback NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
Positive NN O I-PAR
Parenting NN O I-PAR
adapted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VIPP-AUTI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16-61 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) 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
VIPP-AUTI NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
attachment-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
focusing NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Spectrum NN O I-OUT
Disorder-related NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
five NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

VIPP-AUTI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
parental NN O O
intrusiveness NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
VIPP-AUTI NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
feelings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
child NN O O
rearing NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
3-months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
not NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
parenting NN O O
. NN O O

Implementation NN O O
of NN O O
VIPP-AUTI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
is NN O O
facilitated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
detailed NN O O
manual NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
brief NN O O
training NN O O
of NN O O
interveners NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24925605)

Chocolate NN O I-INT
frogs NN O I-INT
do NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
survey NN O O
: NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
months NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
year-long NN O O
, NN O O
national NN O O
survey NN O O
assessing NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
experiences NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
response NN O O
fraction NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
chocolate NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postal NN O O
survey NN O O
would NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Families NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
chocolate NN O I-INT
frog NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
chocolate NN O I-INT
frog NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
written NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
and NN O O
replacement NN O O
survey NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
was NN O O
posted NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
telephone NN O O
reminders NN O O
thereafter NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
analysed NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
incentive NN O O
using NN O O
? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
categorical NN O O
response NN O O
variable NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
t-tests NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
reminder NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
variables NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
randomisation NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
November NN O O
2012 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
137 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
6-week NN O O
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
incentive NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
return NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
survey NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
P NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.009 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
faded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
reminders NN O O
that NN O O
parents NN O O
received NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
it NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
parents NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
. NN O O

Including NN O O
a NN O O
chocolate-based NN O I-INT
incentive NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
postal NN O O
survey NN O O
over NN O O
and NN O O
above NN O O
standard NN O O
reminder NN O O
techniques NN O O
like NN O O
posting NN O O
follow-up NN O O
survey NN O O
packs NN O O
or NN O O
phoning NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24925924)

COPD NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
whether NN O O
screening NN O O
of NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
unknown 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
short-term NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
detecting NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspnoea NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
considering NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospitalisations NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
all-cause NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspnoea NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Final NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
expert NN O O
panel NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
strategy NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
spirometry NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
practitioners NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
386 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
84 NN O O
( NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
prescription NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
infrequent NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
53 NN O O
, NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
among NN O O
new NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
17.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
hospitalised NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
newly NN O O
detected NN O O
COPD NN O O
( NN O O
32.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
new NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
screening NN O I-PAR
frail NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspnoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
underlines NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
obtaining NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
( NN O O
screen-detected NN O O
) NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
COPD NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24926950)

36-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
precocious NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONTEXT NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
recently NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
short-term NN O O
( NN O O
6-month NN O O
) NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
11.25 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
precocious NN O I-PAR
puberty NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CPP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36-month NN O O
) NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
11.25 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CPP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Open-label NN O O
, NN O O
36-month NN O O
extension NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1.6 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CPP NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O I-PAR
lead-in NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O I-INT
Leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11.25 NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
administered NN O O
im NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
Peak-stimulated NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pubertal NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and 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
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
11.25-mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
of NN O O
38 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
30-mg NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
4 NN O O
mIU/mL NN O O
after NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
seven NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
escaped NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
still NN O O
maintained NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
prepubertal NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
pubertal NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
AEs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
( NN O O
26.4 NN O O
% NN O O
overall NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
AE NN O I-OUT
led NN O O
to NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
pivotal NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
depot NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
provided NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
CPP NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
readiness NN O O
for NN O O
puberty NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24930179)

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prism NN O O
adaptation NN O O
on NN O O
egocentric NN O O
metric NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
experiment NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
training NN O O
involving NN O O
throwing NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
metric NN O O
distance NN O O
estimation NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
describing NN O O
in NN O O
feet NN O O
and NN O O
inches NN O O
the NN O O
distance NN O O
between NN O O
oneself NN O O
and NN O O
targets NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
prior NN O O
work NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
metric NN O O
estimation NN O O
training NN O O
negatively NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
throwing NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explained NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
intrusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
that NN O O
possibility NN O O
by NN O O
swapping NN O O
our NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
transfer NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
During NN O O
pretesting NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
verbally NN O I-INT
estimated NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
metric NN O I-INT
distances NN O I-INT
between NN O I-PAR
themselves NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
targets NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
threw NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
beanbag NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O I-INT
donned NN O I-INT
goggles NN O I-INT
that NN O O
distorted NN O O
their NN O O
vision NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
wearing NN O O
the NN O O
goggles NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
threw NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
beanbag NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
targets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Half NN O O
received NN O O
feedback NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
posttesting NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
removed NN O O
the NN O O
distorting NN O O
goggles NN O I-INT
and NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
task NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
pretesting NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
distorting NN O O
goggles NN O O
degraded NN O O
throwing NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O O
feedback NN O O
improved NN O O
throwing NN O O
during NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
with NN O O
feedback NN O O
persisted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
throwing NN O O
posttest NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
with NN O O
feedback NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
transfer NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
metric NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O I-OUT
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Training NN O O
involving NN O O
throwing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
transfer NN O O
to NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
metric NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
supports NN O O
our NN O O
argument NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
transfer NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
stemmed NN O O
from NN O O
cognitive NN O O
intrusion NN O O
. NN O O

APPLICATION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
experiment NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
creation NN O O
of NN O O
distance NN O O
estimation NN O O
training NN O O
should NN O O
begin NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
careful NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transfer NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
distance NN O O
estimation NN O O
training NN O O
programs NN O O
should NN O O
explicitly NN O O
teach NN O O
trainees NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
not NN O O
generalize NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
distance NN O O
estimation NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24930383)

Elevation NN O O
of NN O O
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Atherosclerosis NN O O
is NN O O
strongly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
intima-media NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
surrogate NN O O
marker NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Statins NN O O
are NN O O
well-established NN O O
protective NN O O
agents NN O O
against NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
and NN O O
reportedly NN O O
suppress NN O O
IMT NN O O
progression NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O O
on NN O O
subclinical NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
herein NN O O
investigated NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
IMT NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
profiles NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multi-center NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Hypercholesterolemic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
open-label NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
IMT NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
treatment 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
97 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-PAR
pravastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
completed NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
36-month NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
163.4 NN O O
? NN O O
27.9 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
100.4 NN O O
? NN O O
19.6 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pitavastatin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
159.7 NN O O
? NN O O
25.6 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
to NN O O
118.5 NN O O
? NN O O
22.1 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pravastatin NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
moderate NN O O
regression NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-0.070 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
0.215 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-0.067 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
0.260 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IMT NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
36-month NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r=-0.24 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
variable NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
IMT NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O I-OUT
IMT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
elevation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
HDL-C NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24930546)

Metal NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
allergy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
resurfacing NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
hybrid NN O I-INT
prosthesis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Metal-on-metal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MOM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
arthroplasties NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reintroduced NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
problems NN O O
with NN O O
osteolysis NN O O
and NN O O
aseptic NN O O
loosening NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
polyethylene NN O O
wear NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
metal-on-polyethylene NN O O
( NN O O
MOP NN O O
) NN O O
arthroplasties NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volumetric NN O O
wear NN O O
rate NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduced NN O O
with NN O O
MOM NN O O
arthroplasties NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
nano-size NN O O
wear NN O O
particles NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
number NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
greatly NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
metal NN O O
ion NN O O
exposure NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
sensitize NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
wear NN O O
particles NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
ions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ultimately NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
allergy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
hips NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51-64 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
women 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
MOM NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
resurfacing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ReCap NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
MOP NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
arthoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Mallory NN O I-INT
Head/Exeter NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Spot NN O O
urine NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
inductively NN O O
coupled NN O O
plasma-sector NN O O
field NN O O
mass NN O O
spectrometry NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
metals NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
patch NN O O
testing NN O O
and NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
transformation NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
answered NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
about NN O O
hypersensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
10- NN O O
to NN O O
20-fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cobalt NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chromium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MOM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
metal NN O I-OUT
allergy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
While NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
ions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
allergy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MOM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
metal NN O O
exposure NN O O
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2493733)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
flecainide NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
verapamil NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
flecainide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg/10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/1 NN O O
minute NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AFI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
successful NN O O
if NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
flecainide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AF NN O I-PAR
converted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AFI NN O I-PAR
flecainide NN O I-INT
failed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
AF NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
AFI NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
AFI NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
convert NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
hour NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
to NN O O
flecainide NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
still NN O O
converted NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
AF NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
with NN O O
AFI NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
flecainide NN O O
. NN O O

Conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
AF NN O O
lasted NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
lasted NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Transient NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
flecainide NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
flecainide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
paroxysmal NN O O
AF NN O O
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
ineffective NN O O
for NN O O
AFI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Verapamil NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
AFI NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24938562)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
uveal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
Uveal NN O O
melanoma NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
mutations NN O O
in NN O O
GNAQ NN O O
and NN O O
GNA11 NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
mitogen-activated NN O O
protein NN O O
kinase NN O O
pathway NN O O
activation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
, NN O O
non-adenosine NN O O
triphosphate NN O O
competitive NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
MEK1 NN O O
and NN O O
MEK2 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
uveal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
conducted NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
uveal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
oncology NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Canada NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
75 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
continual NN O O
basis NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
temozolomide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O O
orally NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenously NN O O
every NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
investigator NN O O
choice NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
until NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
intolerable NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
consent NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
selumetinib NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
120-patient NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
receive NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
time NN O O
of NN O O
radiographic NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
end NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
of NN O O
April NN O O
22 NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety/toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
of NN O O
December NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
4.3-8.4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
4.3-16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
selumetinib NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
15.9 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
8.4-21.1 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
median NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
16.1 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
8.1-25.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.46 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.30-0.71 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
9.1 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
6.1-11.1 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
11.8 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
9.8-15.7 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
selumetinib NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.66 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.41-1.06 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
objective NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-nine NN O I-INT
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
selumetinib NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
14 NN O O
% NN O O
achieving NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
radiographic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
selumetinib NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
requiring NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis-generating NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
uveal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
selumetinib NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
modestly NN O O
improved NN O O
progression-free NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01143402 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2494948)

[ NN O I-INT
Mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
HCFU NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
noncuratively NN O O
resected NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
Second NN O O
report NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
5-year NN O O
survival NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
of NN O O
Kyushu NN O O
and NN O O
Chugoku NN O O
for NN O O
HCFU NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
employing NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carmofur NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCFU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
noncuratively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
cooperative NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Kyushu NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Chugoku NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
selection NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Macroscopic NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
noncuratively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
completion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Definitive NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
No NN O I-PAR
synchronous NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metachronous NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
bolus NN O O
intravenous NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
until NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
HCFU NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
HCFU NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
orally NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
the NN O O
69-month NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
HCFU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
generalized NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
test 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

Significantly NN O O
better NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
disseminating NN O O
peritoneal NN O O
metastasis NN O O
, NN O O
hepatic NN O O
metastasis NN O O
and NN O O
stage NN O O
V NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
HCFU NN O I-INT
group NN O O
as NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
only NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
HCFU NN O I-INT
were NN O O
recognized NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
MMC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
HCFU NN O I-INT
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
noncuratively NN O O
resected NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24958585)

Caregiver-mediated NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
low-resourced NN O I-PAR
preschoolers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
2 NN O O
short-term NN O O
, NN O O
community NN O I-INT
caregiver NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preschool-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
resources NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Low NN O O
resource NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Housing NN O O
and NN O O
Urban NN O O
Development NN O O
low-income NN O O
index NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
indicator NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
Medicaid NN O O
eligibility NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
joint NN O O
engagement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
play NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
low-resourced NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-INT
3-month NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
individualized NN O I-INT
caregiver-mediated NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CMM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
skills NN O O
pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
children NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
initiating NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
CMM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
on NN O O
play NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mixed NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
symbolic NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
CMM NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Joint NN O O
engagement NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CMM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
initiating NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
comparing NN O O
2 NN O O
active NN O O
interventions NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
low-resourced NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
core NN O O
autism NN O O
deficits NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
engagement NN O O
, NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
symbolic NN O O
play NN O O
with NN O O
relatively NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
caregiver-mediated NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
additional NN O O
support NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
and NN O O
generalize NN O O
these NN O O
gains NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24961537)

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
commercial NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
fresh NN O I-INT
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
komatsuna NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Brassica NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
L. NN O I-INT
var NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
perviridis NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
serum NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Vegetables NN O O
and NN O O
fruits NN O O
are NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
vitamins NN O O
, NN O O
minerals NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
dietary NN O O
fiber NN O O
and NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
inadequate NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
vegetable NN O O
and NN O O
fruit NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
Japan.We NN O I-PAR
therefore NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
juice NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
fresh NN O I-INT
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
komatsuna NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Brassica NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
L. NN O I-INT
var NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
perviridis NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
juice NN O O
mixture NN O O
on NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
46.4 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
7.1 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
consumed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fresh NN O I-INT
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
commercial NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
juice NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
weekday NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
prepared NN O O
both NN O O
juices NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
energy NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T-Chol NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-Chol NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruits NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
vegetable NN O O
juices NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
vegetables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
commercial NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
of NN O O
fresh NN O I-INT
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Short-term NN O I-OUT
intake NN O O
of NN O O
fresh NN O I-INT
fruit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B. NN O I-INT
rapa NN O I-INT
juice NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
shown NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24964689)

Self-management NN O I-INT
improvement NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
involvement NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Thai NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
action NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE 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
program NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
utilizes NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
involvement NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
self-management NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
among NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
59-year-old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Nakhon NN O I-PAR
Pathom NN O I-PAR
Province NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
attended NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-INT
self-management NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
program NN O O
lasted NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
1/2 NN O O
hours NN O O
meeting NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
group NN O I-INT
meetings NN O I-INT
and NN O O
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Friedman NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
's NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rank NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
perceived NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
self-management NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.023 NN O O
) 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
after NN O O
the NN O O
twelve NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rank NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
expectancy NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
eight NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
program NN O O
applied NN O O
social NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
theory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
promote NN O O
self-management NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
promoting NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
people NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24965333)

Vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
ameliorates NN O O
hypoinsulinemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
static NN O I-PAR
magnetic NN O I-PAR
field-exposed NN O I-PAR
rat NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
static NN O I-PAR
magnetic NN O I-PAR
field NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SMF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-exposed NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rats NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
SMF NN O O
( NN O O
128 NN O O
mT NN O O
; NN O O
1 NN O O
h/day NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
By NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasmatic NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,600 NN O O
IU/100 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
) NN O O
corrected NN O O
and NN O O
restored NN O O
glycemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulinemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
SMF-exposed NN O I-PAR
rats NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24972577)

Standardized NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
opioid-induced NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
multi-center NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
syndrome NN O O
differentiation NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
opioid-induced NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
influence NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
406 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
collaborating NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CM NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
syndrome NN O O
differentiation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Phenolphthalein NN O I-INT
Tablet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Cleveland NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
numerical 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
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Chinese NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
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
, NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-C30 NN O I-OUT
V3.0 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
QLQ-C30 NN O I-OUT
V3.0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
CCS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CM NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
better 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 NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
CM NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
93.5 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
86.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
NRS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
could NN O O
effectively NN O O
treat NN O O
opioid-induced NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improve NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
n't NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioids NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
treating NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (24973545)

Riding NN O O
the NN O O
rapids NN O O
: NN O O
living NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
or NN O O
disability NN O O
-- NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parenting NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evidence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
interventions NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
manage NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
behaviour NN O O
problems NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
group-delivered NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Riding NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Rapids NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
which NN O O
was NN O O
specifically NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
programme NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
routinely NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
community-based NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
team NN O O
across NN O O
an NN O O
urban NN O O
, NN O O
multi-ethnic NN O O
locality NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
non-randomised NN O O
controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
design NN O O
comprising NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comparator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=28 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Eyberg NN O I-OUT
Child NN O I-OUT
Behaviour NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
parent-set NN O I-OUT
goals NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
parenting NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Parents NN O I-OUT
Sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Competence NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
on NN O O
costs NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
service NN O O
provider NN O O
of NN O O
delivering NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

Receipt NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
progress NN O O
towards NN O O
achieving NN O O
parent-set NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
goals NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
parenting NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
been NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
suggests NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
English NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
much NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
parents NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
of NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
disability NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
resource NN O O
intensive NN O O
to NN O O
service NN O O
providers NN O O
than NN O O
individually NN O O
delivered NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Limitations NN O O
and NN O O
implications 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- (24974254)

Visual NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
size NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
reach-to-grasp NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
explores NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
visual NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
target NN O O
size NN O O
during NN O O
four NN O O
reach-to-grasp NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Qualisys NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
capture NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kinematic NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
record NN O I-INT
movement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Autistic NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
larger NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O I-OUT
jerk NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
unit NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
non-visual NN O O
feedback NN O O
and NN O O
small NN O O
target NN O O
blocks NN O O
. NN O O

Autistic NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
aperture NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
normalized NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
aperture NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
visual NN O O
feedback NN O O
condition NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
demonstrate NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
also NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
more NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
cuing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high NN O O
accuracy NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
develop NN O O
other NN O O
compensatory NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
performing NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24981013)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
psychobiological NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
body NN O I-PAR
image NN O I-PAR
threat NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
social-evaluative NN O O
body NN O O
image NN O O
threat NN O O
on NN O O
psychobiological NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=123 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
individual-threat NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group-threat NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
no-threat NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
completed NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
state NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
shame NN O I-INT
and NN O O
provided NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
saliva NN O O
( NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
cortisol NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
their NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
threat NN O O
conditions NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
baseline-adjusted NN O O
body NN O O
shame NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
threat NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
no-threat NN O O
condition NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
on NN O O
baseline-adjusted NN O O
body NN O O
shame NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
threat NN O O
conditions NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
results NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
cortisol NN O O
- NN O O
both NN O O
threat NN O O
conditions NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
baseline-adjusted NN O O
response NN O O
cortisol NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
no-threat NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
threat NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
psychobiological NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
social-evaluative NN O O
body NN O O
image NN O O
threat NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
social-evaluative NN O O
threat NN O O
( NN O O
individual- NN O O
versus NN O O
group-threat NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
insight NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
image NN O O
threats NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (24986270)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
medicinal NN O I-INT
formulae NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controls NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
chronic NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
affecting NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
worldwide NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Chinese NN O O
herbal NN O O
medicines NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
, NN O O
adopted NN O O
thousands NN O O
of NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
ancient NN O O
China NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
recently NN O O
raised NN O O
much NN O O
attention NN O O
among NN O O
researchers NN O O
globally NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
Chinese NN O I-INT
herbal NN O I-INT
formulae NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
Cure-allergic-rhinitis NN O I-INT
Syrup NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Yu-ping-feng NN O I-INT
San NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
YS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
undergraduate NN O I-PAR
nursing NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
3-month NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
, NN O O
three-parallel-groups NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
249 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Hong NN O I-PAR
Kong NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
baseline NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
YS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n=83 NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
constitution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
self-administered NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
drop-outs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
Generalised NN O I-OUT
Estimating NN O I-OUT
Equations NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
pairwise NN O O
contrasts NN O O
tests NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo=26.13-34.55 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo=12.81-16.76 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
constitution NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
'Qi-deficiency NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
'Yang-deficiency NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
'Inherited NN O I-OUT
Special NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
CS NN O O
vs. NN O O
placebo=7.05-8.12 NN O O
, NN O O
7.56-8.92 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4.48-8.10 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.01- NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
, NN O O
0.001-0.004 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.01- NN O O
< NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
, NN O O
accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
post-tests NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
YS NN O O
also NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
few NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
constitution NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
lesser NN O O
in NN O O
strength NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
smaller NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
varieties NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
constitution NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustainability NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
herbal NN O O
formula NN O O
CS NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
effective NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
enhance NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
young NN O O
adults NN O O
( NN O O
nursing NN O O
students NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
in NN O O
'Yang- NN O O
and/or NN O O
Qi-deficiency NN O O
' NN O O
body NN O O
constitution NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O O
and/or NN O O
Asians NN O O
with NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
socio-demographic NN O O
, NN O O
ethnic NN O O
and NN O O
illness NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
longer-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ID NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02027194 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
January NN O O
2014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24988118)

High-dose NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
supplementation 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
HIV NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Suboptimal NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
status NN O O
is NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
12-month NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
daily NN O O
7000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D3 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
vitD3 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
sustain NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
perinatally NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PHIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
behaviorally NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BHIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5.0-24.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D-related NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
BHIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-OUT
concerns NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
randomization NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
D NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
supplementation NN O O
than NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mixed NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supplementation NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
was 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
. NN O O

Percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
naive NN O I-OUT
T-helper NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Th NN O I-OUT
naive NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
T-helper NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
marginally NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.10 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
taking NN O O
highly NN O O
active NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
HAART NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
RNA NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
? NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
exploratory NN O O
linear NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
RNA NN O I-OUT
viral NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
months 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
Daily NN O O
7000 NN O O
IU NN O O
vitD3 NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
D. NN O I-OUT
Supplementation NN O O
improved NN O O
some NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O O
on NN O O
HAART NN O O
. NN O O

Adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
high-dose NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
vitD3 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
HIV-infected NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
on/off NN O O
HAART NN O O
requires NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (24992750)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
Western NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
on NN O O
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
persistent NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
mind NN O O
or NN O O
Shen NN O O
in NN O O
Traditional NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
Medicine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
second-generation NN O I-INT
Hi-receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cetirizine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
PER NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
total NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
preparatory NN O O
screening NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PER NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
7-day NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
rhinoconjunctivitis NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
non-nasal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
seriousness NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
impairments NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
via NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
and NN O O
emotional NN O O
activities NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
allow NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mind NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Shen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-regulation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
approach NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
acupuncture NN O I-INT
are NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
drug NN O O
cetirizine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (24998293)

Quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy- NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial 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
trial 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
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on 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 I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emotional NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
during NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
isometric NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
thirty NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
QLQ-BM22 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EORTC NN O I-OUT
QLQ-FA13 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
FBK-R10 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Psychosocial NN O O
aspects NN O O
in NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
three 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
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
rated NN O O
items NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
QLQ-BM22 NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
interference NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
trend NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.081 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
QLQ-FA13 NN O O
assessment NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

Emotional NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
confirmed NN O O
the NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
paravertebral NN O I-INT
muscles NN O I-INT
can NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thereby NN O I-OUT
enhance NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-months NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
spinal NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
large NN O O
controlled NN O O
investigations NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
identifier NN O O
NCT01409720 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25001365)

Neck NN O I-INT
circumference NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
cardiometabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
Chinese NN O O
( NN O O
CRC NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Neck NN O O
circumference NN O O
( NN O O
NC NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
previously NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
cardiometabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
NC NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
community-based NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
survey NN O I-INT
in NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
2,318 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18-64 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Carotid NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
crPWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cfPWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
dorsalis NN O I-OUT
pedis NN O I-OUT
PWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cdPWV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NC NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
lipids NN O O
, NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
BMI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
NC NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increasing NN O O
trend NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cfPWV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cdPWV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
crPWV NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
0.049 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.038 NN O O
; NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NC NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
cfPWV NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
BMI NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
interaction NN O O
= NN O O
0.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
NC NN O O
and NN O O
cfPWV NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
high NN O O
NC NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
atherosclerosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
independent NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Hypertension NN O O
might NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
NC NN O O
and NN O O
cfPWV NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25001543)

A NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
goal-directed NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
research NN O O
investigating NN O O
goal-directed NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
equivocal NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
varying NN O O
methodologies NN O O
used NN O O
across NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
both NN O O
object-oriented NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
social-communicatively NN O I-INT
cued NN O I-INT
goal-directed NN O I-INT
intention NN O I-INT
understanding NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically-developing NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Relative NN O O
to NN O O
matched NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
exhibit NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
object-oriented NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
intention NN O O
when NN O O
cued NN O O
by NN O O
social-communication NN O O
indicators NN O O
, NN O O
typically-developing NN O O
children NN O O
differentiated NN O O
between NN O O
intentional NN O O
and NN O O
unintentional NN O O
acts NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O O
were NN O O
eliminated NN O O
if NN O O
only NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O O
attended NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
experimenter NN O O
's NN O O
face NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
intact NN O O
object-oriented NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
social-communicative NN O O
cues NN O O
to NN O O
understand NN O O
intention NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
social-communicatively NN O I-OUT
cued NN O I-OUT
intention NN O I-OUT
understanding NN O I-INT
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
relevant NN O O
social-communicative NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25012645)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
passive NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metastatic NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Secondly NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
pathological NN O O
fractures NN O O
after NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
passive NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
thirty NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
metastatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-metastatic NN O I-OUT
vertebral NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
by NN O O
28.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
11.4-139.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
80.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
32.6-250.6 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6months NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
59.7 NN O O
; NN O O
IQR NN O O
21.1-98.3 NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O O
62.9 NN O O
; NN O O
IQR NN O O
-9.7 NN O O
to NN O O
161.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.289 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
5.5 NN O O
, NN O O
IQR NN O O
0.0-62.2 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.057 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
52.1 NN O O
, NN O O
IQR NN O O
0.0-162.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

23.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
30.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
had NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
fractures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
no NN O O
fracture NN O O
was NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.592 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.604 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
concomitant NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
spinal NN O O
bone NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
practicable NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pathological NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
offer NN O O
a NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
large NN O O
controlled NN O O
investigations NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
identifier NN O O
NCT01409720 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2501509)

TEN NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
following NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
septic NN O I-PAR
morbidity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
enteral NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TEN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TPN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
injured NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ATI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-INT
laparotomy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
TEN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Vivonex NN O I-INT
TEN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
TPN NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Freamine NN O I-INT
HBC NN O I-INT
6.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Trophamine NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
both NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
contained NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
branched NN O I-PAR
chain NN O I-PAR
amino NN O I-PAR
acids NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
calorie NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
nitrogen NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
150:1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TEN NN O I-INT
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
needle NN O O
catheter NN O O
jejunostomy NN O O
. NN O O

Nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
within NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
infused NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
render NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
positive NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TEN NN O I-INT
= NN O O
29 NN O O
vs NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
injury NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
initial NN O O
metabolic NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Jejunal NN O O
feeding NN O O
was NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
unconditionally NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
equivalent NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
= NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
gm/day NN O O
. NN O O

Traditional NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transferrin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retinol NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
restored NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Infections NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
septic NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
abdominal NN O O
abscess NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
group NN O O
contrasted NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
abdominal NN O O
abscess NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
= NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
TPN NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
TEN NN O I-INT
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
injured NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
feeding NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
gut NN O O
reduces NN O O
septic NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stressed NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25015354)

Safety NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
X-linked NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
4-year NN O O
DHAX NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Docosahexaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
DHA NN O O
) NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
recommended NN O O
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
various NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recently NN O O
assessed NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
DHA NN O O
supplementation NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O O
vision NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
X-linked NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
pigmentosa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
XLRP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
DHA NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
unsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
free-radical NN O O
induced NN O O
oxidation NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Biosafety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4-year NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
DHA NN O O
supplementation NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
identifiable NN O O
risks NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
7-31 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
modified NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
cohort NN O O
( NN O O
DHA NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
= NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
adhered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/d NN O I-INT
DHA NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O O
daily NN O O
multivitamin NN O O
. NN O O

Comprehensive NN O O
metabolic NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment-emergent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
year NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell-DHA NN O I-OUT
4.4- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3.6-fold NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.00001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Over NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
DHA NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
oxidized NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.14 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
transient NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
considered NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Long-term NN O O
, NN O O
high-dose NN O O
DHA NN O O
supplementation NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
XLRP NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
limited NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
4-year NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
should NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
DHA NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
personal NN O O
or NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
GI NN O O
disturbances NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT00100230 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25017958)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
short-term NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
transabdominal NN O I-INT
preperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
tension NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
inguinal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
short-term NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
transabdominal NN O I-INT
preperitoneal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
tension NN O I-INT
free NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
went NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-INT
hernia NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
Shahid NN O I-PAR
Sadoughi NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
TAPP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N.=60 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N.=60 NN O O
) NN O O
repair NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hematoma/seroma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TAPP NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
significantly NN O O
had NN O O
experienced NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
moments NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TAPP NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hematoma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TAPP NN O O
, NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
seroma NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TAPP NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
TAPP NN O O
0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
TAPP NN O O
group NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
TAPP NN O O
, NN O O
8.13?2.19 NN O O
vs. NN O O
Lichtenstein NN O O
, NN O O
13.15?1.5 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
TAPP NN O O
repair NN O O
is NN O O
safer NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
complicated NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
inguinal NN O O
hernia NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
main NN O O
short-term NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
TAPP NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
tension NN O O
free NN O I-INT
Lichtenstein NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
were NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
earlier NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
life NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25022248)

Evidence NN O O
for NN O O
diminished NN O O
multisensory NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
sensory NN O O
processing NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
integration NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
sensory NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
sound-induced NN O I-INT
flash NN O I-INT
illusion NN O I-INT
to NN O O
assess NN O O
multisensory NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
typically-developing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
TD NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
presented NN O O
with NN O I-INT
simple NN O I-INT
visual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
flash NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
auditory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
beep NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
varying NN O I-INT
number NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
illusory NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
flash NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
2-4 NN O O
beeps NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
TD NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
conditions NN O O
generally NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
flashes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
implying NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
perceptual NN O I-OUT
fusion NN O I-OUT
across NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
audition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
perceive NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
illusion NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
TD NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O I-OUT
multisensory NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cross-modal NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
weaker NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
for NN O O
multisensory NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
directions NN O O
for NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25022743)

Weighted NN O I-INT
blankets NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sleep NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
weighted-blanket NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
refractory NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
commercially NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
weighted NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
otherwise NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
introduced NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
; NN O O
each NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
period NN O O
before NN O O
crossover NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
blanket NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TST NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
actigraphy NN O O
over NN O O
each NN O O
2-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
actigraphically NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
sleep-onset NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
parent-report NN O O
diaries NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
TST NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
actigraphy NN O O
and NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
TST NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
behavioral NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
subjective NN O O
preference NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
help NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
fall NN O O
asleep NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
wake NN O O
less NN O O
often NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
weighted NN O I-INT
blanket NN O I-INT
was NN O O
favored NN O O
by NN O O
children NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blankets NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25040756)

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
offers NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Tramadol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
following NN O O
neonatal NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
opioid-spare NN O O
or NN O O
facilitate NN O O
earlier NN O O
extubation NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
neonates NN O O
is NN O O
unquantified NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
addition NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O O
extubation NN O O
or NN O O
reduced NN O O
analgesic/sedative NN O O
requirements NN O O
in NN O O
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Neonates NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
?32 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
postmenstrual NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-INT
tramadol NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
T NN O O
] NN O O
2 NN O O
mg?kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
] NN O O
6-hourly NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O I-PAR
postthoracoabdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O O
to NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
commenced NN O I-INT
at NN O O
20 NN O O
mcg?kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
?h NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6-hourly NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

acetaminophen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
amounts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hourly NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
seizure NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
and NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
67 NN O O
h NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
51 NN O O
, NN O O
84 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
P NN O O
52 NN O O
h NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
43 NN O O
, NN O O
65 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
numbers NN O O
were NN O O
extubated NN O O
by NN O O
96 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
P NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
difference NN O O
-8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-28 NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Morphine NN O O
and NN O O
midazolam NN O O
exposure NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
5/20 NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
: NN O O
T NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
P NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
means NN O O
2.8 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
7.6 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
participants NN O O
had NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
cranial NN O I-OUT
ultrasounds NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
86 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
vs NN O O
P NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O O
or NN O O
electroencephalographically NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Tramadol NN O O
's NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
postsurgical NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
extubation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
midazolam NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
questions NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
tramadol NN O O
for NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
neonates NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
seizures NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
ill NN O O
neonates NN O O
who NN O O
may NN O O
potentially NN O O
be NN O O
at NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
tramadol NN O O
toxicity NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25044079)

Examining NN O O
the NN O O
temperature NN O O
of NN O O
embryo NN O O
culture NN O O
in NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
fertilization NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
traditional NN O O
core NN O O
temperature NN O O
( NN O O
37?C NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
physiologic NN O O
, NN O O
cooler NN O O
temperature NN O O
( NN O O
36?C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
culture NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
physiologically NN O O
cooler NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
suggested NN O O
by NN O O
limited NN O O
human NN O O
and NN O O
animal NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
would NN O O
improve NN O O
blastulation NN O O
and NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
IVF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Paired NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Academic NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
S NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Infertile NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=52 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
partner NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
mature NN O I-PAR
oocytes NN O I-PAR
retrieved NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Mature NN O O
oocytes NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
oocytes 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 I-INT
; NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
cultured NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
37?C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
36?C NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ICSI NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O O
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
embryo NN O I-INT
transfer NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vitrification NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Paired NN O I-INT
embryo NN O O
transfers NN O O
were NN O O
accomplished NN O O
by NN O O
transferring NN O O
one NN O O
euploid NN O O
embryo NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
fingerprinting NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
embryo NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
expanded NN O I-OUT
blastocysts NN O I-OUT
suitable NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vitrification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aneuploidy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
805 NN O I-PAR
mature NN O I-OUT
oocytes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
cultured NN O O
; NN O O
399 NN O O
at NN O O
36?C NN O O
and NN O O
406 NN O O
at NN O O
37?C NN O O
. NN O O

Paired NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
usable NN O I-OUT
blastocyst NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
zygote NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
37?C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
vs. NN O O
at NN O O
36?C NN O O
( NN O O
41.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fertilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aneuploidy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
equivalent NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
IVF NN O O
culture NN O O
at NN O O
36?C NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
embryo NN O O
development NN O O
or NN O O
sustained NN O O
implantation NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
NCT01506089 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25044819)

Reducing NN O O
the NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
palliative NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
longer NN O O
term NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Palliative NN O O
care NN O O
incorporates NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
because NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
experience NN O O
burden NN O O
and NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
support NN O O
initiatives NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
one-to-one NN O I-INT
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
mitigating NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
caregivers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
home-based NN O I-PAR
palliative NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
caregivers NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
report NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
General NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GHQ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
two NN O I-INT
versions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
face-to-face NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
across NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Recruitment NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
148 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
non-significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
times NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
1-week NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
competence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
preparedness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
report NN O O
here NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
times NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
8-week NN O O
post-death NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
times NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
visit NN O O
intervention 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
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
visit NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
support NN O O
existing NN O O
evidence NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
that NN O O
relatively NN O O
short NN O O
psychoeducational NN O O
interventions NN O O
can NN O O
help NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
supporting NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dying NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sustained NN O O
benefit NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
bereavement NN O O
period NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
resource NN O O
implications NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
inquiry NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25045936)

Egg NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
during NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
restriction NN O O
alters NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cell NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
in NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Egg NN O O
yolk NN O O
contains NN O O
bioactive NN O O
components NN O O
that NN O O
improve NN O O
plasma NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
markers NN O O
and NN O O
HDL NN O O
profiles NN O O
in NN O O
metabolic NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
MetS NN O O
) NN O O
under NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
restriction NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
further NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
egg NN O I-INT
yolk NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
affects NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PBMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
homeostasis NN O O
in NN O O
MetS NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
HDL NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
associated NN O O
lipid NN O O
transporter NN O O
ATP-binding NN O O
cassette NN O O
transporter NN O O
A1 NN O O
( NN O O
ABCA1 NN O O
) NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
leukocytes NN O O
through NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
cellular NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
distribution NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MetS NN O I-PAR
consumed NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
carbohydrate-restricted NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
-30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
consuming NN O O
either NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
eggs NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EGG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
yolk-free NN O I-INT
egg NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SUB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Interestingly NN O O
, NN O O
lipopolysaccharide-induced NN O I-OUT
PBMC NN O I-OUT
IL-1? NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNF? NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SUB NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
PBMC NN O I-OUT
toll-like NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TLR4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
EGG NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ABCA1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-CoA NN O I-OUT
reductase NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
week NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EGG NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
PBMC NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
positively NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
lipid NN O O
raft NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

Together NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
whole NN O O
eggs NN O O
during NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
restriction NN O O
alters NN O I-OUT
PBMC NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MetS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25048751)

Transcervical NN O I-INT
Foley NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Cook NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
ripening NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stillbirth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
scarred NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
transcervical NN O I-INT
Foley NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Cook NN O I-INT
cervical NN O I-INT
ripening NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stillbirth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scarred NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
El NN O I-PAR
Minia NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
El NN O I-PAR
Minia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Egypt NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Two-hundred NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stillbirth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scarred NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
into NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
Foley NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
Cook NN O I-INT
cervical NN O I-INT
ripening NN O I-INT
balloon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Balloon NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
successful NN O I-OUT
ripening NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
balloon NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
expulsion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
from NN O O
balloon NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
Foley NN O O
's NN O O
catheter NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
balloon NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
balloon NN O I-OUT
expulsion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
ripening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
instrumental NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Foley NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Cook NN O I-INT
cervical NN O I-INT
ripening NN O O
balloon NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
regarding NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
ripen NN O O
the NN O O
cervix NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stillbirth NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scarred NN O I-PAR
uterus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
Foley NN O O
's NN O O
catheter NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
cheaper NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25053766)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
enhancing NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Research NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
social NN O O
behaviors NN O O
and NN O O
joint NN O O
attention NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
however NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
music NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
no-music NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O O
50-minute NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
group NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Autism NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O I-OUT
Evaluation NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
video NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sessions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
peers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
towards NN O I-OUT
persons NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MTG NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
withdraw/behaviors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
SRS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
improvements NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
MTG NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
SSG NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
MTG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
SSG 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
support NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
initial NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
music NN O O
therapy NN O O
social NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25056444)

Prior NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
stimulus NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
a NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Placebo NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
. NN O O

Prior NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O O
stimulus NN O O
may NN O O
moderate NN O O
placebo NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
tests NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prior NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O O
stimulus NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
a NN O O
laboratory NN O O
pain NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Healthy NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
undergraduates NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
report NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
submerging NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
experimenter NN O O
applied NN O O
an NN O O
inert NN O O
, NN O O
medicinal-smelling NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
to NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
non-dominant NN O O
hand NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
no-expectation NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cream NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
cleanser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
expectation NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
told NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
cream NN O I-INT
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
pressor NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
then NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O I-INT
pressor NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
and NN O O
reported NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
McGill NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
expectation NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
expectation NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
interaction NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
expectation NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
experience NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
cold NN O O
water NN O O
immersion NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
expectation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O O
context NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
stimulus NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
prevent NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
expectation NN O I-INT
from NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25062129)

Contact NN O O
lens NN O O
lipid NN O O
spoliation NN O O
of NN O O
hydrogel NN O O
and NN O O
silicone NN O O
hydrogel NN O O
lenses NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
contact NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
spoliation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
silicone NN O I-INT
hydrogel NN O I-INT
PureVision NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
balafilcon NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hydrogel NN O I-INT
Acuvue NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
etafilcon NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
contact NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
worn NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
wear NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EW NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
EW NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
bilateral NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
( NN O O
lens NN O O
material NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subject-masked NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
. NN O O

Worn NN O O
contact NN O O
lenses NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
lipid NN O O
uptake NN O O
using NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
chromatography NN O I-INT
by NN O O
two NN O O
laboratories NN O O
: NN O O
Alcon NN O O
Laboratories NN O O
( NN O O
right NN O O
lens NN O O
total NN O O
uptake NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
OTG NN O O
Research NN O O
& NN O O
Consultancy NN O O
( NN O O
left NN O O
lens NN O O
total NN O O
uptake NN O O
and NN O O
individual NN O O
lipid NN O O
classes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lipid NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
different NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
materials NN O O
: NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
esters NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
EW NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
triglycerides/phospholipids NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
balafilcon NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0025 NN O O
EW NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
etafilcon NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
extracted NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
higher NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
triglycerides/phospholipids NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
EW NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
balafilcon NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids/di- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
monoglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.014 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
etafilcon NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Total NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
material NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
laboratories NN O O
measured NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
uptake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
silicone NN O O
hydrogel NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
hydrogel NN O O
material NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
evident NN O O
after NN O O
only NN O O
10 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
DD NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
EW NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
DD NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
interest NN O O
for NN O O
contact NN O O
lens NN O O
spoliation NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
avoidance NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
differential NN O O
lipid NN O O
uptake NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
material NN O O
selectivity NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
greater NN O O
differentiation NN O O
between NN O O
materials NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
after NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
EW NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
material NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
uptake NN O O
profile NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
DD NN O O
and NN O O
EW NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
material NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
wear NN O O
modality NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25070364)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low- NN O O
, NN O O
medium- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-oil NN O O
distillers NN O I-INT
dried NN O I-INT
grains NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
solubles NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nutrient NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
finishing NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,480 NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
experiments NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
corn NN O I-INT
distillers NN O I-INT
dried NN O I-INT
grains NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
solubles NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
varying NN O O
in NN O O
oil NN O O
content NN O O
on NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
carcass NN O I-OUT
traits NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nutrient NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
finishing NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
, NN O O
1,198 NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PIC NN O I-PAR
Line NN O I-PAR
337 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1050 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
46.1 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allotted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
corn-soybean NN O I-INT
meal-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5.4 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
29.5 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O O
, NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
ADF NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
NDF NN O O
; NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O O
( NN O O
29.6 NN O O
% NN O O
CP NN O O
, NN O O
15.3 NN O O
% NN O O
ADF NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
28.6 NN O O
% NN O O
NDF NN O O
; NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
d NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
82 NN O O
, NN O O
ADG NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
DDGS NN O O
source NN O O
or NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
G NN O O
: NN O O
F NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
among NN O O
pigs NN O O
fed NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DDGS NN O O
source NN O O
? NN O O
level NN O O
interaction NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
DDGS NN O O
source NN O O
, NN O O
carcass NN O O
yield NN O O
and NN O O
HCW NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
DDGS NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
DDGS NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
jowl NN O I-OUT
iodine NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
pigs NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
fed NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O O
source NN O O
? NN O O
level NN O O
interaction NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
, NN O O
270 NN O I-PAR
pigs NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PIC NN O I-PAR
Line NN O I-PAR
327 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1050 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
46.5 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allotted NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
corn-soybean NN O I-INT
meal-based NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
diets NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
29.4 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
19.6 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
ADF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
34.5 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
NDF NN O I-INT
; NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
28.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
CP NN O O
, NN O O
17.6 NN O O
% NN O O
ADF NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31.4 NN O O
% NN O O
NDF NN O O
; NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
d NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
ADG NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
decreased NN O O
for NN O O
pigs NN O O
fed NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
for NN O O
pigs NN O O
fed NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O O
( NN O O
quadratic NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-INT
( NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
jowl NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
tended NN O O
( NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
G NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
F. NN O I-OUT
Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
source NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HCW NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carcass NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
linear NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
DDGS NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Exp NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
, NN O O
nutrient NN O O
digestibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
DDGS NN O I-INT
sources NN O I-INT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
pigs NN O O
fed NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
corn-based NN O O
basal NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
corn NN O O
and NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vitamins NN O O
and NN O O
minerals NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
DDGS NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
with NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
basal NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
DDGS NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O I-INT
an NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
corn NN O O
contained NN O O
3,871 NN O O
and NN O O
3,515 NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
GE NN O O
and NN O O
DE NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5.4 NN O O
, NN O O
9.6 NN O O
, NN O O
9.4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12.1 NN O O
% NN O O
oil NN O O
DDGS NN O I-INT
contained NN O I-INT
4,347 NN O O
, NN O O
4,648 NN O O
, NN O O
4,723 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4,904 NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
( NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
GE NN O O
and NN O O
3,417 NN O O
, NN O O
3,690 NN O O
, NN O O
3,838 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3,734 NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
DE NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stepwise NN O O
regression NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
oil NN O O
( NN O O
ether NN O O
extract NN O O
) NN O O
content NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
variable NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
energy NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
equations NN O O
generated NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
DE NN O O
and NN O O
NE NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
oil NN O O
content NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
as-fed NN O O
basis NN O O
were NN O O
DE NN O O
( NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
62.347 NN O O
? NN O O
ether NN O O
extract NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
3,058.13 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
NE NN O O
( NN O O
kcal/kg NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
115.011 NN O O
? NN O O
ether NN O O
extract NN O O
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
1,501.01 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25074072)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
norgestimate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
triphasic NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
norgestimate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NGM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
biphasic NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
investigator-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Thailand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
18-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
OCs NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
parameters NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
201 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
93 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
65.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p=.070 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
women NN O O
using NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
seborrhea NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
using NN O O
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Multiphasic NN O O
OCs NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
comparable NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
seborrhea NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
than NN O O
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
EE/NGM NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EE/DSG NN O I-INT
are NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
facial NN O O
acne NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
multiphasic NN O O
combined NN O O
OC NN O O
with NN O O
NGM NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
facial NN O O
seborrhea NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O O
may NN O O
apply NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
when NN O O
considering NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
facial NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seborrhea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25078976)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
controlled-release NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
pharmacology NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immediate-release NN O O
( NN O O
IR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
recently NN O O
developed NN O O
controlled-release NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
are NN O O
dose NN O O
proportional NN O O
. NN O O

Pregabalin NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
analysis NN O O
characterizes NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
on NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
caloric NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
accompanying NN O O
meal NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
330 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
fasted NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
food NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
single-dose NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O O
without NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregabalin NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
determined NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
studies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24-28 NN O I-PAR
participants/study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Caloric NN O O
and NN O O
fat NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
meals NN O O
were NN O O
varied NN O O
and NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
midday NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
post-dose NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O O
from NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
standard NN O O
noncompartmental NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
throughout NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19-54 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
for NN O O
CR NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
C NN O O
max NN O O
occurred NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
at NN O O
midday NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
exposures NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
curve NN O O
from NN O O
time NN O O
zero NN O O
extrapolated NN O O
to NN O O
infinite NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
AUC? NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
pregabalin NN O O
CR NN O O
and NN O O
IR NN O O
formulations NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
or NN O O
caloric NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
800-1,000 NN O O
calorie NN O O
medium-fat NN O O
breakfast NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AUC? NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
pregabalin NN O O
CR NN O O
and NN O O
IR NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Bioequivalence NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O O
CR NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
low- NN O O
or NN O O
medium-calorie NN O O
breakfast NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
not NN O O
met NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
was NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
( NN O O
75-86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-INT
When NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
fasted NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
AUC? NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
70-78 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
AUC? NN O O
of NN O O
pregabalin NN O O
CR NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
and NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
met NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
AUC? NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pregabalin NN O O
CR NN O O
formulation NN O O
administered NN O O
fasted NN O O
was NN O O
62-69 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
fasted NN O O
and NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
met NN O O
. NN O O

Single-dose NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IR NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Time NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
fat NN O O
and NN O O
caloric NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
accompanying NN O O
meal NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
and NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
pregabalin NN O I-INT
CR NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25080906)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
zero-balanced NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
zero-balanced NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
congenital NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
zero-balanced NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Z NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
zero-balanced NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Z+M NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Oxygenation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alveoli-arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
static NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cstat NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-INT
caridopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
T1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T5 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
monitored NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
CPB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cstat NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
T3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T5 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cstat NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Z+M NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Z NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Raw NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A-? NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Z+M NN O O
group 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
Z NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ventilation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Z+M NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Z NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Zero-balanced NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
ultrafiltration NN O I-INT
can NN O I-INT
effectively NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
after NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25082565)

Randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
non-comparative NN O O
multicenter NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
sequential NN O O
erlotinib NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
GFPC NN O O
10.02 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Concomitant NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
preliminary NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
sequential NN O O
administration NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
second-line NN O O
sequential NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
erlotinib NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
wild-type NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PS NN O I-PAR
0-2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
cisplatin-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
sequential NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
2-16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
d1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
ED NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
d1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
arm NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
21-day NN O O
cycle NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
included NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
Simon NN O O
optimal NN O O
two-stage NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ED NN O I-INT
strategy NN O O
was NN O O
rejected NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
below NN O O
33/66 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
Simon NN O O
stages NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
147 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
60?8 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PS NN O I-PAR
0/1/2 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
44/83/20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
ED NN O I-INT
strategy NN O O
was NN O O
rejected NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
18 NN O O
of NN O O
73 NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O I-OUT
PFS15 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
ED NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
of NN O O
74 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
D. NN O O
In NN O O
arms NN O I-INT
ED NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.2 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.5 NN O O
and NN O O
8.3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Sequential NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
with NN O O
wild-type NN O O
or NN O O
unknown NN O I-OUT
EGFR NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25083601)

Coping NN O O
strategies NN O O
as NN O O
mediators NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
START NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
RelaTives NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
family NN O I-OUT
carers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
people NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
dementia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Family NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O O
become NN O O
depressed NN O O
or NN O O
anxious NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
observational NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
emotion-focused NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
dysfunctional NN O O
coping NN O O
predict NN O O
fewer NN O O
psychological NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
RCT NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
directly NN O O
investigated NN O O
emotion-focused NN O O
coping NN O O
as NN O O
mediator NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
successful NN O O
psychological NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
emotion-focused NN O O
coping NN O O
would NN O O
mediate NN O O
the NN O O
START NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
intervention?s NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
mediated NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
moderated NN O O
by NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O I-PAR
260 NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
NHS NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O I-INT
START NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
manualised NN O I-INT
coping NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
treatment-as-usual NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blinded NN O O
raters NN O O
administered NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HADS-T NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
COPE NN O I-OUT
inventory NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

HADS-T NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
at NN O O
all NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
distress NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
coping NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
mediator NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
moderated NN O O
mediation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
) NN O O
subgroup NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
coping NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
187 NN O I-PAR
carers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
71.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
the NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
HADS-T NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
emotion-focused NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
among NN O O
carers NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
16+ NN O O
) NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
HADS-T NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mediated NN O O
effect=-0.63 NN O O
[ NN O O
-1.11 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.15 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
effect=33 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
measure NN O O
plausible NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
treatment NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
coping NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
START NN O I-INT
benefited NN O O
family NN O O
carers NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
psychological NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
different NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
psychologically NN O O
distressed NN O O
carers NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
emotion-focused NN O O
coping NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
dysfunctional NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
others NN O O
benefited NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
through NN O O
this NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25084009)

Physical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perceptual NN O I-INT
cooling NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
beverages NN O I-INT
to NN O O
increase NN O O
cycle NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
tropical NN O O
climate NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
neutral NN O I-INT
temperature NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ice-slush NN O I-INT
beverages NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
menthol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cycling NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tco NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
tropical NN O O
climate NN O O
( NN O O
hot NN O O
and NN O O
humid NN O O
conditions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
cyclists/triathletes NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
six NN O I-INT
20-km NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clock NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
30.7?C?0.8?C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
78 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
?0.03 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
relative NN O I-INT
humidity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O I-INT
and NN O O
after NN O O
warm-up NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
before NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
5 NN O O
km NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
athletes NN O O
drank NN O O
190 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O I-INT
aromatized NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O I-INT
menthol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
gr/L NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
non-aromatized NN O I-INT
beverage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
temperature NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
23?C?0.1?C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
3?C?0.1?C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ice-slush NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
-1?C?0.7?C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
continuously NN O O
monitored NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tco NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thermal NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thermal NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RPE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
warm-up NN O O
, NN O O
every NN O O
5 NN O O
km NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
beverage NN O I-OUT
aroma NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
and NN O O
beverage NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
considerably NN O O
better NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ice-slush NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
temperature NN O I-INT
beverage NN O O
, NN O O
whatever NN O O
the NN O O
aroma NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
< NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
menthol NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
non-menthol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
performances NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
ice-slush/menthol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cold/menthol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
neutral/menthol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
differences NN O I-INT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Tco NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
trials NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Cold NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ice-slush NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
menthol NN O I-INT
aroma NN O I-INT
seems NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
beverage NN O O
for NN O O
endurance NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
tropical NN O O
climate NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
field NN O O
competition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2508567)

[ NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3-year NN O O
survival NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
of NN O O
non-curatively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
of NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Adjuvant NN O O
Chemotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
Colorectal NN O O
Cancer NN O O
in NN O O
Japan NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
non-curatively NN O I-PAR
resected NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
collaborative NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
428 NN O I-PAR
institutes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Japan NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
Jan. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
1984 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Dec. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
1985 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1,138 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
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O O
location NN O O
( NN O O
colon NN O O
or NN O O
rectum NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Regimen NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

at NN O O
operation NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
in NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
+UFT NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
p.o. NN O O
, NN O O
D NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
UFT NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
p.o NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
556 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
148 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
185 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
presentation NN O O
. NN O O

Three-year-survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
histologically NN O O
confirmed NN O O
non-curatively NN O O
resected NN O O
colon NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
regimen NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
regimen NN O I-INT
D. NN O I-INT
But NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25086152)

Assessing NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
personalized NN O I-INT
EHR-generated NN O I-INT
informed NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Informed NN O O
consents NN O O
are NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
make NN O O
appropriate NN O O
clinical NN O O
decisions NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
current NN O O
standard NN O O
consent NN O O
forms NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
accomplish NN O O
their NN O O
intended NN O O
purpose NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
literacy NN O O
and NN O O
experiences NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dental NN O O
school NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
developing NN O O
competence NN O O
of NN O O
students NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
personalized NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
generated NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
electronic NN O O
health NN O O
record NN O O
( NN O O
EHR NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
dental NN O O
school NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
informed NN O O
consents NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
SmartConsents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
specific NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
and NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
with NN O O
graphics NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
delivered NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
's NN O O
EHR NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Urgent NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
divided NN O O
evenly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
consent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
SmartConsent NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
demographics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
decisional NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
literacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall 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
main NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
SmartConsent NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
informed NN O O
consents NN O O
for NN O O
decisional NN O I-OUT
conflict NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
during NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ethnicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
consents NN O O
to NN O O
aid NN O O
the NN O O
student NN O O
provider NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
communicating NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25087908)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
social NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
social NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
across NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autistic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Asperger NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
24 NN O O
) NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
sprays NN O I-INT
( NN O O
either NN O O
18 NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
International NN O O
Units NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
4- NN O O
and NN O O
8-weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment 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

Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
caregiver-completed NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinician-ratings NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O O
caregiver NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CLINICAL 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
www.anzctr.org.au NN O O
ACTRN12609000513213 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
primary NN O O
or NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
caregivers NN O O
who NN O O
believed NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
caregivers NN O O
who NN O O
believed NN O O
their NN O O
child NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O O
sprays NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
youth NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
suggest NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
alternative NN O O
delivery NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
earlier NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
caregiver NN O O
expectation NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25088089)

Modelling NN O I-PAR
broilers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Neural NN O O
networks NN O O
are NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
modelling NN O O
any NN O O
complex NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
poultry NN O I-PAR
production NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dietary NN O I-INT
crude NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
enzymes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
exEn NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
extensively NN O O
affected NN O O
abdominal NN O O
fat NN O O
( NN O O
AF NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
broilers NN O O
. NN O O

Current NN O O
methods NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
AF NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
dietary NN O O
CF NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
exEn NN O O
supplements NN O O
are NN O O
costly NN O O
, NN O O
laborious NN O O
and NN O O
time-consuming 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
develop NN O O
an NN O O
artificial NN O O
neural NN O O
network-genetic NN O O
algorithm NN O O
( NN O O
ANN-GA NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
model NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
broiler NN O I-OUT
chickens NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
CF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
exEn NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
containing NN O O
eight NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
divided NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
train NN O O
, NN O O
validation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ANN NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
feeding NN O O
eight NN O O
diets NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
periods NN O O
[ NN O O
starter NN O O
( NN O O
0-21 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
grower NN O O
( NN O O
22-42 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
AF NN O O
of NN O O
broilers NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
ANN-GA. NN O O
A NN O O
multilayer NN O O
feed-forward NN O O
neural NN O O
network NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
structures NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
using NN O O
matlab NN O O
software NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
optimal NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ANN NN O O
weights NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
genetic NN O O
algorithm NN O O
( NN O O
GA NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Crude NN O I-OUT
fibre NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exEn NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
as NN O O
input NN O O
variables NN O O
and NN O O
AF NN O O
of NN O O
broilers NN O O
was NN O O
output NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
ANN-GA NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
train NN O I-OUT
root NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
square NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RMSE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
best NN O O
selected NN O O
ANN-GA NN O O
showed NN O O
desirable NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
RMSE NN O O
, NN O O
0.1286 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
R NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
coefficient NN O O
, NN O O
0.876 NN O O
for NN O O
test NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25101527)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
implementing NN O O
the NN O O
Outcome NN O I-INT
Questionnaire-45.2 NN O I-INT
feedback NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
Norway NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
multisite NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
claimed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
ongoing NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
crucial NN O O
importance NN O O
for NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Norwegian NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
feedback NN O O
system NN O O
OQ-Analyst NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Outcome NN O I-INT
Questionnaire-45.2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Southern NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
259 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
feedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NFB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistical NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.027 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
corroborating NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
feedback NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
feedback NN O I-INT
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25101966)

That NN O O
looks NN O O
familiar NN O O
: NN O O
attention NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
familiar NN O O
and NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
faces NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Existing NN O O
eye-tracking NN O I-INT
literature NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
adults 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 I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
fewer NN O O
and NN O O
slower NN O O
fixations NN O O
on NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
this NN O O
reduced NN O O
saliency NN O O
and NN O O
processing NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
faces NN O O
, NN O O
recognition NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
face NN O O
is NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
typical NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
uses NN O O
eye-tracking NN O I-INT
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
typicality NN O O
of NN O O
gaze NN O O
patterns NN O O
when NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
attend NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
faces NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
familiar NN O O
and NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eye-tracking NN O I-INT
methodology NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fixate NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Eye NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mouth NN O I-OUT
regions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
familiar NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
unfamiliar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Self NN O I-OUT
Faces NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
typically NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Eye NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Mouth NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
face NN O O
types NN O O
( NN O O
familiar NN O O
, NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
and NN O O
self NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Correlational NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
attention NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Eye NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
and NN O O
Self NN O O
Faces NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
socio-communicative NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Levels NN O O
of NN O O
socio-communicative NN O O
ability NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
gaze NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
unfamiliar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Self NN O I-OUT
Faces NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
familiar NN O O
faces NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
familiar NN O O
faces NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
are NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
fixate NN O O
these NN O O
faces NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
way NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25102328)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
counteract NN O O
antipsychotic-associated NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
related NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
does NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
particular NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
antipsychotic-associated NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
obesity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
such NN O O
as NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Given NN O O
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
revealing NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioid NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
appetite NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
medications NN O O
to NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
opioid NN O O
antagonists NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
arresting NN O O
antipsychotic-associated NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
promoting NN O O
further NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
schizophrenia 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
24 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
schizoaffective NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks 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
a NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NTX NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3.40 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
+1.37 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the 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

Mainly NN O O
, NN O O
nondiabetic NN O O
subjects NN O O
lost NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
NTX NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
D2 NN O O
blockade NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
reward-based NN O I-OUT
overeating NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
larger NN O O
study NN O O
addressing NN O O
the NN O O
weaknesses NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
underway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25119339)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
and NN O O
perinatal NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
fetal NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
disappearance NN O O
in NN O O
LBW NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
homeostatic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
iron NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O O
are NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
synthesize NN O O
both NN O O
fetal NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
HbF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
adult NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
( NN O O
HbA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
how NN O O
the NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
switch NN O O
is NN O O
regulated NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
iron NN O O
supplements NN O O
to NN O O
infants NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
disappearance NN O O
of NN O O
HbF NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
285 NN O I-PAR
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2,000-2,500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
three NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/d NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
we NN O I-INT
analyzed NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Hb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HbF NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
wk NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
and NN O O
calculated NN O O
absolute NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
HbF NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
observed NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
Hb NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
iron-supplemented NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
HbF NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
there NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
similar NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
HbF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
81.2 NN O O
( NN O O
16.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
37.0 NN O O
( NN O O
13.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.1 NN O O
( NN O O
5.6 NN O O
) NN O O
g/l NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
postconceptional NN O O
age NN O O
turned NN O O
out NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
HbF NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
rejected NN O O
. NN O O

Instead NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
confirmed NN O O
a NN O O
close NN O O
correlation NN O O
to NN O O
postconceptional NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
supporting NN O O
a NN O O
genetically NN O O
programmed NN O O
switch NN O O
, NN O O
insensitive NN O O
to NN O O
most NN O O
environmental NN O O
factors NN O O
including NN O O
birth NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25122429)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bevacizumab-containing NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
non-small-cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ARIES NN O O
observational NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
recombinant NN O O
humanized NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
US NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
non-small-cell NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ARIES NN O O
( NN O O
Avastin NN O O
Regimens NN O O
: NN O O
Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
Safety NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
observational NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
community-based NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
From NN O O
2006 NN O O
to NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
ARIES NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
provide NN O I-PAR
informed NN O I-PAR
consent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
within NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
protocol-defined NN O O
treatments NN O O
or NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dosing NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
discretion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treating NN O O
physician NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ARIES NN O O
enrolled NN O O
1967 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
study NN O O
closure NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0.2-65.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
31-93 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
252 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
6.3-6.9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.0 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
12.2-13.8 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
first-line NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Incidences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bevacizumab-associated NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19.7 NN O O
% NN O O
overall NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
NSCLC NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Results NN O O
from NN O O
ARIES NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
similar NN O O
outcomes NN O O
to NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
real-world NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25142189)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
palifermin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
after NN O O
intensive NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gastrointestinal NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
oral NN O O
mucositis NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
myeloid NN O O
leukaemia NN O O
( NN O O
AML NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
contributes NN O O
substantially NN O O
to NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
keratinocyte NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
60 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
per NN O O
daily NN O O
IV NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
d NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
mucosal NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
idarubicin NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
cytarabine NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
etoposide NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
155 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
in NN O O
palifermin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?21 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
considering NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O O
Organization NN O O
grade NN O O
0-4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
palifermin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?0007 NN O O
, NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-INT
palifermin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
% NN O O
palifermin NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?01 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Palifermin NN O I-INT
has NN O I-INT
activity NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
mucosal NN O O
protectant NN O O
in NN O O
AML NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
intensive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
ACTRN012605000095662 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25149412)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neural NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
emotion NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
direct NN O O
emotional NN O O
cues NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
facial NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
voice NN O O
prosody NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
and NN O O
beliefs NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
without NN O O
direct NN O O
emotional NN O O
cues NN O O
also NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
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
study NN O O
has NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
this NN O O
difficulty NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
sequentially NN O O
conducted NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
this NN O O
difficulty NN O O
at NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
neural NN O O
levels NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
functional NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
psychological NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
task NN O O
was NN O O
modified NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Sally-Anne NN O O
Task NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
well-known NN O O
first-order NN O O
false NN O O
belief NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
task NN O O
was NN O O
optimized NN O O
for NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
abilities NN O O
to NN O O
infer NN O O
another NN O O
person NN O O
's NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
and NN O O
beliefs NN O O
distinctively NN O O
so NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
deficit NN O O
in NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
beliefs NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
without NN O O
direct NN O O
emotional NN O O
cues NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inferring NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
inferring NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.064 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
demographically-matched NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
insula NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
posterior NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
sulcus NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
during NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
beliefs NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
participants NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
cluster NN O O
size NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
voxels NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
potential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
these NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
neural NN O O
deficits NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
within-subject NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
single-dose NN O O
intranasal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
IU NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
males 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
Behaviourally NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inferring NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.043 NN O O
, NN O O
one-tail NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
peptide NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
originally-diminished NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
insula NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
social NN O O
emotions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dorsomedial NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
during NN O O
inferring NN O O
others NN O O
' NN O O
beliefs NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.858 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
understand NN O I-OUT
others NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
required NN O O
second-order NN O O
false NN O O
belief NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
first-order NN O O
false NN O O
beliefs NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
without NN O O
direct NN O O
emotional NN O O
cues NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
neural NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25178668)

Angiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
loaded NN O O
with NN O O
ticagrelor NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
MICAMI-TICLO NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Ticagrelor NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
on NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
microvascular NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST-segment NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
completely NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ninety-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
where NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ticagrelor NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
undergoing NN O O
primary NN O O
angioplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blinded NN O O
operators NN O O
calculated NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
Frame NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cTFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
blush NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MBG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
stent NN O O
implantation NN O O
. NN O O

ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
cTFC NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
PCI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
cTFC NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PCI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TIMI NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MBG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
58.8?10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
4.4?2.6 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
loading NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stent NN O I-OUT
deployment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
35.2?36.4 NN O O
in NN O O
ticagrelor NN O O
and NN O O
42.7?29.5 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.36 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
cTFC NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
angioplasty NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
ticagrelor NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
( NN O O
81.1?29.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
95.1?17.5 NN O O
frames NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
ticagrelor NN O O
and NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cTFC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24.6?9.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
27.0?13.4 NN O O
frames NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
MBG NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
76.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
69.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
show NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
84.8?23.4 NN O O
in NN O O
ticagrelor NN O O
vs. NN O O
70.8?33.7 NN O O
in NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
, NN O O
ticagrelor NN O O
loading NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O O
after NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25179065)

GPs NN O O
' NN O O
experiences NN O O
with NN O O
brief NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
medication-overuse NN O O
headache NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
qualitative NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Medication-overuse NN O O
headache NN O O
( NN O O
MOH NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
managed NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Brief NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
motivational NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
overuse NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
a NN O O
have NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
MOH NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
GPs NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
experiences NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
BI NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MOH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Qualitative NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
Norwegian NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
through NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
focus NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
interviews NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
GPs NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
BI NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
MOH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Systematic NN O O
text NN O O
condensation NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyse NN O O
transcripts NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
focus NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
interviews NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
GPs NN O I-INT
experienced NN O I-INT
challenges NN O O
when NN O O
trying NN O O
to NN O O
convince NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
they NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
and NN O O
prevent NN O O
headache NN O O
could NN O O
cause NN O O
headache NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
labelling NN O O
MOH NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
opened NN O O
up NN O O
a NN O O
space NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

GPs NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
BI NN O I-INT
within NN O O
the NN O O
scope NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
consultation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
thought NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
structured NN O O
approach NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
views NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
medication NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Being NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
medication NN O O
overuse NN O O
could NN O O
bring NN O O
about NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
guilt NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
GPs NN O O
emphasised NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alliance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
for NN O O
successful NN O O
change NN O O
using NN O O
BI NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
MOH NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
GPs NN O I-INT
experience NN O I-INT
BI NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
feasible NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
MOH NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
relies NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alliance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
doctor NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
using NN O O
BI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
GPs NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
prepared NN O O
to NN O O
counter NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
misconceptions NN O O
about NN O O
medication NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
headache NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25186034)

Tofacitinib NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
third-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
PROs NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
JAK NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
?18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
?1 NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
necrosis NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
inhibitor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TNFi NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
background NN O I-PAR
methotrexate NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
2:2:1:1 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
advanced NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tofacitinib NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PROs NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
3 NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PtGA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, 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
disability NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
36 NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SF-36v2 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Functional NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
Illness NN O I-OUT
Therapy-Fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MOS NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
133 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
134 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
advanced NN O O
to NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HAQ NN O I-OUT
DI NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
previously NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PtGA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SF-36v2 NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
summary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
tofacitinib NN O O
doses NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
improvements NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
tofacitinib-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
PtGA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HAQ NN O I-OUT
DI NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SF-36v2 NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
summary NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
FACIT-F NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MOS NN O I-OUT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
Tofacitinib NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
PROs NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
over NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
RA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
TNFi NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25187485)

Gene NN O O
variants NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
bupropion-assisted NN O O
smoking NN O I-PAR
cessation NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Bupropion NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
clinically NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
metabolized NN O O
by NN O O
CYP2B6 NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
active NN O O
metabolite NN O O
hydroxybupropion NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
CYP2B6 NN O O
activity NN O O
have NN O O
little NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
bupropion NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
is NN O O
excreted NN O O
as NN O O
urinary NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
characterized NN O O
metabolites NN O O
hydroxybupropion NN O O
, NN O O
threohydrobupropion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
erythrohydrobupropion NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
alternative NN O O
metabolic NN O O
pathways NN O O
may NN O O
exist NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
could NN O O
metabolize NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
genetic NN O O
variants NN O O
on NN O O
bupropion NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
CYP2C19*2 NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
activity NN O O
allele NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
bupropion NN O I-INT
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
similar NN O O
hydroxybupropion NN O O
AUC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
bupropion NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
771 NN O O
versus NN O O
670 NN O O
hours?ng/ml NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
CYP2C19*2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CYP2C19*2 NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
threohydrobupropion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
erythrohydrobupropion NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
CYP2B6 NN O O
genotype NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
these NN O O
associations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
variants NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
hydroxybupropion/bupropion NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
CYP2B6 NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
540 NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CYP2C19 NN O O
genotype NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O I-INT
bupropion NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
is NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
hydroxybupropion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
CYP2C19 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
CYP2C19 NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
steady-state NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
bupropion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
reductive NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
threohydrobupropion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
erythrohydrobupropion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
bupropion NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
in NN O O
smokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
bupropion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25193142)

Parent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PEERS NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Raising NN O O
a NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
chaos NN O O
and NN O O
parent NN O I-PAR
distress NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
healthy NN O O
systemic NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
rarely NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Education NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Enrichment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Relational NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEERS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
social NN O O
skills NN O O
intervention NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
PEERS NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
chaos NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
via 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

Results NN O O
suggested NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
domain NN O O
of NN O O
family NN O I-OUT
chaos NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PEERS NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
increased NN O O
parenting NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
highlight NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
family NN O O
system NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
PEERS NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
overall NN O O
better NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
family NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25195982)

The NN O O
dispatcher NN O O
assisted NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
indirect NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
emergency NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Conduct NN O O
of NN O O
emergency NN O O
research NN O O
under NN O O
waiver NN O O
of NN O O
consent NN O O
produces NN O O
special NN O O
challenges NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
act NN O O
of NN O O
performing NN O O
research NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
unintended NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
beneficial NN O O
or NN O O
detrimental NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Dispatcher-Assisted NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DART NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
2 NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
dispatcher NN O I-OUT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
instruction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
arrest NN O O
victims NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
bystander NN O O
CPR NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
receiving NN O O
bystander NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
DART NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
periods NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
observational NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
8626 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O I-PAR
non-traumatic NN O I-PAR
out-of-hospital NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
services NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EMS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
arrival NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
King NN O I-PAR
County NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Washington NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1999 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bystander NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
through NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
dispatch NN O O
recordings NN O O
and NN O O
EMS NN O O
reports NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O O
any NN O O
bystander NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
B-CPR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
bystander NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
dispatcher NN O I-OUT
assistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DA-CPR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
B-CPR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
DA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
used NN O O
multivariable NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
B-CPR NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
DART NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
proportions NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
B-CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
DART NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1817/3468 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
DART NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2093/3527 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
DART NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
885/1631 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
before NN O O
DART NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
receiving NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
B-CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
DART NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.35 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI=1.23-1.49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.10 NN O O
, NN O O
0.98-1.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
before NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
DA-CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
DART NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.79 NN O O
, NN O O
1.59-2.02 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
after NN O O
( NN O O
OR=0.94 NN O O
, NN O O
0.80-1.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Odds NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bystander NN O I-OUT
CPR NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
higher NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
DA-CPR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
finding NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
indirect NN O O
community-wide NN O O
benefit NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
interventional NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2521868)

Cimetidine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
immunomodulator NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
herpes NN O I-PAR
zoster NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
immunoregulatory NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
H2-histamine NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
carried NN O O
out 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
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
H2-blocker NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
herpes NN O I-PAR
zoster NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cimetidine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
promoted NN O I-OUT
faster NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
immunological NN O O
trends NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
support NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
histamine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mitogen NN O O
phytohemagglutinin NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
histamine NN O O
was NN O O
antagonized NN O O
by NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25223836)

Safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pharmacogenomics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QT NN O I-OUT
concentration-effect NN O I-OUT
modelling NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
SirT1 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
selisistat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
Selisistat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SEN0014196 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
first-in-class NN O I-INT
SirT1 NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
being NN O O
developed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
disease-modifying NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
Huntington NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
first-in-human NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacogenomics NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
selisistat NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
selisistat NN O I-INT
at NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
administered NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
and NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
sampling NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Selisistat NN O I-INT
was NN O O
rapidly NN O O
absorbed NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
exposure NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
proportion NN O O
to NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-300 NN O O
mg NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Steady-state NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
related NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
or NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
doses NN O O
received NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
or NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
QTc NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
T-wave NN O I-OUT
morphology NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
or NN O O
neurological NN O O
examinations NN O O
or NN O O
postural NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Transcriptional NN O O
alteration NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Selisistat NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25224595)

Caphosol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mouthwash NN O I-INT
gives NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
oral NN O O
mucositis NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
adding NN O I-INT
Caphosol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O O
mouthwash NN O O
solution NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O O
) NN O O
further NN O O
protects NN O O
against NN O O
oral NN O O
mucositis NN O O
( NN O O
OM NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
toxic NN O O
painful NN O O
complication NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
?16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
consecutively NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Caphosol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

OC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
from NN O O
start NN O O
to NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
HDCT NN O O
. NN O O

Caphosol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
day NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULT NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
regarding NN O O
age NN O O
or NN O O
gender NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Mucositis NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organisation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WHO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O I-OUT
cm 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
from NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
= NN O O
worst NN O O
imaginable NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Start NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relieving NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalisation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
records NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Data NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
OM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
opioids NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
parenteral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
during NN O O
22 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
OM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
opioids NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
TPN NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O I-INT
Caphosol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25225951)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
rhubarb NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
acute NN O O
pancreatitis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rhubarb NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
enteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EEN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
pancreatitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SAP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
126 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SAP NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
EEN NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
suspension NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
EEN NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rhubarb NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rhubarb NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
EN NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
APACHE NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-11 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
longitudinally NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EEN/rhubarb NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
period NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fastest NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
intensive-care NN O O
unit NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
stays NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
EEN NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rhubarb NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
APACHE NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Combination NN O O
therapies NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
abnormally NN O O
higher NN O O
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
IL-11 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
combination NN O O
therapies NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
SAP-related NN O O
damages NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
abnormally NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
aspartate NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Combination NN O O
of NN O O
EEN NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rhubarb NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
inhibited NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
mitigated NN O O
the NN O O
disease-related NN O O
damages NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
and NN O O
kidney NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
SAP NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25229605)

Acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dynamic NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
on NN O O
eccentric-exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
hamstring NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
bout NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
dynamic NN O I-INT
hamstring-stretching NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
damage NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
strenuous NN O O
eccentric NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
stretching NN O O
protocols NN O O
elicit NN O O
similar NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty-six NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
jogging NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
warm-up NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
static NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
dynamic NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DAS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
eccentric NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
stretching NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
core NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
maximal NN O O
voluntary NN O O
isometric NN O O
contraction NN O O
, NN O O
passive NN O O
hip NN O O
flexion NN O O
, NN O O
passive NN O O
hamstring NN O O
stiffness NN O O
( NN O O
PHS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
creatine NN O O
kinase NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
myoglobin NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
prestretching NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
poststretching NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
eccentric NN O O
exercises NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
d. NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
stretching NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hip NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SAS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5? NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
DAS NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10.8? NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-4.1? NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
PHS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DAS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5.6 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CON NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-5.7 NN O I-INT
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
SAS NN O O
( NN O O
-6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
muscle-damage NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SAS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DAS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CON NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prior NN O O
active NN O O
stretching NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
attenuating NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
damage NN O O
after NN O O
eccentric NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SAS NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
recommended NN O O
over NN O I-INT
DAS NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O O
stretching NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
hamstring NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
motion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
damage NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25238860)

A NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Multiple NN O I-PAR
Sclerosis NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ICF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Forty NN O O
to NN O O
sixty NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
MS NN O O
patients NN O O
suffer NN O O
from NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairments NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
deficits NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
a NN O O
great NN O O
burden NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
environment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
neuropsychological NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
MS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ICF NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
more NN O O
properly NN O O
individual NN O O
requirements NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
of NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
IG NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
started NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
attended NN O O
psychological NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
untrained NN O I-INT
CG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
specific NN O O
domains NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
simple NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cued NN O I-OUT
alertness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
divided NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
CG NN O O
and NN O O
IG NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
IG NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retardation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
idea NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
ICF NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
could NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
participation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25246693)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
artemisinin-based NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
falciparum NN O O
malaria NN O O
in NN O O
under-five-year-old NN O I-PAR
Nigerian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
3-day NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
artemether-lumefantrine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
artesunate-amodiaquine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
747 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
malaria NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
geographical NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Nigeria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fever NN O O
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
parasitemia NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
began NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
artesunate-amodiaquine-compared NN O O
with NN O O
artemether-lumefantrine-treated NN O I-INT
children NN O O
. NN O O

Parasite NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
times NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
96.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
94.5-97.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Polymerase NN O I-OUT
chain NN O I-OUT
reaction-corrected NN O I-OUT
parasitologic NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Day NN O O
28 NN O O
were NN O O
96.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
93.9-98.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
98.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
96.1-99.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
artemether-lumefantrine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
artesunate-amodiaquine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Gametocyte NN O I-OUT
carriage NN O I-OUT
post NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
9.04-10.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacious NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
falciparum NN O O
malaria NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
Nigerian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25252600)

The NN O O
REFLO-STEMI NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
infarct NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
microvascular NN O O
obstruction NN O O
during NN O O
primary NN O O
percutaneous NN O O
coronary NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Microvascular NN O O
obstruction NN O O
( NN O O
MVO NN O O
) NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
ischaemic-reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
but NN O O
underappreciated NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
short- NN O O
and NN O O
longer-term NN O O
outcome NN O O
following NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ST-elevation NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
STEMI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
small NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
MVO NN O I-OUT
utilising NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
vasoactive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SNP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
being NN O O
most NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
evidence NN O O
base NN O O
remains NN O O
weak NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
variable NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
differing NN O O
drug NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
such NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
regarding NN O O
benefit NN O O
are NN O O
conflicting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
REperfusion NN O O
Facilitated NN O O
by NN O O
LOcal NN O I-INT
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
STEMI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
REFLO-STEMI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
, NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
blinded NN O O
endpoint NN O O
analysis NN O O
: NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
STEMI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
planned NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
P-PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
TIMI NN O I-PAR
0/1 NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infarct-related NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IRA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
bystander NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
adjunctive NN O I-PAR
pharmacotherapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
intracoronary NN O I-PAR
adenosine NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
SNP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
PCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
Bivalirudin NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thrombus NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
determined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
mass NN O O
) NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
cardiac NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
CMRI NN O O
) NN O O
undertaken NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
P-PCI NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
MVO NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hypoenhancement NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
CMRI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microvascular NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MACE NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
1-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
recruit NN O O
240 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
powered NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
detect NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
absolute NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
IS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
REFLO-STEMI NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
weaknesses NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
have NN O O
collectively NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
whether NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
adenosine NN O O
and/or NN O O
SNP NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
injury NN O O
( NN O O
infarct NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
MVO NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
good NN O O
basic NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
attenuate NN O O
this NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
REFLO-STEMI NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
scientifically NN O O
robust NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
evaluating NN O O
whether NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intracoronary NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
SNP NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
thrombus NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
CMRI NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
IS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MVO NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
P-PCI NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
STEMI NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Trial NN O O
registered NN O O
20th NN O O
November NN O O
2012 NN O O
: NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
NCT01747174 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25253808)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
jejunal NN O O
morphological NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
weaned NN O I-PAR
piglets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
age-related NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
Zn NN O O
concentration NN O O
on NN O O
morphological NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
piglets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
purebred NN O I-PAR
Landrace NN O I-PAR
piglets NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
weaned NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
fed NN O O
with NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
57 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Zn/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
164 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Zn/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2425 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
Zn/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
Zn NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZnO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Piglets NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
killed NN O O
at NN O O
33 NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
54 NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
jejunum NN O O
, NN O O
villus NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
crypt NN O O
depth NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
goblet NN O O
cells NN O O
producing NN O O
neutral NN O O
, NN O O
acidic NN O O
, NN O O
sulfated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sialylated NN O O
mucins NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Intraepithelial NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
were NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
flow NN O O
cytometry NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
mucin NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
MUC2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mucin NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
MUC20 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
?-defensin NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
trefoil NN O O
factor NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
TFF3 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
reverse NN O O
transcription NN O O
quantitative NN O O
PCR NN O O
. NN O O

Villus NN O O
height NN O O
and NN O O
crypt NN O O
depth NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
jejunum NN O O
showed NN O O
age NN O O
related NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
Zn NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mucin NN O O
types NN O O
were NN O O
modified NN O O
mainly NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
dietary NN O O
Zn NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
jejunum NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
jejunum NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
Zn NN O O
had NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mucin NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
abundance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sulfomucins NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
sialomucins NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
age 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
high NN O O
dietary NN O O
ZnO NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
sulfomucins 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
increased NN O O
the NN O O
sialomucins 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
crypts NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
phenotypes NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
epithelium NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
jejunum NN O O
showed NN O O
relatively NN O O
constant NN O I-OUT
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
T-cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
natural NN O O
killer NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
Zn NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
led NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
abundance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?? NN O I-OUT
T-cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
apportionment NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
T-cell NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
age NN O O
dependent NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CD8? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased 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
the NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
CD8? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
age 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
expression NN O O
of NN O O
MUC2 NN O O
and NN O O
MUC20 NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
or NN O O
dietary NN O O
Zn NN O O
concentration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
High NN O I-INT
Zn NN O I-INT
intakes NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
gene NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
?-defensin NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
TFF3 NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
Zn NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
ZnO NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
specific NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
innate NN O O
and NN O O
adaptive NN O O
gut NN O O
associated NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
piglets NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

These NN O O
might NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Zn NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postweaning NN O O
diarrhea NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25256627)

Working NN O O
memory NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
flexibility-training NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
People 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
experience NN O O
executive NN O O
function NN O O
( NN O O
EF NN O O
) NN O O
deficits NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
urgent NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increasing NN O O
research NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
computerized NN O O
cognitive NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
two NN O O
EF NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS 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
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
flexibility-training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
non-adaptive NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mock-training NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Braingame NN O I-INT
Brian NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computerized NN O I-INT
EF-training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
game-elements NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O O
pretraining NN O O
, NN O O
post-training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6-week-follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
near-transfer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
trained NN O I-OUT
EFs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
far-transfer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
EFs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sustained NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
EFs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Attrition-rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
conditions NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
WM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differential NN O O
intervention NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WM NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
near-transfer NN O I-OUT
WM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADHD-behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O O
flexibility NN O O
condition NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
near-transfer NN O I-OUT
flexibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WM NN O O
condition NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
WM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADHD-behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
differential NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
most NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adaptive NN O O
training NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mock-training NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
attrition NN O O
rate NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
its NN O O
present NN O O
form NN O O
is NN O O
probably NN O O
not NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25260191)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
parental NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
with NN O O
their NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
caregivers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Caregivers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
parental NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
monitoring NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
involving NN O O
4 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

Parental NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
at NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12-months NN O O
post-study NN O O
entry NN O O
. NN O O

Parental NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
made NN O O
significant NN O O
developmental NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
parental NN O I-INT
responsiveness NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
intervention NN O O
target NN O O
given NN O O
its NN O O
general NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extant NN O O
literature NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
supports NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25264862)

PLAY NN O I-INT
Project NN O I-INT
Home NN O I-INT
Consultation NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Play NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Language NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Autistic NN O I-INT
Youngsters NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLAY NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Project NN O I-INT
Home NN O I-INT
Consultation NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
child NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
CS NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
128 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PDD-NOS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DSM-4 NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
agencies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-PAR
states NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
two NN O O
1-year NN O O
cohorts NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
videotape NN O O
and NN O O
written NN O O
feedback NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
developmental NN O O
framework NN O O
, NN O O
PLAY NN O I-INT
consultants NN O O
coached NN O O
caregivers NN O O
monthly NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
caregiver-child NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

CS NN O I-INT
included NN O O
speech/language NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
occupational NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
public NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
services NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
parent-child NN O O
interactions NN O O
, NN O O
language NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
autism-related NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
category/symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
parent NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
home NN O O
consultant NN O O
fidelity NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Using NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O I-INT
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
large NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
evident NN O O
for NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
interactional NN O O
behaviors NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Maternal NN O O
and NN O O
Child NN O O
Behavior NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scales NN O O
. NN O O

Child NN O O
language NN O O
and NN O O
developmental NN O O
quotient NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
by NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
functional NN O O
development NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

PLAY NN O I-INT
children NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
categories NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Observation NN O O
Schedule NN O O
( NN O O
ADOS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PLAY NN O I-INT
caregivers NN O O
' NN O O
stress NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
decreased NN O O
. NN O O

Home NN O O
consultants NN O O
administered NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
fidelity NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
PLAY NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
substantial NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parent-child NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
stress/depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O O
findings NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
cautiously NN O O
because NN O O
results NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
align NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

PLAY NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
communities NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
inexpensive NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25265769)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Some NN O O
investigators NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hypotension NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intrathecal NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
plain NN O I-PAR
solution NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
with NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
11 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
11 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
microg NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
cesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Committee NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
parturients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
H NN O O
received NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
received NN O O
11 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
L NN O O
received NN O O
11 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
g. NN O I-INT
Spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
right NN O O
lateral NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
spinal NN O O
solutions NN O O
were NN O O
injected NN O O
approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
seconds NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O O
and NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
5-minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Side-effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Demographic NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pinprick NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Group NN O O
H NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
L. NN O O
The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
minimal NN O O
, NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
mild NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
Group NN O O
H NN O O
= NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
L NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
's NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
rated NN O O
as NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
sensation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pinprick NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
hyperbaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
plain NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
plain NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
Levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25265770)

Femoral NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
arthroscopic NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND 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
with NN O O
varying NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
FNB NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
better NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
strengths NN O O
after NN O O
ACL NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
FNB NN O I-INT
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O I-OUT
regarding NN O I-OUT
demographic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FNB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
18 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
specify NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patellar NN O O
tendon NN O O
graft NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
requiring NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
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

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
demographic NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
FNB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensorimotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
FNB NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
analgesic NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
narcotic NN O O
requirements NN O O
after NN O O
patellar NN O O
tendon NN O O
graft NN O O
ACL NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
concentrations NN O O
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
strengths NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2527542)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
inhibition NN O O
by NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cilazapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
lasting NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
cilazapril NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
or NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Afterwards NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

Cilazapril NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
lowered 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
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
post NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Indomethacin NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cilazapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
with NN O O
cilazapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
first NN O O
received NN O O
cilazapril NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
then NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

Correspondingly NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
initially NN O O
with NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cilazapril NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
depend NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
sequence NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25279666)

Dental NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
decreases NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nationwide NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Taiwan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Periodontal NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
PD NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
chronic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

Esophageal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
cause NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
death NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
processes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
retrospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
PD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
718,409 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Taiwan NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Insurance NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Database NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NHIRD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
followed NN O O
from NN O O
January NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2000 NN O O
to NN O O
December NN O O
31 NN O O
, NN O O
2010 NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
519,831 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
advanced NN O O
treatment NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
: NN O O
dental NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
IRs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
682 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
developed NN O I-PAR
EC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.11 NN O O
case-number NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
person-years NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
?/y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.06?/y NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Multivariable NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
hazard NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
10.04 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
7.58-13.30 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O O
ulcers NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
7.10 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
5.03-10.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
alcohol NN O O
abuse NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
5.46 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
2.26-13.18 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
esophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.86 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
1.02-3.52 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
factors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
EC NN O O
. NN O O

And NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.53 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.44-0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
subgroup NN O O
analysis NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HR NN O I-PAR
= NN O O
0.54 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.44-0.66 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
females NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
has NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
For NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
dental NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
PD NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
PD NN O O
groups NN O O
among NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25282520)

Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
PCSK9 NN O O
with NN O O
evolocumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
homozygous NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
TESLA NN O O
Part NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Homozygous NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
rare NN O O
, NN O O
serious NN O O
disorder NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
plasma NN O O
clearance NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O O
, NN O O
substantially NN O O
raised NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Conventional NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
modestly NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

Evolocumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
to NN O O
proprotein NN O I-INT
convertase NN O I-INT
subtilisin/kexin NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PCSK9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
now NN O O
report NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
evolocumab NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
at NN O O
17 NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
America NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Middle NN O I-PAR
East NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
homozygous NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-INT
lipid-regulating NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
apheresis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
computer-generated NN O I-PAR
randomisation NN O I-PAR
sequence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
evolocumab NN O I-INT
420 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
LDL NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
at NN O O
screening NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
11 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
or NN O O
?11 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
implemented NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computerised NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
voice-response NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
personnel NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
funder NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
masked NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
returning NN O I-PAR
LDL NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
lipid NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
visit NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
percentage NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ultracentrifugation NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
analysed NN O O
by NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT01588496 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
actually NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
evolocumab NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
evolocumab NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
ultracentrifugation NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
by NN O O
30?9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-43?9 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-18?0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment-emergent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
evolocumab NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
serious NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
laboratory NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
anti-evolocumab NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
homozygous NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
stable NN O O
background NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
apheresis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
evolocumab NN O I-INT
420 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Amgen NN O O
Inc NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25286703)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O O
spine NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
facet NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nerve NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
lumbar NN O I-INT
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
facet-joint NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
facet-joint NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
block NN O I-INT
blindly NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
location NN O O
of NN O O
needle NN O O
tip NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
CT NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O O
was NN O O
computed NN O O
afterwards NN O O
. NN O O

VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
one-time NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
3.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
in NN O O
US NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
in NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
puncture NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
( NN O O
206 NN O O
+/- NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
US NN O O
group NN O O
while NN O O
( NN O O
397 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
s NN O O
in NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
37 NN O O
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
32 NN O O
were NN O O
correctly NN O O
targeted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
puncture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
86.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
35 NN O O
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
blindly NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
11 NN O O
were NN O O
correctly NN O O
targeted NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
puncture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
31.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
one-time NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
significant 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

Differences NN O O
of NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
half NN O O
an NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
facet NN O O
joint NN O O
injection NN O O
between NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
US NN O O
group NN O O
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

There NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
US NN O O
group NN O O
obtaining NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
d NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
d NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
( NN O O
72.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.0 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
US NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
56.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.0 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
B NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
lumbar NN O I-INT
facet NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
accuracy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
than NN O O
block NN O I-INT
blindly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25287262)

Detection NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
quantification NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
component NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
subsolid NN O I-PAR
nodules NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
semiautomatic NN O I-INT
segmentation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
semiautomatic NN O I-INT
volumetric NN O I-INT
software NN O I-INT
can NN O O
differentiate NN O O
part-solid NN O O
from NN O O
nonsolid NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
nodules NN O O
and NN O O
aid NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
As NN O O
per NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
115 NN O I-PAR
nodules NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
differentiated NN O O
into NN O O
nonsolid NN O O
and NN O O
part-solid NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
radiologists NN O O
; NN O O
disagreements NN O O
were NN O O
adjudicated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
radiologist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diameters NN O O
of NN O O
solid NN O O
components NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
manually NN O O
. NN O O

Semiautomatic NN O O
volumetric NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
and NN O O
quantify NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
different NN O O
Hounsfield NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
HU NN O O
) NN O O
thresholds NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
and NN O O
manual NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
detected NN O O
a NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
in NN O O
86 NN O O
nodules NN O O
. NN O O

Diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
by NN O O
semiautomatic NN O O
software NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
chosen NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
-300 NN O O
HU NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
solid NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
75 NN O O
nodules NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
-130 NN O O
HU NN O O
, NN O O
semiautomatic NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
2.4 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
2.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
manual NN O O
measurements NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
window NN O O
setting NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
2.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
[ NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.63 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Semiautomatic NN O O
segmentation NN O O
of NN O O
subsolid NN O O
nodules NN O O
could NN O O
diagnose NN O O
part-solid NN O O
nodules NN O O
and NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
human NN O O
observers NN O O
. NN O O

Performance NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
attenuation NN O O
segmentation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
method NN O O
may NN O O
prove NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
subsolid NN O O
nodules NN O O
. NN O O

KEY NN O O
POINTS NN O O
? NN O O
Semiautomatic NN O O
segmentation NN O O
can NN O O
accurately NN O O
differentiate NN O O
nonsolid NN O O
from NN O O
part-solid NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
nodules NN O O
? NN O O
Semiautomatic NN O O
segmentation NN O O
can NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
solid NN O O
component NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
manual NN O O
measurements NN O O
? NN O O
Semiautomatic NN O O
segmentation NN O O
may NN O O
aid NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
subsolid NN O O
nodules NN O O
following NN O O
Fleischner NN O O
Society NN O O
recommendations NN O O
? NN O O
Performance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
segmentation NN O O
of NN O O
subsolid NN O O
nodules NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
chosen NN O O
attenuation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25292351)

Disorder-dissociated NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
brain NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
in NN O O
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder 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
BACKGROUND NN O O
Attention NN O O
deficit NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
co-morbid NN O O
and NN O O
share NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions NN O O
during NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
( NN O O
WM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Serotonin NN O O
agonists NN O O
modulate NN O O
WM NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O O
behavioural NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
used 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
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
shared NN O O
and NN O O
disorder-specific NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions NN O O
of NN O O
WM NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSRI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD 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
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
using NN O O
fMRI NN O I-INT
during NN O O
an NN O O
N-back NN O O
WM 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 I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
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
on NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
normalization NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions 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
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Under NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relative NN O I-INT
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
ADHD NN O O
and NN O O
ASD NN O O
boys NN O O
shared NN O O
underactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
dorsolateral NN O I-OUT
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DLPFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fluoxetine NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
normalized NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
DLPFC NN O I-OUT
underactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ASD NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
cingulate NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
deactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
boys NN O O
. NN O O

Within-patient NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
inverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
on NN O O
PCC NN O O
deactivation NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
it NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
modulates NN O O
brain NN O O
activation NN O O
during NN O O
WM NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
disorder-specific NN O O
manner NN O O
by NN O O
normalizing NN O O
task-positive NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
enhancing NN O O
task-negative NN O O
default NN O O
mode NN O O
network NN O O
( NN O O
DMN NN O O
) NN O O
deactivation NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25294011)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
orlistat NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hormonal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25296247)

Nicardipine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O I-PAR
emergence NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Emergence NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-documented NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
is NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
clinicians NN O O
attribute NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
release NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
other NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
neurogenic NN O O
hypertension NN O O
or NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin-angiotensin-aldosterone NN O O
system NN O O
have NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapeutic NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
most NN O O
titratable NN O O
drugs NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
emergence NN O O
hypertension NN O O
: NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
hypertension NN O O
on NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
hypertension NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
emergence NN O O
hypertension NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
finally NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
uniform NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
, NN O O
standardized NN O O
protocols NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medications NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
> NN O O
130 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
maintaining NN O O
SBP NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
140 NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
event NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
rescue NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
( NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hydralazine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
O'Brien-Fleming NN O O
Spending NN O O
Function NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
? NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
; NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
otherwise NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-sided NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nicardipine NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
-24.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
31.5 NN O O
% NN O O
-76.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
sole NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O O
SBP NN O O
after NN O O
brain NN O O
tumor NN O O
resection NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
-75.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
open NN O O
craniotomy NN O O
versus NN O O
endonasal NN O O
transsphenoidal NN O O
) 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
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
failure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
regimen NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
pain NN O O
between NN O O
drug NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
difference NN O O
-39.2 NN O O
% NN O O
-30.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
success NN O O
versus NN O O
failure NN O O
= NN O O
-41.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
difference NN O O
-72.3 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0336 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
success NN O O
versus NN O O
failure NN O O
= NN O O
-27.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
difference NN O O
-63.8 NN O O
% NN O O
-9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.143 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
carrying NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
only NN O O
different NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
normotensive NN O O
versus NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
= NN O O
-35.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
difference NN O O
-66.9 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0254 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Nicardipine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O I-INT
esmolol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
emergence NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
transient NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
not NN O O
solely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
activation NN O O
and NN O O
catecholamine NN O O
surge NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
possibly NN O O
encompassing NN O O
other NN O O
physiologic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
treating NN O O
postcraniotomy NN O O
emergence NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
nicardipine NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
effective NN O O
sole NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
if NN O O
esmolol NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
rescue NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medications NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
readily NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25304364)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognition NN O O
and NN O O
hippocampal NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
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
The NN O O
FIT-AD NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
issue NN O O
, NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
to NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
dementias NN O O
. NN O O

Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
primarily NN O O
causes NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
and NN O O
drugs NN O O
have NN O O
only NN O O
modest NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
highlighting NN O O
a NN O O
pressing NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
effective NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

Aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
biologically NN O O
sound NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

Nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
are NN O O
limited NN O O
with NN O O
mixed NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
, NN O O
individualized NN O O
, NN O O
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
minutes NN O O
per NN O O
session NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O O
and NN O O
hippocampal NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
community-dwelling NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
Alzheimer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
specific NN O O
aims NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cycling NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
; NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
examine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
cycling NN O O
intervention NN O O
slows NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hippocampal NN O O
volume NN O O
over NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
allocation NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
cycling NN O I-INT
or NN O O
attention NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
another NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Allocations NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
concealed NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
investigators NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessors NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
assignments NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Cognition NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale-Cognition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
before NN O O
randomization NN O O
and 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Hippocampal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
give NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
2.5-point NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
within-group NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Alzheimer NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Scale-Cognition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cycling NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Findings NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
gap NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Alzheimer NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
curb NN O O
the NN O O
prohibitive NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
growing NN O O
dementia NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Primary NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
NCT01954550 NN O O
; NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
20 NN O O
September NN O O
2013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
NCT01954550 NN O O
; NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
October NN O O
2013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25313065)

Sulforaphane NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
impaired NN O O
communication NN O O
and NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behavior NN O O
, NN O O
affects NN O O
about NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
68 NN O O
, NN O O
predominantly NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
medico-economic NN O O
burdens NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
are NN O O
enormous NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
recognized NN O O
treatment NN O O
targets NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
13-27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
the NN O O
phytochemical NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
derived NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
broccoli NN O I-INT
sprout NN O I-INT
extracts NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
indistinguishable NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
behavior NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50-150 NN O O
?mol NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
without NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
widely NN O O
accepted NN O O
behavioral NN O O
measures NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
parents/caregivers NN O O
and NN O O
physicians NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initial NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
closely NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
18 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
minimal NN O O
change NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
3.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
substantial NN O O
declines NN O O
( NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
ABC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
treatments NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
SRS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O I-OUT
CGI-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
had NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015-0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Upon NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
total NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
scales NN O O
rose NN O O
toward NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Dietary NN O I-INT
sulforaphane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
of NN O O
recognized NN O O
low NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
selected NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
capacity NN O O
to NN O O
reverse NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
antioxidant NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depressed NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
mitochondrial NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
peroxidation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neuroinflammmation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25314063)

?-Smooth NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
actin NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
desmoplastic NN O I-OUT
stromal NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
CONKO-001 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
investigations NN O O
in NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
prognostic NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
?-smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
actin NN O O
( NN O O
?-SMA NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
stromal NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peritumoural NN O O
stroma 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
further NN O O
validate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
?-SMA NN O O
expression NN O O
and NN O O
stromal NN O O
density NN O O
in NN O O
resectable NN O I-PAR
pancreatic 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-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O I-PAR
CONKO-001 NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
observation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tissue NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
162 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
immunohistochemistry NN O O
on NN O O
tissue NN O O
microarrays NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
?-SMA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stromal NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
High NN O I-OUT
?-SMA NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
stroma NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
P=0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
OS NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.047 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
dense NN O I-OUT
stroma NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
DFS NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
OS NN O O
: NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
restricted NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
DFS NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
OS 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
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
?-SMA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stromal NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
independently NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
data NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
high NN O O
?-SMA NN O O
expression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
curatively NN O I-PAR
intended NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
former NN O O
investigations NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
prognostic NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
dense NN O O
stroma NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
significant NN O O
influence NN O O
was NN O O
restricted NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25319807)

Benefit NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
MMP-8 NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Matrix NN O O
metalloproteinases NN O O
( NN O O
MMPs NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
enzymes NN O O
in NN O O
tissue NN O O
turnover NN O O
and NN O O
various NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
processes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
serum NN O O
MMP-8 NN O O
can NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN-? NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
operated NN O O
high-risk NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pre-treatment NN O O
sera NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
460 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIB-IIIC NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MMP-8 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
after NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
IFN-? NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
or NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
313 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
observation NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O O
147 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-8 NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
MMP-8 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
232 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
MMP-8 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
228 NN O O
) NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
MMP-8 NN O O
subgroup NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
36.8 NN O O
months NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
MMP-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
IFN-? NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whereas NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
MMP-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
observation NN O O
only NN O O
was NN O O
10.6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
MMP-8 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
observation NN O O
only NN O O
was NN O O
36.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
71.7 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
IFN-? NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
IFN-? NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
0.74 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.55-0.99 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
MMP-8 NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.17 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.88-1.55 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.16 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.86-1.56 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.00 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.00-1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ulceration NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.09 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.81-1.46 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
node NN O O
metastases NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.36 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.17-1.58 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
MMP-8 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
IFN-? NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
observation NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25323335)

Benefits NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
reservoir NN O I-INT
cannula NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
cannula NN O I-INT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
hypoxemic NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Oxymizer? NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
special NN O O
nasal NN O O
cannula NN O O
that NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
luminal NN O O
diameter NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
incorporated NN O O
oxygen NN O O
( NN O O
O2 NN O O
) NN O O
reservoir NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
assumed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
O2 NN O O
concentration NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
delivered NN O O
breath NN O O
by NN O O
breath NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
endurance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
cannula NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CNC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
pred NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
LTOT NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
cross-over NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
initial NN O O
maximal NN O O
incremental NN O O
cycle NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
performed NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
cycling NN O I-INT
endurance NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
peak NN O O
work NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
twice NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CNC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
reverse NN O O
order NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O O
cycled NN O O
while NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
while NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
CNC NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
858 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
754 NN O O
vs. NN O O
766 NN O O
? NN O O
652 NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
between-group NN O O
difference NN O O
92 NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
32-152 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
cycling NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
isotime NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Oxymizer NN O O
( NN O O
93.5 NN O O
? NN O O
5.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
90.4 NN O O
? NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.027 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.427 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
constant NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
showing NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
O2 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
liters/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
O2 NN O O
delivery NN O O
via NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
CNC NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
endurance NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COPD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
O2 NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
4 NN O O
liters/min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Oxymizer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25342184)

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
buffered NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
lymphoscintigraphy NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
decreasing NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
visualization NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
Breast NN O O
lymphoscintigraphy NN O O
using NN O O
( NN O O
99m NN O O
) NN O O
Tc-sulfur NN O O
colloid NN O O
( NN O O
( NN O O
99m NN O O
) NN O O
Tc-SC NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
for NN O O
staging NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nearly NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
report NN O O
having NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
techniques NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
lymphoscintigraphy NN O I-INT
are NN O O
highly NN O O
variable NN O O
across NN O O
institutions NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
anesthetizing NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonatehether-buffered NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
before NN O O
performing NN O O
breast NN O O
lymphoscintigraphy NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
anesthetizing NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
with NN O O
buffered NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
changed NN O O
visualization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
patient-masked NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
involved NN O O
performing NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
lymphoscintigraphy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
skin NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
before NN O O
( NN O O
99m NN O O
) NN O O
Tc-SC NN O O
injections NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
first NN O O
underwent NN O O
skin NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
bicarbonate-buffered NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
National NN O I-OUT
Institutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
injections NN O O
, NN O O
scintigraphic NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
axilla NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
axillary NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
visualized NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
preprocedural NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group 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
the NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
experienced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
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
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
injecting NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
buffered NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
before NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
99m NN O O
) NN O O
Tc-SC NN O O
for NN O O
breast NN O O
lymphoscintigraphy NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreases NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
interfering NN O O
with NN O O
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25342205)

Dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
alleviates NN O O
propofol NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
pain NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
varies NN O O
from NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
. 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
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dexmedetomidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DEX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Experimental NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
volume NN O O
10 NN O O
mL NN O O
) NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
intravenous NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
received NN O O
DEX NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
?g/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
?g/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
?g/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
V NN O O
, NN O O
VI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
VII NN O O
received NN O I-INT
DEX NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Propofol NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
long-chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injected NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mL/s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O I-INT
Median NN O O
propofol NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.00 NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
0.00-3.00 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
1.0 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
DEX NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
VII NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
VII NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.000 NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
any NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
after NN O I-INT
DEX NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
DEX NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
long-chain NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
propofol NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
propofol NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25344395)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
partial NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
restriction NN O O
in NN O O
polymyositis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dermatomyositis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O O
Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
partial NN O O
blow NN O O
flow NN O O
restriction NN O O
( NN O O
BFR NN O O
training NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polymyositis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dermatomyositis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PM NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
one-repetition-maximum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1RM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BFR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O O
of NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
cross NN O O
sectional NN O O
( NN O O
CSA NN O O
) NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
BFR NN O I-INT
training NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
leg-press NN O I-INT
( NN O O
19.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
knee-extension NN O I-OUT
exercises NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25.2 NN O O
% NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
timed-stands NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
timed-up-and-go NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Quadriceps NN O I-OUT
CSA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
4.57 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Short NN O I-OUT
Form-36 NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patient- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Analogue NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Importantly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Laboratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aldolase NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
unchanged NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
supervised NN O O
low-intensity NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
partial NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
restriction NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
muscle NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PM NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
DM NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
NCT01501019 NN O O
. NN O O

Registered NN O O
November NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
2011 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25346345)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Pivotal NN O I-INT
Response NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
for NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
With NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
continuing NN O O
to NN O O
rise NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
urgent NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
efficient NN O O
service NN O O
delivery NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Pivotal NN O I-INT
Response NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
considered NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
few NN O O
well-controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
adequate NN O O
sample NN O O
size 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
conduct NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
PRT NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRTG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
targeting NN O O
language NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Fifty-three NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
delay NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-INT
PRTG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
psychoeducation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEG NN O I-INT
; NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
PRTG NN O O
taught NN O O
parents NN O O
behavioral NN O O
techniques NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
language NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PEG NN O O
taught NN O O
general NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
ASD NN O O
( NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
NCT01881750 NN O O
; NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
structured NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
observation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
) NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PEG NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRTG NN O O
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
utterances NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
43 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
3.53 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.038 NN O O
, NN O O
d NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
parents NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
learn NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O O
group NN O O
format NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
parents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PRTG NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
met NN O O
fidelity NN O O
of NN O O
implementation NN O O
criteria NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Vineland-II NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
PRTG NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
Mullen NN O O
visual NN O O
reception NN O O
scores NN O O
predicted NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
PRTG NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
group-delivered NN O O
PRT NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
experimental NN O O
investigations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PRT NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
specific NN O O
instruction NN O O
in NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
in NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
skill NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O I-OUT
research NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
warranted NN O I-INT
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
results NN O O
and NN O O
address NN O O
other NN O O
core NN O O
ASD NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25348544)

A NN O O
5-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
implants NN O I-INT
for NN O O
implant NN O I-PAR
overdentures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
5-y NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
edentulous NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
removable NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
overdentures NN O I-PAR
attached NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
mandibular NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Secondary NN O O
aims NN O O
were NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
y NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prosthodontic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
over NN O O
5 NN O O
y NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
midline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
canine NN O I-INT
areas NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
attached NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
mandibular NN O O
overdenture NN O O
opposing NN O O
a NN O O
maxillary NN O O
complete NN O O
denture NN O O
. NN O O

Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
self-assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
participants NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
implants NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
mo 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
5 NN O O
y NN O O
with NN O O
implant NN O O
overdentures NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prosthodontic NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
5 NN O O
y NN O O
, NN O O
29 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
most NN O O
dropouts NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
denture NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
y NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
remained NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
implants NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
but NN O O
5 NN O O
failed NN O O
before NN O O
loading NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
participants NN O O
required NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
occasionally NN O O
denture NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
although NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
experienced NN O O
almost NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
many NN O O
fractured NN O I-OUT
dentures NN O I-OUT
usually NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
implant NN O O
attachment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
y NN O O
in NN O O
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implants NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
mandibular NN O O
overdentures NN O O
retained NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
implant NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
implants NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single-implant NN O O
dentures NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
prosthetic NN O O
maintenance NN O O
with NN O O
implant NN O O
overdentures NN O O
( NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02117856 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25348594)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
fundoplication NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
GERD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Antireflux NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
impaired NN O O
mucosal NN O O
integrity NN O O
in NN O O
gastro-esophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
fundoplication NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
proton NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
GERD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
GERD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-INT
fundoplication NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
PPI NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
24-h NN O I-INT
pH-impedance NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Heartburn NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
GERD-HRQL NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
KEY NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GERD NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
p NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Antireflux NN O O
therapy NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
1498 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
951-2472 NN O O
] NN O O
to NN O O
2393 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
1353-3027 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
however NN O O
it NN O O
only NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
healthy NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
2393 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
1353-3027 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
2983 NN O O
[ NN O O
2335-3810 NN O O
] NN O O
? NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
non-acid NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GERD NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
& NN O O
INFERENCES NN O O
Reduction NN O O
in NN O O
acid NN O O
reflux NN O O
by NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
fundoplication NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
PPI NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
leads NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
GERD NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
likely NN O O
to NN O O
reflect NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
mucosal NN O O
integrity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
non-acid NN O O
reflux NN O O
events NN O O
on NN O O
esophageal NN O O
mucosal NN O O
integrity NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
as NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
after NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
indicates NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
other NN O O
factors NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
heartburn NN O O
perception NN O O
in NN O O
GERD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25349264)

Intratunnel NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
extratunnel NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
hamstring NN O I-INT
double-bundle NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
femoral NN O O
fixation NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Anatomic NN O O
double-bundle NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O O
provides NN O O
excellent NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
restoring NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
kinematics NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
strong NN O O
evidence NN O O
supporting NN O O
an NN O O
ideal NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ACL NN O O
graft NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Intratunnel NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cross-pin NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
would NN O O
provide NN O O
better NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
results NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
extratunnel NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cortical NN O I-INT
buttons NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
; NN O O
Level NN O O
of NN O O
evidence NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
ACL-deficient NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
femoral NN O O
fixation NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
fixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
bioabsorbable NN O I-INT
Rigidfix NN O I-INT
pins NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
cross-pin NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
bundle NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
35 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
secured NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
EndoButton NN O I-INT
cortical NN O I-INT
button NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
bundle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
femoral NN O O
tunnels NN O O
were NN O O
created NN O O
via NN O O
an NN O O
anteromedial NN O O
portal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
bioabsorbable NN O O
Biointrafix NN O O
interference NN O O
screw NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
tibial NN O O
fixation NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
history NN O O
details NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
examination NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
joint NN O O
laxity NN O O
by NN O O
KT-1000 NN O I-INT
arthrometer NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
validated NN O O
patient NN O O
outcome NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
Fisher NN O O
exact NN O O
and NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
cutoff NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
KT-1000 NN O O
arthrometer NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
KT-1000 NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cross-pin NN O O
fixation NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
1.30 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cortical NN O I-INT
button NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
1.95 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ACL NN O O
grafts NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
fixed NN O O
with NN O O
cortical NN O I-INT
buttons NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
failure NN O O
of NN O O
stability NN O I-OUT
via NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
instrumented NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
laxity NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
failures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intratunnel NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
double-bundle NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
cross-pin NN O O
fixation NN O O
technique NN O O
provided NN O O
better NN O O
instrumented NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
laxity NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
extratunnel NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cortical NN O I-INT
buttons NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Future NN O O
larger NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
techniques NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
stronger NN O O
evidence NN O O
supporting NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25350539)

Matching NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
distraction NN O O
with NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
procedure NN O O
: 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
Parents NN O O
often NN O O
want NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
during NN O O
medical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
parents NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
distraction NN O O
after NN O O
brief NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
medium NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
procedure-related NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
insertions NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
purposes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
computerized NN O O
application NN O O
, NN O O
Children NN O O
, NN O O
Parents NN O O
and NN O O
Distraction NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
distress NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
were NN O O
basic NN O O
( NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
providing NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
( NN O I-INT
basic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
tailored NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
environmental NN O I-INT
modifications NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
guidance NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
research NN O I-INT
assistant NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
professional NN O O
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
research NN O I-INT
assistant NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
distraction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
Observational NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Behavioral NN O I-OUT
Distress-Revised NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Oucher NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
salivary NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
574 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
4-10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Children NN O O
, NN O O
Parents NN O O
and NN O O
Distraction NN O O
predicted NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
156 NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
medium NN O O
for NN O O
372 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
46 NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
predicted NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
distress NN O O
displayed NN O O
more NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
medium-risk NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
professional NN O O
intervention NN O O
displayed NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
behavioral NN O O
distress NN O O
when NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
professional NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
for NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
Some NN O O
parents NN O O
may NN O O
need NN O O
additional NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
distraction NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
children NN O O
during NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
medium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
need NN O O
professional NN O O
support NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
preferences NN O O
in NN O O
acting NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
distraction NN O O
coach NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
willing NN O O
, NN O O
be NN O O
provided NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25365653)

Topiramate NN O I-INT
impairs NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
methadone-maintained NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Topiramate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
being NN O O
investigated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
pharmacotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
addictive NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
cognitive NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
raise NN O O
concerns NN O O
about NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
populations NN O O
with NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairment NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
dually NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
opioids NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cocaine NN O O
dependence NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
stabilization NN O O
on NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
methadone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
M NN O O
= NN O O
96 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O O
testing NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
through NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
baseline NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
later NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
performance NN O O
during NN O O
stable NN O O
dosing NN O O
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
on NN O O
methadone NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
testing NN O O
times NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
testing NN O O
occurred NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
methadone NN O O
plus NN O O
topiramate/placebo NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
topiramate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
on NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
premorbid NN O O
intelligence NN O O
, NN O O
methadone NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
illicit NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Topiramate NN O I-INT
slowed NN O O
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O I-OUT
divided NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
n-back NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
false NN O I-OUT
alarm NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Topiramate NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
processing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
risk-taking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Sternberg NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
recall NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metamemory NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
topiramate NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O I-OUT
limit NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
among NN O O
whom NN O O
preexisting NN O O
cognitive NN O O
impairments NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
PsycINFO NN O O
Database NN O O
Record NN O O


-DOCSTART- (25367544)

Parent-implemented NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
RCT NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
9-month NN O O
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
within NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O I-INT
Social NN O I-INT
Interaction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ESI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Project NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
individual-ESI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
offered NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group-ESI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
offered NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinic NN O O
, NN O O
taught NN O O
parents NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
embed NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
support NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
throughout NN O O
everyday NN O O
activities NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
82 NN O I-PAR
children 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
at NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
were NN O O
matched NN O O
on NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
nonverbal NN O O
developmental NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
pairs NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
developmental NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
9-month NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O O
in NN O O
individual-ESI NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
differential NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
examiner-administered NN O O
observational NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
improved NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
rate NN O O
than NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
group-ESI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Individual-ESI NN O I-INT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
differential NN O O
efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
parent NN O O
report NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
they NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
or NN O O
stability NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
group-ESI NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
worsening NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
individual-ESI NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
differential NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
examiner-administered NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
individual-ESI NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
group-ESI NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
individual-ESI NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group-ESI NN O I-INT
on NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
individualized NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
in NN O O
natural NN O O
environments NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
using NN O O
little NN O O
professional NN O O
time NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
community NN O O
viability NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
particularly NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
other NN O O
parent-implemented NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25380801)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
fermented NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
casei NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
Shirota NN O I-INT
on NN O O
constipation-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
puerperium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Constipation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
common NN O O
complaints NN O O
after NN O O
childbirth NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
fermented NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
casei NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
Shirota NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LcS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
puerperium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
natural NN O I-PAR
childbirth NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consuming NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
bottle/day NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fermented NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
6.5?109 NN O I-INT
cfu NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
LcS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
childbirth NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
filled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
diary NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
bowel NN O O
habits NN O O
including NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
answered NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
constipation-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAC-SYM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAC-QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
probiotic NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
better NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
PAC-SYM NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PAC-SYM NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
rectal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.031 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
PAC-QOL NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
subscale NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
subjects NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
one NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
most NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
week NN O O
5-6 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
four NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
obvious NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
until NN O O
week NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
consistency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
products NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
continuous NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
fermented NN O O
milk NN O O
containing NN O I-INT
LcS NN O I-INT
might NN O O
alleviate NN O I-OUT
constipation-related NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
provide NN O O
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
bowel NN O I-OUT
habit NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
puerperium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nonetheless NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
several NN O O
limitations NN O O
in NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25392671)

Prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
retroperitoneoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
ureteropelvic NN O I-PAR
junction NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
retroperitoneoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
ureteropelvic NN O I-PAR
junction NN O I-PAR
obstruction NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
manner NN O O
and NN O O
assess NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up 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
from NN O I-PAR
2008 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of 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 I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
retroperitoneoscopic NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Demographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
and NN O O
operative NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Fisher NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
?2 NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
independent NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intracorporeal NN O I-OUT
suturing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
tramadol NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
P=.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
temporary NN O I-OUT
ileus NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.036 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
transperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
retroperitoneoscopic NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
was NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
30.75?4.85 NN O O
months NN O O
versus NN O O
30.99?5.59 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.88 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Transperitoneal NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
tramadol NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
ileus NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
retroperitoneoscopic NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
pyeloplasty NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
retroperitoneoscopic NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
pyeloplasty NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
remains NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25403582)

Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
anastrozol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ovarian NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
suppression NN O I-INT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
final NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Austrian NN O I-PAR
Breast NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Colorectal NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Zoledronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ZOL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
endocrine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
DFS NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
48- NN O O
and NN O O
62-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ABCSG-12 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
efficacy NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
final NN O O
additional NN O O
analysis NN O O
after NN O O
94.4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I/II NN O I-PAR
estrogen-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
progesterone-receptor-positive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
goserelin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
1803 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
goserelin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3.6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
anastrozole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ZOL NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
94.4-month NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
0-114 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
0.60-0.99 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.042 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
0.66 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.43-1.02 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.064 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
ZOL NN O O
although NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
predefined NN O O
significance NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
251 NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
86 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

Absolute NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
ZOL NN O O
were NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
DFS NN O O
and NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
OS NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
DFS NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
alone NN O O
versus NN O O
anastrozole NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
pronounced NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
anastrozole-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
= NN O O
1.63 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.05-1.45 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
osteonecrosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
jaw NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
ABCSG NN O O
12 NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
twice-yearly NN O O
ZOL NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
endocrine NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
benefit NN O O
is NN O O
maintained NN O O
long-term NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICALTRIALSGOV NN O O
NCT00295646 NN O O
( NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results NN O O
? NN O O
term=00295646 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25407464)

Anthropometric NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
Gambian NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
annual NN O O
rounds NN O O
of NN O O
mass NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
with NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
trachoma NN O I-PAR
control NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Mass NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
MDA NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
blinding NN O O
trachoma NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
While NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
behind NN O O
this NN O O
reduction NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
burden NN O O
of NN O O
infectious NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
MDA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
azithromycin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
anthropometric NN O O
indices NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
heights NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weights NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
where NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
MDA NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
annual NN O I-PAR
rounds NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
annual NN O I-PAR
MDA NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
azithromycin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
been NN O O
distributed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Data NN O O
collection NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
MDA NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
round NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O O
MDA NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
height-for-age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight-for-age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight-for-height NN O I-OUT
z NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
height-for-age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight-for-age NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
weight-for-height NN O I-OUT
z NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O O
MDA NN O O
and NN O O
single NN O O
MDA NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
was NN O O
there NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stunting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wasting NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
underweight NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
community NN O O
MDA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
azithromycin NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Gambia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
may NN O O
suggest NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
azithromycin NN O I-INT
MDA NN O I-INT
are NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
mechanism NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
improved NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2540788)

Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Research NN O O
Campaign NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
610 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
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
four NN O O
or NN O O
eight NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
also NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
second NN O I-INT
line NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
symptomatic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
study NN O O
196 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32.1 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
414 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
67.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
initial NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
eight NN O O
courses NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
relapse NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
slightly NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
originally NN O O
received NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
25.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
eight NN O O
( NN O O
18.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
possible NN O O
treatment NN O O
randomizations NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
is NN O O
inferior NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
weeks NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
weeks NN O O
median NN O O
survival 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

In NN O O
patients NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
initial NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
the NN O O
disadvantage NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
weeks NN O O
versus NN O O
49 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
if NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
limiting NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inferior NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
if NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25424398)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
spectrum NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comorbid NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
personalized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
modular NN O I-INT
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 I-INT
among NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
adolescents 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
ASDs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
co-occurring NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
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
. NN O I-INT
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with 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
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
16 NN O O
weekly NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
blinded NN O O
raters NN O O
at NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Youth NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
demonstrated NN O O
superior NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
adolescents NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Gains NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
1-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
CBT NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
extend NN O O
findings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
promising NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anxious NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25428632)

Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
poudrage NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
pleurodesis NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
slurry NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TAPPS NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
malignant NN O O
pleural NN O O
effusions NN O O
( NN O O
MPE NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
challenging NN O O
. NN O O

Various NN O O
options NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
being NN O O
talc NN O I-INT
pleurodesis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Talc NN O I-INT
can NN O O
either NN O O
be NN O O
applied NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
chest NN O O
drain NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
slurry NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
poudrage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Current NN O O
evidence NN O O
regarding NN O O
which NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
is NN O O
conflicting NN O O
and NN O O
often NN O O
methodologically NN O O
flawed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TAPPS NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
suitably NN O O
powered NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
pleurodesis NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
poudrage NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
slurry NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
330 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
MPE NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
either NN O O
small NN O I-INT
bore NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
Fr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Seldinger NN O I-INT
chest NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
g NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O I-INT
undergo NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
thoracoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
simultaneous NN O I-INT
poudrage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
g NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
allocated NN O O
procedure NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
inpatient NN O O
within NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
randomisation NN O O
taking NN O O
place NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
at NN O O
regular NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
pleurodesis NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Pleurodesis NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
pleural NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
fluid NN O O
management NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

ETHICS NN O O
AND NN O O
DISSEMINATION NN O O
The NN O O
trial NN O O
has NN O O
received NN O O
ethical NN O O
approval NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Research NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Service NN O O
Committee NN O O
North NN O O
West-Preston NN O O
( NN O O
12/NW/0467 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
steering NN O O
committee NN O O
which NN O O
includes NN O O
independent NN O O
members NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
public NN O O
representative NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
published NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
peer-reviewed NN O O
journal NN O O
and NN O O
presented NN O O
at NN O O
international NN O O
conferences NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
disseminated NN O O
via NN O O
local NN O O
and NN O O
national NN O O
charities NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
wish NN O O
to NN O O
know NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
contacted NN O O
directly NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
publication NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ISRCTN47845793 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25432493)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
plication NN O I-INT
stitch NN O I-INT
during NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-PAR
prostatectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Urinary NN O O
incontinence NN O O
after NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-PAR
prostatectomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RARP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
bothersome NN O O
complications NN O O
affecting NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
daily NN O O
lives NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
plication NN O I-INT
stitch NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
an NN O O
earlier NN O O
return NN O O
of NN O O
continence NN O O
was NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
158 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
RARP NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
surgeon NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
institute NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
bladder NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
plication NN O I-INT
stitch NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
incontinence NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
pad NN O O
free NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
at 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
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O O
( NN O O
27.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
53.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
( NN O O
72.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
29.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
( NN O O
59.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
74.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
treated NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
plication NN O I-INT
stitch NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
incontinence NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
membranous NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shape NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
apex NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
magnetic NN O I-OUT
resonance NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
independent NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
urinary NN O O
incontinence NN O O
after NN O O
RARP NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bladder NN O I-INT
neck NN O I-INT
plication NN O I-INT
stitch NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
postoperative NN O O
urinary NN O O
incontinence NN O O
following NN O O
RARP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25432505)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
at NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
impact NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
intensity NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O I-OUT
object NN O I-OUT
manipulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O O
design NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interactions NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
combined NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
adaptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
fundamental NN O O
motor NN O O
skill NN O O
intervention NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O I-PAR
research NN O O
with NN O O
larger NN O O
samples NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25437533)

Time NN O O
to NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
with NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
pooled NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
pivotal NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Tadalafil NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
lower NN O O
urinary NN O O
tract NN O O
symptoms NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
consistently NN O O
shows NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
I-PSS NN O O
improvements NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
wish NN O O
to NN O O
know NN O I-OUT
whether NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
rapid NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
urinary NN O O
tract NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
we NN O O
integrated NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
integrated NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
double-blind NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
742 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
735 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
I-PSS NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
categories NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
3-point NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
I-PSS NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
25 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
I-PSS NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
I-PSS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
who NN O O
showed NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
responders NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
further NN O O
examined NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
earliest NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
742 NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
513 NN O O
( NN O O
69.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
444 NN O O
( NN O O
59.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
category NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
234 NN O O
category NN O O
1 NN O O
responders NN O O
with NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
assessments NN O O
140 NN O O
( NN O O
59.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
407 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
513 NN O O
category NN O O
1 NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
79.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
it NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
205 NN O O
category NN O O
2 NN O O
responders NN O O
with NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
assessments NN O O
103 NN O O
( NN O O
50.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
week NN O O
1 NN O O
while NN O O
322 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
444 NN O O
category NN O O
2 NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
72.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O O
so NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tadalafil NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
benign NN O O
prostatic NN O O
hyperplasia NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
tadalafil NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
responders NN O O
achieved NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
did NN O O
so NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25439417)

Absence NN O O
of NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
during NN O O
daytime NN O O
after NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
reduced NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Copenhagen NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
70 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
were NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
anesthetized NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
protocol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
multimodal NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
analgesic NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
discharged NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
melatonin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
incision NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
documenting NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
rescue NN O O
medication NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
separate NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sleepiness NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Karolinska NN O O
Sleepiness NN O O
Scale NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sleepiness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
rescue NN O O
medication NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
10mg NN O O
of NN O O
IV NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
during NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
cholecystectomy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2544249)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Wilms NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Third NN O O
National NN O I-PAR
Wilms NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
Tumor NN O I-PAR
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Third NN O O
National NN O I-PAR
Wilms NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
Tumor NN O I-PAR
Study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
find NN O O
better NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1439 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
I-IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
histology NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
FH NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
UH NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
contributed NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
relapse-free NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RFS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four-year NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
postnephrectomy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
percentages NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
low-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
96.5 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
607 NN O O
Stage NN O O
I/FH NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
dactinomycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Actinomycin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
AMD NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Merck NN O O
Sharp NN O O
& NN O O
Dohme NN O O
, NN O O
West NN O O
Point NN O O
, NN O O
PA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
versus NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
92.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
278 NN O O
Stage NN O O
II/FH NN O O
patients NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
86.9 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
275 NN O O
Stage NN O O
III/FH NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
AMD NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Adria NN O O
Laboratories NN O O
, NN O O
Columbus NN O O
, NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
II/FH NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
either NN O O
zero NN O O
or NN O O
2000 NN O O
cGy NN O O
irradiation NN O O
( NN O O
RT NN O O
) NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
Stage NN O O
III/FH NN O O
patients NN O O
either NN O O
1000 NN O O
or NN O O
2000 NN O O
cGy NN O O
. NN O O

Four-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
73.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
279 NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
any NN O O
Stage NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
UH NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
AMD NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ADR NN O I-INT
+/- NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
shows NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
intensive NN O O
therapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
worsen NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
low-risk NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
CPM NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
benefit NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25450124)

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
among NN O O
depressed NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
plays NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-INT
among NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
explaining 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
, NN O O
assessed NN O O
both NN O O
globally NN O O
as NN O O
life NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
health-related NN O O
QOL NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Multivariable NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
, NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
demographic NN O O
, NN O O
neurologic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
participatory NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
perceived NN O O
functional NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Rehabilitation NN O O
centers NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
133 NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Project NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Improve NN O I-INT
Symptoms NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Mood NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
Spinal NN O I-PAR
Cord NN O I-PAR
Injury NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
post-SCI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
4th NN O I-PAR
edition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Not NN O O
applicable NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
Satisfaction NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
summary NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcomes NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
12-Item NN O I-OUT
Short-Form NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Survey NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
explanatory NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
explain NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O O
well-being NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
MDD NN O O
. NN O O

Perceived NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
explained NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
QOL NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Greater NN O O
recognition NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
QOL NN O O
outcomes NN O O
as NN O O
endpoints NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
because NN O O
these NN O O
often NN O O
reflect NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
QOL NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
symptoms NN O O
among NN O O
trial NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
association NN O O
differs NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
how NN O O
QOL NN O O
is NN O O
defined NN O O
and NN O O
measured NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
stronger NN O O
relations NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
life NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
well-being NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
with NN O O
MDD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
well-being NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
subjective NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
well-being NN O O
after NN O O
SCI NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
expectations NN O O
and NN O O
perceptions NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O O
physical NN O O
health-related NN O O
QOL NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
assistive NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O

Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
physical NN O O
QOL NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incomplete NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Practicing NN O O
caution NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
in NN O O
using NN O O
physical NN O O
well-being NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
endpoint NN O O
in NN O O
trials NN O O
among NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25452054)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
secondhand NN O I-INT
smoke NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
among NN O O
hospital-based NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
secondhand NN O I-INT
tobacco NN O I-INT
smoke NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SHS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
expanded NN O O
Health NN O I-OUT
Belief NN O I-OUT
Model NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HBM NN O O
) NN O O
incorporating NN O O
self-efficacy NN O O
among NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Taiwan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODOLOGY NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
utilized NN O O
a NN O O
two-group NN O I-PAR
longitudinal NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=50 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
enrolled NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
SHS NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
HBM NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n=50 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
government-mandated NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pre-test NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
month NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
conclusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
and NN O O
intervention NN O O
were NN O O
developed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
understanding NN O O
gained NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
in-depth NN O O
interviews NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
focus-group NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
pregnant NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

Exhaled NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
monoxide NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
proxy NN O O
for NN O O
SHS NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
scores NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HBM NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cues NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
preventative NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
differences NN O O
remained NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
one-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
encourage NN O O
health NN O O
professionals NN O O
to NN O O
educate NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
harms NN O O
of NN O O
SHS NN O O
while NN O O
both NN O O
empowering NN O O
and NN O O
equipping NN O O
them NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
tools NN O O
to NN O O
confront NN O O
their NN O O
family NN O O
members NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
reduce NN O O
their NN O O
SHS NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
promoting NN O O
smoke-free NN O O
social NN O O
norms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25453593)

A NN O O
step-by-step NN O O
introduction NN O O
to NN O O
vegetables NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
complementary NN O O
feeding NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

Breastfeeding NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
willingness NN O O
to NN O O
accept NN O O
vegetables NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
flavours NN O O
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
breast NN O O
milk NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
mothers NN O I-PAR
add NN O O
vegetables NN O O
to NN O O
milk NN O O
during NN O O
complementary NN O O
feeding NN O O
( NN O O
CF NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
acceptance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
tested NN O O
a NN O O
step-by-step NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
vegetables NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
rice NN O I-INT
during NN O O
CF NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
liking NN O O
of NN O O
vegetables NN O O
. NN O O

Just NN O O
before NN O O
CF NN O O
, NN O O
enrolled NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IG NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
BF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CG NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
BF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IG NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
12 NN O O
daily NN O O
exposures NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
puree NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
( NN O O
days NN O O
1-12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
12 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
daily NN O O
exposures NN O O
to NN O O
vegetable NN O I-INT
puree NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
rice NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
( NN O O
days NN O O
13-24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Plain NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rice NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O O
to NN O O
CG NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
both NN O O
received NN O O
11 NN O O
daily NN O O
exposures NN O O
to NN O O
vegetable NN O I-INT
puree NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intake NN O I-INT
was NN O O
weighed NN O O
and NN O O
liking NN O O
rated NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
25-26 NN O O
and NN O O
33-35 NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
CF NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
data NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
. NN O O

Vegetables NN O O
were NN O O
rotated NN O O
daily NN O O
( NN O O
carrots NN O O
, NN O O
green NN O O
beans NN O O
, NN O O
spinach NN O O
, NN O O
broccoli NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liking NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pace NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
for NN O O
IG NN O O
than NN O O
CG NN O O
infants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liking NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
carrots NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
green NN O O
beans NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
6m NN O O
then NN O O
18m NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
, NN O O
vegetable NN O O
( NN O O
carrot NN O O
> NN O O
green NN O O
beans NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mothers NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
appreciation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
guidance NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
systematic NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
vegetables NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O O
step-by-step NN O O
method NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
CF NN O O
guidelines NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
term NN O O
benefits NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
extending NN O O
the NN O O
exposure NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25455414)

Reducing NN O O
iodine NN O O
load NN O O
in NN O O
hepatic NN O O
CT NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
low-tube-voltage NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
statistical NN O I-INT
iterative NN O I-INT
reconstruction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
prospectively NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
iodine NN O O
load NN O O
to NN O O
contrast NN O O
enhancement NN O O
, NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
detectability NN O O
of NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
( NN O O
HCCs NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
hepatic NN O O
CT NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O I-INT
kVp NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
adaptive NN O I-INT
statistical NN O I-INT
iterative NN O I-INT
reconstruction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASIR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
HIPAA-compliant NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
our NN O O
institutional NN O O
review NN O O
board NN O O
and NN O O
written NN O O
informed NN O O
consent NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
9-month NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
170 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
114 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40-85 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
67.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
iodine-load NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tube-voltage NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
milligram NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
kilogram NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
iodine NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
kilovolt NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
kVp NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
600-120 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
kVp NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500-80 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
400mg/kg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
kVp NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400-80 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
CT NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
background NN O I-OUT
noise NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
signal-to-noise NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SNR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HCC-to-liver NN O I-OUT
contrast-to-noise NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CNR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
figure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
merit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FOM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sensitivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
receiver-operating-characteristic NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
detectability NN O O
of NN O O
HCCs NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Vascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
400-80 NN O O
and NN O O
500-80 NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
600-120 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

Subjective NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. 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
AUC NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
detecting NN O I-OUT
HCCs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
3.3-4.1 NN O O
mSv NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Iodine NN O O
load NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
CT NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O I-INT
kVp NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
voltage NN O I-INT
setting NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ASIR NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O I-OUT
enhancement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HCCs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25456370)

Everolimus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
subependymal NN O O
giant NN O O
cell NN O O
astrocytoma NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tuberous NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomised NN O O
EXIST-1 NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
EXIST-1 NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
initiated NN O O
on NN O O
Aug NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subependymal NN O I-PAR
giant NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
astrocytoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SEGA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tuberous NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
SEGA NN O O
volume NN O O
after NN O O
9?6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
everolimus NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
Article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
interim NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Jan NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
support NN O O
longer-term NN O O
tolerability NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
continuing NN O O
4-year NN O O
extension NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
EXIST-1 NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tuberous NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
SEGA NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
growing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
needed NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
extension NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
crossed NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
everolimus NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
4?5 NN O O
mg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Everolimus NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O O
subsequently NN O O
adjusted NN O O
subject NN O O
to NN O O
tolerability NN O O
to NN O O
attain NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
trough NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5-15 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
independent NN O O
central NN O O
radiology NN O O
review NN O O
team NN O O
assessed NN O O
SEGA NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
target NN O O
SEGAs NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
MRI NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
year NN O O
thereafter NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00789828 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
original NN O I-PAR
117 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
111 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
everolimus NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
Aug NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Jan NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
date NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
cutoff NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
we NN O O
included NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
longer-term NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O O
exposure NN O O
was NN O O
29?3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
19?4-33?8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
28?3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
19?3-33?0 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

54 NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
SEGA NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
39?0-58?3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
between NN O O
2?1 NN O O
and NN O O
31?1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
SEGA NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
105 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
104 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
48 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
76 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
96 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
144 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Stomatitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48 NN O O
[ NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
[ NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

35 NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
treatment-related NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
common NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
nine NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
nine NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

18 NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
treatment-related NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
withdrew NN O O
because NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
longer-term NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
everolimus NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
few NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
options NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
continued NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
tuberous NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
complex NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
its NN O O
varied NN O O
manifestations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stabilisation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
everolimus NN O I-INT
will NN O O
hopefully NN O O
provide NN O O
long-term NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SEGA NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Novartis NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25459500)

Exercise NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
biventricular NN O O
systolic NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
reveals NN O O
decreased NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
contractile NN O O
reserve NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
tetralogy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Fallot NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Long-term NN O O
biventricular NN O O
systolic NN O O
performance NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
late NN O O
after NN O O
tetralogy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Fallot NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TOF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
repair NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
need NN O O
exists NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
RV NN O O
) NN O O
compromise NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
repaired NN O I-PAR
TOF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

M-mode NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
ventricle NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
RV NN O O
outflow NN O O
tract NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
semisupine NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
By NN O O
making NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
acceleration NN O O
during NN O O
isovolumic NN O O
contraction NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
increasing NN O O
heart NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
LV NN O O
force-frequency NN O O
curves NN O O
were NN O O
constructed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
also NN O O
underwent NN O O
cardiac NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
measurement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
neurohormonal NN O I-INT
markers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
repaired NN O I-PAR
TOF NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
dilated NN O O
right NN O O
ventricles NN O O
( NN O O
RV NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
volume NN O O
index NN O O
= NN O O
153 NN O O
? NN O O
37.3 NN O O
mL/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
normal NN O O
ejection NN O O
fractions NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
imaging NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
= NN O O
59.3 NN O O
? NN O O
6.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
RV NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
= NN O O
50.2 NN O O
? NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
neurohormonal NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Detailed NN O I-OUT
resting NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
detected NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
worst NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
ventricle NN O O
and NN O O
RV NN O O
outflow NN O O
tract NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O O
exacerbated NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
provoked NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
force-frequency NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
attenuated NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
plateau NN O O
and NN O O
inadequate NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
isovolumic NN O O
contraction NN O O
. NN O O

Correlations NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
peak NN O O
exercise NN O O
LV NN O O
isovolumic NN O O
contraction NN O O
and NN O O
percentage NN O O
predicted NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.51 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RV NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.41 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
RV NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LV NN O I-OUT
long-axis NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
r NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
TOF NN O O
begins NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
time NN O O
when NN O O
clinically NN O O
well NN O O
and NN O O
while NN O O
routine NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
function NN O O
remain NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
repaired NN O I-PAR
TOF NN O I-PAR
exhibit NN O I-PAR
RV NN O I-PAR
dilatation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subtle NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
interlinked NN O I-PAR
biventricular NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
on NN O O
resting NN O O
echocardiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exercise NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
additional NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
reveals NN O O
abnormal NN O O
LV NN O O
excitation-contractile NN O O
coupling NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
impaired NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25465111)

The NN O O
durability NN O O
of NN O O
endovascular NN O I-INT
coiling NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
neurosurgical NN O I-INT
clipping NN O I-INT
of NN O O
ruptured NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
18 NN O O
year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
International NN O I-PAR
Subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
Aneurysm NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ISAT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Previous NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
International NN O I-PAR
Subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
Aneurysm NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ISAT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
reported NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
haemorrhage NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
or NN O O
dependency NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
ruptured NN O O
intracranial NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
clipping NN O O
or NN O O
endovascular NN O O
coiling NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
absolute NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
dependency NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
coiling NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clipping NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
medium-term NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
re-treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
coiling NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
UK NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
ISAT NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
neurosurgical NN O I-INT
clipping NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
endovascular NN O I-INT
coiling NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subarachnoid NN O I-PAR
haemorrhage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
assuming NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
equipoise NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
Sept NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
1644 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
neurosurgical NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
death NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
10?0-18?5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O O
modified NN O I-OUT
Rankin NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-OUT
through NN O O
yearly NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
aneurysms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
from NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Office NN O O
for NN O O
National NN O O
Statistics NN O O
supplied NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
deaths NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN49866681 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
At NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
674 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
809 NN O O
patients NN O O
allocated NN O O
endovascular NN O O
coiling NN O O
and NN O O
657 NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
835 NN O O
patients NN O O
allocated NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
clipping NN O O
were NN O O
alive NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
1?35 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?06-1?73 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
1003 NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
returned NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
435 NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
endovascular NN O O
coiling NN O O
and NN O O
370 NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
neurosurgical NN O I-INT
clipping NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
independent NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
modified NN O I-OUT
Rankin NN O O
scale NN O O
score NN O O
0-2 NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
1?25 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?92-1?71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
endovascular NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
alive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neurosurgery NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
1?34 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1?07-1?67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

33 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
subarachnoid NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
their NN O O
initial NN O O
haemorrhage NN O O
( NN O O
17 NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Although NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
endovascular NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Rebleeding NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
after NN O O
endovascular NN O O
coiling NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
clipping NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
disability-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
endovascular NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
UK NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25471330)

Ranibizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
verteporfin NN O I-INT
photodynamic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
neovascular NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
: NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
retreatment NN O O
and NN O O
vision NN O O
outcomes NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
( NN O O
VA NN O O
) NN O O
outcomes NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
verteporfin NN O I-INT
photodynamic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
exudative NN O I-PAR
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
verteporfin NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ranibizumab NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
monthly NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
'as NN O O
needed NN O O
' NN O O
to NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
predetermined NN O O
vision/anatomical NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Retreatment NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VA NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
During NN O O
months NN O O
3-12 NN O O
, NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
fewer NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
VA NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
by NN O O
9.0 NN O O
letters NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
versus NN O O
7.5 NN O O
letters NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
retreatment NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
verteporfin NN O I-INT
PDT NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
day NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
compromising NN O O
VA NN O O
outcomes NN O O
or NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25474530)

Mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
trans-eQTLs NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
often NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
cis-mediation NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
genome-wide NN O O
analysis NN O O
among NN O O
1,800 NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Asians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
large NN O O
fraction NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
genes NN O O
are NN O O
regulated NN O O
by NN O O
genetic NN O O
variation NN O O
near NN O O
the NN O O
transcribed NN O O
sequence NN O O
( NN O O
cis-eQTL NN O O
, NN O O
expression NN O O
quantitative NN O O
trait NN O O
locus NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
many NN O O
cis-eQTLs NN O O
have NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
genetic NN O O
variation NN O O
on NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
trans-eQTLs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
their NN O O
biological NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
work NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
use NN O O
genome-wide NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
SNPs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
array-based NN O I-INT
expression NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
from NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
cohort NN O O
of NN O O
1,799 NN O I-PAR
Bangladeshi NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
characterize NN O O
cis- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trans-eQTLs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
observed NN O O
trans-eQTL NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
transcripts NN O O
in NN O O
cis NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
SNPs NN O O
showing NN O O
trans-association NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
Sobel NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mediation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
observed NN O O
434 NN O I-PAR
independent NN O I-PAR
trans-eQTL NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
false-discovery NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
189 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
trans-eQTLs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
cis-eQTLs NN O O
( NN O O
enrichment NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
these NN O O
189 NN O I-PAR
trans-eQTL NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O I-PAR
attenuated NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
cis-mediator NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Sobel NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
10-5 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
21 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
mediation NN O O
signals NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
European NN O O
cohorts NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
while NN O O
only NN O O
7 NN O O
trans-eQTL NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
cohorts NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
showed NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
cis-mediation NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
simulated NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
complete NN O O
mediation NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
as NN O O
partial NN O O
mediation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
mediator NN O O
measurement NN O O
error NN O O
or NN O O
imperfect NN O O
LD NN O O
between NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
causal NN O O
variants NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
trans-associations NN O O
can NN O O
become NN O O
significantly NN O O
stronger NN O O
or NN O O
switch NN O O
directions NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
mediator NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
simulated NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
strong NN O O
cis-trans NN O O
confounding NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
measured NN O O
cis-transcript NN O O
is NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
( NN O O
unmeasured NN O O
) NN O O
mediator NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
applying NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
eQTL NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
fraction NN O O
of NN O O
observed NN O O
trans-eQTL NN O I-OUT
associations NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
cis-mediation NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
understanding NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
widespread NN O O
cis-mediation NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
relevance NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O O
biology NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
using NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
eQTL NN O O
discovery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25475363)

Parents NN O O
' NN O O
Adoption NN O O
of NN O O
Social NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
Strategies NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Families NN O O
Including 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
Who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
Minimally NN O I-PAR
Verbal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Notably NN O O
absent NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
literature NN O O
are NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
programs NN O O
targeting NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
skills NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Tager-Flusberg NN O O
and NN O O
Kasari NN O O
in NN O O
Autism NN O O
Res NN O O
6:468-478 NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
5-8 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
communication NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
6-month NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
communication NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Parent-child NN O I-PAR
play NN O I-PAR
interactions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
coded NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
strategy NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
time NN O O
jointly NN O I-OUT
engaged NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Adamson NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
J NN O O
Autism NN O O
Dev NN O O
Disord NN O O
39:84-96 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-PAR
mastered NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
analyses NN O O
indicated NN O O
some NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
implementation NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
from NN O O
mere NN O O
observation NN O O
of NN O O
sessions NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
coaching NN O O
and NN O O
workshops NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
implementation NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
time NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
parents NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
implementation NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25481453)

Lifetime NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
drug NN O O
severity NN O O
among NN O O
prescription NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
abusers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
While NN O O
research NN O O
suggests NN O O
primary NN O O
prescription NN O O
opioid NN O O
( NN O O
PO NN O O
) NN O O
abusers NN O O
may NN O O
exhibit NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
characteristics NN O O
than NN O O
primary NN O O
heroin NN O O
abusers NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
lifetime NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
confers NN O O
greater NN O O
severity NN O O
among NN O O
PO NN O O
abusers NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
demographic NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
characteristics NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
lifetime NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
89 NN O I-PAR
PO-dependent NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
evaluating NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
buprenorphine NN O I-PAR
taper NN O I-PAR
durations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
lifetime NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
among NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
uniform NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
reporting NN O I-PAR
lifetime NN O I-PAR
heroin NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
?5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
H NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
H NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=48 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
illicit NN O I-INT
opioid NN O I-INT
abstinence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
retention NN O O
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
4-week NN O O
taper NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
N=22 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
older NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
male NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
reported NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illicit NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
alcohol-related NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
past-month NN O I-OUT
cocaine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
lifetime NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
lifetime NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cigarettes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amphetamines NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hallucinogens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
H NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Brief NN O O
Symptom NN O O
Inventory NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
poorer NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
among NN O O
H NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
lifetime NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
drug NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
unique NN O O
treatment NN O O
needs NN O O
among NN O O
treatment-seeking NN O I-PAR
PO NN O I-PAR
abusers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25488965)

Institutional NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
accrual NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
National NN O O
Comprehensive NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Network NN O O
guidelines NN O O
recommend NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
centers NN O O
with NN O O
expertise NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
whether NN O O
provider NN O O
experience NN O O
affects NN O O
survival NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
institutional NN O O
experience NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Radiation NN O O
Therapy NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
RTOG NN O O
0129 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
compared NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
fractionation NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
a NN O O
surrogate NN O O
for NN O O
experience NN O O
, NN O O
institutions NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
historically NN O O
low- NN O O
( NN O O
HLACs NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
high-accruing NN O O
centers NN O O
( NN O O
HHACs NN O O
) NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
accrual NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
HNC NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
accrual NN O O
volume NN O O
on NN O O
OS NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
RTOG NN O I-OUT
accrual NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1997 NN O O
to NN O O
2002 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
was NN O O
four NN O O
versus NN O O
65 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
HHACs NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
included NN O O
471 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
0129 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2002 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2005 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
papillomavirus NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
versus NN O O
HHACs NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
: NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
T NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
: NN O O
26.5 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
35.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
otherwise NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O I-OUT
deviations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
versus NN O O
HHACs NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
HHACs NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
had NN O O
worse NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
: NN O O
51.0 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
69.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
1.91 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.37 NN O O
to NN O O
2.65 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.72 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.23 NN O O
to NN O O
2.40 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
compliance NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
OS NN O O
is NN O O
worse NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
HNC NN O O
treated NN O O
at NN O O
HLACs NN O O
versus NN O O
HHACs NN O O
to NN O O
cooperative NN O O
group NN O O
trials NN O O
after NN O O
accounting NN O O
for NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
protocol NN O O
deviations NN O O
. NN O O

Institutional NN O O
experience NN O O
substantially NN O O
influences NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
locally NN O O
advanced NN O O
HNC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25492271)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-type NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blocker NN O O
( NN O I-INT
amlodipine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thalassaemia NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate-to-severe NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Sideroblastic NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
repeated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
feared NN O O
complication NN O O
in NN O O
thalassaemia NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
thus NN O O
becoming NN O O
the NN O O
cornerstone NN O O
of NN O O
thalassaemia NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
L-type NN O O
Ca NN O O
( NN O O
2+ NN O O
) NN O O
channels NN O O
in NN O O
mediating NN O O
iron NN O O
uptake NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
. NN O O

Blocking NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
iron NN O O
uptake NN O O
through NN O O
these NN O O
channels NN O O
may NN O O
add NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
chelation NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
aim NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O O
channel NN O O
blocker NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
aggressive NN O O
chelation NN O O
in NN O O
retarding NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
thalassaemics NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
. NN O O

OUTCOMES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
amlodipine+chelation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
chelation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
retarding NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
amlodipine NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
strain NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
single-centre NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
allocation NN O O
ratio NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
, NN O O
MRI NN O O
T2* NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
load NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O O
T2* NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
and NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
T2* NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
p NN O O
Value NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
SETTING NN O O
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Aga NN O I-PAR
Khan NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Karachi NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Pakistan NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ETHICS NN O O
AND NN O O
DISSEMINATION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Review NN O O
Committee NN O O
and NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Unit NN O O
at NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Aga NN O I-PAR
Khan NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
scientific NN O O
content NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
applicable NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
subjects NN O O
regulations NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
reported NN O O
through NN O O
scientific NN O O
publications NN O O
and NN O O
research NN O O
conferences NN O O
and NN O O
project NN O O
summary NN O O
papers NN O O
for NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ClinicalTrials.Gov NN O O
. NN O O

Registration NN O O
no NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02065492 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25496415)

Increased NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
?-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
has NN O I-OUT
sex-specific NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
upon NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
re-examination NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
metabolic NN O O
pathway NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O I-PAR
mammals NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
convert NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n-3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
essential NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
?-linolenic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
longer-chain NN O I-INT
n-3 NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LC NN O O
n-3 NN O O
PUFA NN O O
) NN O O
including NN O I-INT
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
we NN O O
know NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
currently NN O O
no NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
specifically NN O O
examined NN O O
sex NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O O
n-3 NN O O
PUFA NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
dietary NN O O
ALA NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
acute NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
isotope-labelled NN O O
ALA NN O O
identified NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
capacity NN O O
to NN O O
synthesise NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
ALA NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
FINDINGS NN O O
Available NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
re-examined NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
sex NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O O
n-3 NN O O
PUFA NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
humans 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
between NN O O
sexes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
ALA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
women NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
phospholipids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
+2.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
ALA-rich NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
and NN O O
BMI NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
dietary NN O O
ALA NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
men NN O O
during NN O O
increased NN O O
dietary NN O O
ALA NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
ALA NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
inform NN O O
nutrition NN O O
advice NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
recommendations NN O O
being NN O O
specifically NN O O
tailored NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
habitual NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
BMI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25497243)

Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
Magnetic NN O I-INT
Resonance NN O I-INT
Imaging NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
CE-MARC NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
suspected NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
investigative NN O O
strategies NN O O
exist NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
CHD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
widespread NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
imaging NN O O
, NN O O
invasive NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
approximately NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
angiograms NN O O
reveal NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
obstructive NN O O
coronary NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Reducing NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
angiography NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
financial NN O O
savings NN O O
and NN O O
avoids NN O O
exposing NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
large-scale NN O O
comparative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
strategies NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
international NN O O
guidelines NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
CE-MARC NN O O
2 NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
3-arm NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pretest NN O I-PAR
likelihood NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
-90 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
investigation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
2:2:1 NN O O
basis NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
3.0-T NN O I-INT
cardiovascular NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance-guided NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
single-photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography-guided NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
American NN O O
College NN O O
of NN O O
Cardiology/American NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
appropriate-use NN O O
criteria NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
National NN O I-INT
Institute NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Care NN O I-INT
Excellence NN O I-INT
guidelines-based NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
( NN O O
efficacy NN O O
) NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
unnecessary NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
invasive NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
reserve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
each NN O O
strategy NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
3-year NN O O
major NN O O
adverse NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
CE-MARC NN O O
2 NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
different NN O O
strategies NN O O
of NN O O
investigating NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intension NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
invasive NN O O
angiography NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
management NN O O
strategies NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
health-related NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
life NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
CHD NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25502833)

Intravitreal NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
isovolemic NN O I-INT
hemodilution NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
twelve-month NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
investigator-initiated NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
12-month NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
isovolemic NN O I-INT
hemodilution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
prompt NN O O
versus NN O O
deferred NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
injections NN O O
( NN O O
IVI NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
occlusion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CRVO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
edema NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
CRVO NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
occurred NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
monthly NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
IVI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
IH NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
IH NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
month NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
monthly NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
optical NN O O
coherence NN O O
tomography NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
gained NN O O
+28.1 NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
?19.3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
letters NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
+25.2 NN O O
( NN O O
?20.9 NN O O
) NN O O
letters NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.326 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
injections NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
need NN O I-INT
ranibizumab NN O I-INT
IVI NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Ranibizumab NN O I-INT
IVI NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
IH NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
CRVO NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Initial NN O O
IH NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
CRVO NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
option NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
anxious NN O O
about NN O O
IVI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25515056)

Comparison NN O O
on NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Guillian-Barre NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
curative NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
immunoglobulin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IVIg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
Guillian-Barre NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GBS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GBS NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
IVIg NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
week/2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
immunoglobulin NN O O
, NN O O
complement NN O O
, NN O O
fibrinogen NN O O
( NN O O
Fib NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
monocyte NN O O
percentage NN O O
( NN O O
MON NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
IVIg NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
IVIg NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Treatment NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
96 NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IVIg NN O I-INT
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
GBS NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
immunoglobulin NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IgM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
these NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVIg NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Fib NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MON NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PE NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IVIg NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IVIg NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
response NN O O
as NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
reasonable NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
GBS NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
significantly NN O O
curative NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
improve NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25516338)

Exploratory NN O O
Subset NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PointBreak NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Pemetrexed-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
Followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Maintenance NN O I-INT
Pemetrexed-Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
Versus NN O O
Paclitaxel-Carboplatin-Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
Followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Maintenance NN O I-INT
Bevacizumab NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB/IV NN O I-PAR
Nonsquamous NN O I-PAR
Non-Small-Cell NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTRODUCTION NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
incidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
whites NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
underrepresented NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
PointBreak NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
pemetrexed-carboplatin-bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
pemetrexed-bevacizumab NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PemCBev NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
paclitaxel-carboplatin-bevacizumab NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
PacCBev NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PointBreak NN O O
had NN O O
negative NN O O
findings NN O O
; NN O O
PemCBev NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
PointBreak NN O O
subgroup NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
were NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
analyzed NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
whites NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-INT
PemCBev NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
PemCBev NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-INT
PacCBev NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
academic NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hazard NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O I-OUT
Cox NN O I-OUT
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
model NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
covariates NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
939 NN O I-PAR
intent-to-treat NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ITT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
805 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
enrollment NN O O
was NN O O
uniform NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
African NN O O
American NN O O
per NN O O
site NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
PemCBev NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
OS NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.125 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.525 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.229 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.251 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
.607 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
in NN O O
African NN O O
Americans NN O O
versus NN O O
whites NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
African NN O O
Americans NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
1.375 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.209 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.902 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.670 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
1.000 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PemCBev NN O O
versus NN O O
PacCBev NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
African NN O O
Americans 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
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.661 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.191 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
PFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HR NN O O
, NN O O
0.969 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.915 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
academic NN O O
versus NN O O
community NN O O
practice NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
PemCBev NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
whites NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ITT NN O O
population NN O O
negative NN O O
trial NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
OS NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
PFS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
OS NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
academic NN O O
and NN O O
community NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25519880)

Sustaining NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
schistosomiasis NN O I-OUT
mansoni NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
endemicity NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
western NN O I-PAR
C?te NN O I-PAR
d'Ivoire NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
SCORE NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Schistosomiasis NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
parasitic NN O O
disease NN O O
that NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
tropics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subtropics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mainstay NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
is NN O O
preventive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O I-INT
praziquantel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
Africa NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
estimated NN O O
230 NN O O
million NN O O
people NN O O
require NN O O
preventive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
western NN O O
C?te NN O O
d'Ivoire NN O O
, NN O O
infections NN O O
with NN O O
Schistosoma NN O O
mansoni NN O O
are NN O O
widespread NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-base NN O O
for NN O O
programme NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
preventive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
to NN O O
sustain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
schistosomiasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
5-year NN O O
multi-country NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
designed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Schistosomiasis NN O I-INT
Consortium NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Operational NN O I-INT
Research NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Evaluation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCORE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
is NN O O
currently NN O O
being NN O O
implemented NN O O
in NN O O
various NN O O
African NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
C?te NN O O
d'Ivoire NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
ethics NN O O
statement NN O O
and NN O O
insight NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
large-scale NN O O
eligibility NN O O
survey NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
provinces NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
western NN O I-PAR
C?te NN O I-PAR
d'Ivoire NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
approved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ethics NN O O
committees NN O O
of NN O O
Basel NN O O
and NN O O
C?te NN O O
d'Ivoire NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12,110 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
13-14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
264 NN O I-PAR
villages NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-PAR
mansoni NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
duplicate NN O I-PAR
Kato-Katz NN O I-PAR
thick NN O I-PAR
smears NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
stool NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
S. NN O I-PAR
mansoni NN O I-PAR
prevalence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10-24 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
stool NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
9-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
annually NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
stool NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
first-year NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
duplicate NN O I-PAR
Kato-Katz NN O I-PAR
thick NN O I-PAR
smears NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cost NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
coverage NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
intervention NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
environmental NN O O
, NN O O
political NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
characteristics NN O O
that NN O O
might NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
infection NN O O
prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
pretested NN O O
village NN O O
inventory NN O O
form NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
document NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
S. NN O I-OUT
mansoni NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
schemes NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
determine NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preventive NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
will NN O I-OUT
be NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
factors NN O O
will NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
reasonable NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
force NN O O
of NN O O
transmission NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
decisions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gathered NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
effectively NN O O
sustain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
schistosomiasis NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
level NN O O
in NN O O
different NN O O
social-ecological NN O O
contexts NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN99401114 NN O O
( NN O O
date NN O O
assigned NN O O
: NN O O
12 NN O O
November NN O O
2014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25524655)

Most NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enhancing NN O O
mobility NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
gender NN O O
on NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O O
fracture NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
gender NN O O
influenced NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
persisted NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
cognition NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Secondary NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Enhancing NN O I-INT
Mobility NN O I-INT
After NN O I-INT
Hip NN O I-INT
Fracture NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
higher NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
included NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Regression NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
genders NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
cognition NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Interaction NN O O
terms NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
by NN O O
gender NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Outcome NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
160 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
men NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
gender NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
any NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
19 NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
men NN O O
performed NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
extensor NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
3.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
persist NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
persisted NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.038 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
men NN O O
performed NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
coordinated NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-10.0 NN O O
error NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-17.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.010 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
persisted NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
cognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.073 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
, NN O O
men NN O O
performed NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
coordinated NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-10.2 NN O O
error NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-18.4 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
persisted NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.135 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
gender NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
few NN O O
between NN O O
gender NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
these NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confounded NN O O
by NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
cognition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25526101)

TRANSCONJUNCTIVAL NN O I-INT
NONVITRECTOMIZING NN O I-INT
VITREOUS NN O I-INT
SURGERY NN O I-INT
VERSUS NN O I-INT
25-GAUGE NN O I-INT
VITRECTOMY NN O I-INT
IN NN O O
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
WITH NN O I-PAR
EPIRETINAL NN O I-PAR
MEMBRANE NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Prospective NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
27-gauge NN O I-INT
transconjunctival NN O I-INT
nonvitrectomizing NN O I-INT
vitreous NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NVS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
25-gauge NN O I-INT
transconjunctival NN O I-INT
sutureless NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
epiretinal NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
phakic NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
epiretinal NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
27-gauge NN O I-INT
NVS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NVS-group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
25-gauge NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Standard-group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
best-corrected NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O O
retinal NN O O
thickness NN O O
, NN O O
nuclear NN O O
density NN O O
units NN O O
' NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Standard-group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
NVS-group NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
best-corrected NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in 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
better NN O O
result NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
NVS-group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.039 NN O O
; NN O O
t-test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
Tukey NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
nuclear NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Standard-group NN O O
( NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NVS-group NN O O
( NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.537 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Epiretinal NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O O
in NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Standard-group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
7.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NVS-group NN O O
( NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
1.000 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
27-gauge NN O I-INT
NVS NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
epiretinal NN O O
membrane NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
induces NN O O
less NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
nuclear NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
than NN O O
25-gauge NN O I-INT
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25526831)

Cognitive NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Clinically NN O O
elevated NN O O
anxiety NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
impairing NN O O
feature NN O O
of 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
. NN O O

A NN O O
modular NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
program NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
preteens NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
Children NN O O
with NN O O
Autism NN O O
( NN O O
BIACA NN O O
; NN O O
Wood NN O O
et NN O O
al. NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
and NN O O
modified NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
developmental NN O O
needs NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11-15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
model NN O O
emphasized NN O O
exposure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
challenging NN O I-INT
irrational NN O I-INT
beliefs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O I-INT
supports NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
by NN O O
caregivers NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
numerous NN O O
ASD-specific NN O O
treatment NN O O
elements NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
evaluators NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adolescents NN O O
rated NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment/postwaitlist NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
outperformed NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
independent NN O O
evaluators NN O O
' NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Pediatric NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PARS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CBT NN O O
group NN O O
met NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
at NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
28.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
waitlist NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
parent-report NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CBT NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
CBT NN O I-INT
manual NN O O
under NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
enhanced NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
adolescents NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
, NN O O
yielded NN O O
meaningful NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
( NN O O
PARS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
additional NN O O
developmental NN O O
modifications NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
manual NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
examining NN O O
this NN O O
protocol NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
control NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25526832)

Improving NN O O
peer NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
playground NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed 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
psychosocial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Remaking NN O I-INT
Recess NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
peer NN O O
engagement 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 I-PAR
Using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
wait-list-controlled NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
during NN O O
recess NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
immediate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
wait-list NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
contained NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fully NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
education NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
engaged NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
peers NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
IT NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

School NN O O
playground NN O O
staff NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IT NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
aimed NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
playground NN O O
staff NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
WL NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
maintain NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
brief NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
peer NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
inclusive NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
continued NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
playground NN O O
staff NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25527253)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
aim NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
and NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Multisite NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
1:1 NN O O
) NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
subjects NN O O
block NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
lifetime NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
substance NN O O
abuse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
MDD NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
Departments NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Physical NN O I-PAR
Medicine NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
university-based NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=123 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
SCI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
post-SCI NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Twelve-week NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
flexible NN O I-INT
titration NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
A NN O O
0-to-10 NN O I-OUT
numeric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
on NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
pain NN O O
site NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
interference NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
individual NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
minimally NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
, NN O O
some NN O O
additional NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
mixed NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
and NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
) NN O O
pain NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
could NN O O
complement NN O O
current NN O O
medications NN O O
and NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
pain NN O O
after NN O O
SCI NN O O
and NN O O
MDD NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
usefulness NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
central NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Research NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
replicate NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
and NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
antinociceptive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
venlafaxine NN O I-INT
XR NN O I-INT
generalizes NN O O
to NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
SCI NN O O
pain NN O O
without NN O O
MDD NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25530107)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
versus NN O O
high NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentration NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial-derived NN O I-OUT
vasoregulators NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Intradialytic NN O O
hypertension NN O O
affects NN O O
?15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
intradialytic NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
endothelin NN O O
1 NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
nitric NN O O
oxide NN O O
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
imbalances NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
vitro NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
altering NN O O
plasma NN O O
sodium NN O O
levels NN O O
could NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
endothelial-derived NN O I-OUT
vasoregulators NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentration NN O O
would NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
endothelin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
3-week NN O O
, NN O O
2-arm NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
& NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intradialytic NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O I-INT
Low NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mEq/L NN O I-INT
below NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mEq/L NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOMES NN O I-OUT
Endothelin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nitrite NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MEASUREMENTS NN O I-OUT
Mixed NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
( NN O O
low NN O O
vs NN O O
high NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
randomization NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
low-then-high NN O O
vs NN O O
high-then-low NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
intradialytic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
endothelin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
all NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
given NN O O
week NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
treatments NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
parameter NN O O
estimate NN O O
, NN O O
-9.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-13.3 NN O O
to NN O O
-6.4 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg 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 I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
hemodialysis NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
vs NN O O
high NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
parameter NN O O
estimate NN O O
, NN O O
-6.1 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-9.0 NN O O
to NN O O
-3.2 NN O O
] NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
intradialytic NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endothelin NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
NO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
low NN O O
vs NN O O
high NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Carryover NN O O
effects NN O O
limited NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
endothelial-derived NN O I-OUT
vasoregulators NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
future NN O I-OUT
studies NN O O
will NN O O
require NN O O
parallel NN O O
trial NN O O
designs NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Low NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ameliorated NN O I-OUT
intradialytic NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Longer NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
dialysate NN O O
sodium NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25532076)

Cariprazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
mania NN O O
in NN O O
bipolar NN O O
I NN O O
disorder NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
Phase NN O O
III 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
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
flexibly-dosed NN O O
cariprazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
manic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bipolar NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cariprazine NN O I-INT
3-12mg/day NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=158 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=154 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
Young NN O I-OUT
Mania NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
YMRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameter NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Severity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI-S NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Mean NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
YMRS NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
cariprazine NN O I-INT
3-12mg/day NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
YMRS NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
mean NN O O
change NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
by NN O O
Day NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
first NN O O
postbaseline NN O O
assessment NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cariprazine NN O I-INT
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
superiority NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O O
on NN O O
YMRS NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?50 NN O O
% NN O O
improvement NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
cariprazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
58.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
44.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0097 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
YMRS NN O O
total NN O O
score?12 NN O O
: NN O O
cariprazine NN O O
, NN O O
51.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
34.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.0025 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
CGI-S NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.0027 NN O O
) NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PANSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.0035 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O I-INT
cariprazine-related NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
?10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
emergent NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
TEAEs NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
akathisia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dyspepsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
generally NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Lack NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
comparator NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
cariprazine NN O I-INT
3-12mg/day NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
generally NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
manic NN O O
and NN O O
mixed NN O O
episodes NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
bipolar NN O O
I NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25533997)

Inverse NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
non-comorbid NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ADHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RATIONALE NN O O
Attention NN O O
deficit NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ADHD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
comorbid NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
both NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions NN O O
during NN O O
motor NN O O
response NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O

Serotonin NN O O
agonists NN O O
modulate NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
positive NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
We NN O O
therefore NN O O
used NN O O
functional NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O O
fMRI NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
unknown NN O O
shared NN O O
and NN O O
disorder-specific NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
dysfunctions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
disorders NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS 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
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
fMRI NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
stop NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
measuring NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
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 I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
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 I-INT
randomised NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
analyses NN O O
within NN O O
patients NN O O
assessed NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
potential NN O O
normalisation NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
brain NN O O
dysfunctions 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
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Under NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
ASD NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
overactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
frontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
ADHD NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
disorder-specific NN O O
underactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
orbitofrontal NN O I-OUT
cortex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
ganglia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Under NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prefrontal NN O I-OUT
dysfunctions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
inverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
activations NN O O
: NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
downregulated NN O O
IFC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
OFC NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
but NN O O
upregulated NN O O
them NN O O
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
fluoxetine NN O O
normalises NN O O
frontal NN O I-OUT
lobe NN O I-OUT
dysfunctions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
via NN O O
inverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
downregulating NN O O
abnormally NN O O
increased NN O O
frontal NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
and NN O O
upregulating NN O O
abnormally NN O O
decreased NN O O
frontal NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
ADHD NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
reflecting NN O O
inverse NN O O
baseline NN O O
serotonin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25534295)

Carboplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pegylated NN O I-INT
liposomal NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
carboplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
in NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CALYPSO NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM NN O O
To NN O O
perform NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ROC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
CALYPSO NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
international NN O I-PAR
non-inferiority NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ROC NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
first- NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
second-line NN O I-PAR
platinum- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
paclitaxel-based NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
carboplatin-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
] NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
carboplatin-paclitaxel NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
treatment-free NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
TFI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
TFI NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
separately NN O O
for NN O O
progression NN O O
free NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
PFS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
of NN O O
CALYPSO NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
safety 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
259 NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=131 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CD NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=128 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Median NN O I-OUT
PFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.0 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
and NN O O
12.3 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
HR=1.05 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.79-1.40 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.73 NN O O
for NN O O
superiority NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
40.2 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
CD NN O O
and NN O O
43.9 NN O O
for NN O O
CP NN O O
[ NN O O
HR=1.18 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.85-1.63 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.33 NN O O
for NN O O
superiority NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
27.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.47 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.082 NN O O
) NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
alopecia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.089 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Grade NN O I-OUT
3/4 NN O I-OUT
hand-foot NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
rarely NN O O
with NN O O
CD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
versus NN O O
0 NN O O
in NN O O
CP NN O O
arm NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.089 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
CP NN O O
and NN O O
CD NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
platinum-sensitive NN O I-PAR
ROC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
favourable NN O O
risk-benefit NN O O
profile NN O O
suggests NN O O
carboplatin-PLD NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25542620)

Crohn NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
management NN O O
after NN O O
intestinal NN O O
resection NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Most NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
need NN O O
an NN O O
intestinal NN O O
resection NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
majority NN O O
will NN O O
subsequently NN O O
experience NN O O
disease NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
postoperative NN O O
disease NN O O
recurrence NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
macroscopic NN O I-PAR
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
endoscopically NN O I-PAR
accessible NN O I-PAR
anastomosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
metronidazole NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
thiopurine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
adalimumab NN O I-INT
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
intolerant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
thiopurines NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
block NN O O
randomisation NN O O
to NN O O
allocate NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
centre NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
or NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Rutgeerts NN O O
score NN O O
?i2 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
stepped-up NN O O
to NN O O
thiopurine NN O O
, NN O O
fortnightly NN O I-INT
adalimumab NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
thiopurine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O O
weekly NN O O
adalimumab NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
and NN O O
treating NN O O
physicians NN O O
were NN O O
aware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
central NN O O
reading NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
findings NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
included NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00989560 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O O
Oct NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
2009 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Sept NN O O
28 NN O O
, NN O O
2011 NN O O
, NN O O
174 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
across NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
122 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
47 NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
stepped-up NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
60 NN O O
( NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Complete NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
normality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
122 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
four NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
care NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
stepped NN O O
up NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
months NN O O
later NN O O
; NN O O
conversely NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
75 NN O O
patients NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Smoking NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
OR NN O O
] NN O O
2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.2-4.8 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
clinical NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
including NN O O
smoking NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.01-7.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
[ NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
122 NN O O
vs NN O O
45 NN O O
[ NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.51 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
[ NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
122 NN O O
vs NN O O
18 NN O O
[ NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
52 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.36 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Treatment NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
early NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
step-up NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
Crohn NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Selective NN O O
immune NN O O
suppression NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
predict NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
also NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Early NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
does NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
preclude NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
ongoing NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
AbbVie NN O O
, NN O O
Gutsy NN O O
Group NN O O
, NN O O
Gandel NN O O
Philanthropy NN O O
, NN O O
Angior NN O O
Foundation NN O O
, NN O O
Crohn NN O O
's NN O O
Colitis NN O O
Australia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25542821)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ulipristal NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
12-week NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
of NN O O
ulipristal NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
intermittent NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
12-week NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
ulipristal NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Gynecology NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
451 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
fibroid NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
heavy NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Two NN O O
repeated NN O O
12-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ulipristal NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Amenorrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
controlled NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fibroid NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULT NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
5- NN O O
and NN O O
10-mg NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
amenorrhea NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
courses NN O O
. NN O O

Proportions NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
achieving NN O O
controlled NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
courses NN O O
were NN O O
> NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Menstruation NN O I-OUT
resumed NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
course NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
diminished NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
treatment NN O O
course NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fibroid NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ulipristal NN O O
acetate NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QoL NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ulipristal NN O O
acetate NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
Repeated NN O O
12-week NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
ulipristal NN O O
acetate NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
effectively NN O O
control NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduce NN O O
fibroid NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
restore NN O O
QoL NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
fibroids NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
NCT01629563 NN O O
( NN O O
PEARL NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25546925)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
elevated NN O O
100 NN O O
g NN O O
oral NN O O
glucose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
OGTT NN O O
) NN O O
value 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 O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
challenge NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
OGTT NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
140 NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
an NN O O
abnormal NN O O
GCT NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

Carpenter NN O O
and NN O O
Coustan NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
OGTT NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-four NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
GCT NN O I-PAR
values NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
I. NN O I-PAR
Ninety-nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
OGTT NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
caloric NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
OGTT NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
antenatal NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
until NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Poor NN O O
maternal NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
: NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
cephalopelvic NN O I-OUT
disproportion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progress NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Poor NN O O
perinatal NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
: NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
perinatal NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
macrosomia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
maternal NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
OR=3.90 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI:1.95- NN O O
7.84 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
terms NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
perinatal NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
elevated NN O O
OGTT NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
OR=2.92 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI:1.56-5.46 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
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
OGTT NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
structured NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
adverse NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25549656)

Wrist NN O O
Rehabilitation NN O O
Assisted NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
Electromyography-Driven NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O I-INT
Electrical NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
Robot NN O I-INT
After NN O O
Stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Augmented NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
assistance NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neuromuscular NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NMES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
may NN O O
introduce NN O O
intensive NN O O
motor NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
NMES NN O I-INT
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
by NN O O
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
hemiplegic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
20-session NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
electromyography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-driven NN O I-INT
NMES NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NMES NN O O
robot NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
EMG-driven NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
( NN O O
robot NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
completed NN O O
within NN O O
7 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Modified NN O I-OUT
Ashworth NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Action NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
Arm NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ARAT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
effects NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
EMG NN O O
parameter NN O O
, NN O O
muscle NN O O
co-contraction NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
session-by-session NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
muscular NN O O
coordination NN O O
patterns NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
shoulder/elbow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
wrist/hand NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NMES NN O I-INT
robot NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
significant NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
robot 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

Significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ARAT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NMES NN O O
robot NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
absent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
robot NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

NMES NN O O
robot-assisted NN O O
training NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
releasing NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
co-contraction NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
robot-assisted NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
NMES NN O I-INT
robot-assisted NN O I-INT
wrist NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
pure NN O O
robot NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
additional NN O O
NMES NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
could NN O O
bring NN O O
more NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distal NN O O
motor NN O O
functions NN O O
and NN O O
faster NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
progress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25552279)

Concentrated NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
Standardised NN O O
, NN O O
concentrated NN O I-INT
neonatal NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
can NN O O
overcome NN O O
early NN O O
nutritional NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
PN NN O O
regimen NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
macronutrient NN O O
content NN O O
( NN O I-INT
standardised NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
concentrated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
macronutrients NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SCAMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
early NN O O
head NN O O
growth NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Line NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
including NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
were NN O O
started NN O O
on NN O O
standardised NN O O
, NN O O
concentrated NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
at NN O O
birth NN O O
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
at NN O O
2-5 NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
SCAMP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
remain NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
PN NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Central NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CVC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

150 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
900 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
158 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
884 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
183 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
SCAMP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=76 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
respectively 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
CVC NN O I-OUT
use/type NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
positive/negative NN O I-OUT
BC NN O I-OUT
with/without NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
SCAMP NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Increasing NN O O
the NN O O
macronutrient NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O O
, NN O O
concentrated NN O O
neonatal NN O O
PN NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
CVC NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
ISRCTN NN O O
76597892 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25555877)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
stellate NN O I-INT
ganglionic NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intrapulmonary NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
perioperative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O I-INT
stellate NN O I-INT
ganglion NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SGB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intrapulmonary NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
one-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
( NN O O
OLV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
SGB NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n=15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
left NN O I-INT
SGB NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Radial NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
cannulated NN O I-INT
for NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
sampling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Swan-Ganz NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
jugular NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CVP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BIS NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
continuously NN O O
monitored NN O O
during NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O O
1.5-2.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
sufentanil NN O O
0.4 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Rocuronium NN O O
0.6-0.9 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Endobronchial NN O O
occluder NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
blindly NN O O
after NN O O
tracheal NN O O
indubation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
correct NN O O
position NN O O
was NN O O
verified NN O O
by NN O O
auscultation NN O O
and NN O O
fiberoptic NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
mechanically NN O O
ventilated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ventilation NN O O
conditions NN O O
were NN O O
Fio2=100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
VT NN O O
= NN O O
8-10 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
, NN O O
I NN O O
: NN O O
E NN O O
= NN O O
1:2 NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
rate NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
maintained NN O O
PETCO2 NN O O
at NN O O
35-45 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
two-lung NN O O
ventilation NN O O
( NN O O
TLV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
OLV NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
4-10 NN O O
mg/kg?h NN O O
, NN O O
sufentanil NN O O
0.2 NN O O
?g/kg?h NN O O
, NN O O
vecuronium NN O O
o.1 NN O O
mg/kg?h NN O O
, NN O O
BIS NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
45-55 NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
S-G NN O O
catheter NN O O
for NN O O
blood NN O O
gas NN O O
analysis NN O O
at NN O O
following NN O O
intervals NN O O
: NN O O
during NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
breathing NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
awake NN O O
( NN O O
T0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
tracheal NN O O
indubation NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
lateral NN O O
position NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
it NN O O
( NN O O
T3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
ribs NN O O
was NN O O
braced NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
min NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
OLV NN O O
( NN O O
T5 NN O O
, NN O O
T6 NN O O
, NN O O
T7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
lungs NN O O
were NN O O
ventilated NN O O
again NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
T8 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
Qs/Qt NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
SVRI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
N NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
T1 NN O O
, NN O O
T2 NN O O
, NN O O
T4 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
group NN O O
S NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Qs/Qt NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
lateral NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
further NN O O
during NN O O
OLV NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
calculated NN O I-OUT
Qs/Qt NN O I-OUT
values NN O O
were NN O O
highest NN O O
at NN O O
T5? NN O O
PaO2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
OLV NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
level NN O O
at NN O O
T6 NN O O
then NN O O
was NN O O
gradually NN O O
increasing NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Qs/Qt NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PaO2 NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
SGB NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
effectively NN O O
suppress NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
response NN O O
work NN O O
as NN O O
stable NN O O
blood NN O O
dynamics NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
Qs/Qt NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
during NN O O
OLV NN O O
, NN O O
SGB NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
general NN O O
thoracic NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25561389)

Does NN O O
watching NN O O
a NN O O
video NN O O
on NN O O
third NN O I-INT
molar NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
watching NN O I-INT
live NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
molar NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
extraction NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
, NN O O
observational NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
patient NN O O
education NN O O
techniques NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
third NN O O
molar NN O O
removal NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
333 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
verbally NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
for NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
basic NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
verbally NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
movie NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
molar NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
basic NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
verbally NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
include NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
operative NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recovery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Anxiety NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Dental NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Spielberger NN O I-OUT
State-Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
STAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
SPSS NN O I-OUT
16.0 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
anxious NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
DAS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
STAI NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
education NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
female NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-INT
multimedia NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
anxiety NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25564411)

Hepatectomy NN O I-INT
Versus NN O I-INT
Hepatectomy NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Hepatocellular NN O O
Carcinoma NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

GOALS NN O O
AND NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
preventive NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
determined NN O O
for NN O O
hepatocellular NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hepatectomy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
hepatectomy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
hepatectomy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
and NN O O
oncologic NN O I-OUT
prognoses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
pathologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
curative NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
sixteen NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
were NN O O
dissected NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
negative NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pathologist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
12- NN O O
, NN O O
36- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60-month NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
81.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
68.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
63.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
78.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
65.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
63.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
12- NN O O
, NN O O
36- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60-month NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
94.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
78.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
65.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
87.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
78.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
70.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.811 NN O O
and NN O O
P=0.881 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
47.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
36.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.332 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
hepatectomy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
preventive NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25568377)

Continual NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
of NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
microalgal NN O I-INT
biomass NN O I-INT
affected NN O O
protein NN O O
digestion NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
laying NN O I-PAR
hens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
14-wk 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
nutritional NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ssmetabolic NN O I-OUT
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
microalgal NN O I-INT
biomass NN O I-INT
as NN O O
alternative NN O O
protein NN O O
sources NN O O
in NN O O
laying NN O I-PAR
hen NN O I-PAR
diets NN O O
. NN O O

Shaver NN O I-PAR
hens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
wk NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
diets NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
defatted NN O I-INT
green NN O I-INT
microalgal NN O I-INT
biomass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DG NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Desmodesmus NN O I-INT
spp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O I-INT
full-fatted NN O I-INT
diatom NN O I-INT
biomass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FD NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Staurosira NN O I-INT
spp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
11.7 NN O O
% NN O O
inclusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
protease NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
experiment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
replicates NN O O
per NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
each NN O O
replicate NN O O
contained NN O O
6 NN O O
hens NN O O
individually NN O O
reared NN O O
in NN O O
cages NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
hen NN O O
for NN O O
biochemical NN O O
data/replicate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
decreased NN O O
ADFI NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hens NN O O
fed NN O O
DG NN O O
or NN O O
FD NN O O
had NN O O
final NN O O
BW NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
hen-day NN O O
egg NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
egg NN O O
quality NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Feeding NN O O
DG NN O O
or NN O O
FD NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glutamine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
wk NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
14 NN O O
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
3-methyhistine NN O I-OUT
concentrations 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
tartrate-resistant NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
wk NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
ileal NN O O
total NN O O
AA NN O O
digestibility NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
DG NN O O
or NN O O
FD NN O O
exhibited NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
brush NN O I-OUT
border NN O I-OUT
protease NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mRNA NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
transporters NN O I-OUT
Pept1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Lat1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cat1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
both NN O O
substantially NN O O
enhanced NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
phosphorylation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
key NN O I-OUT
regulator NN O I-OUT
S6 NN O I-OUT
ribosomal NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
S6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
phospho-S6 NN O O
to NN O O
S6 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
of NN O O
hens NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
DG NN O O
and NN O O
FD NN O O
manifested NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
impacts NN O O
on NN O O
weights NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
egg NN O I-OUT
albumen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
proteolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
jejunal NN O I-OUT
digesta NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
TRAP NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ileal NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
digestibility NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
proteins NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Supplemental NN O O
protease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DG NN O O
and NN O O
FD NN O O
diets NN O O
produced NN O O
mixed NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
revealed NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
including NN O O
greater NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
microalgal NN O I-INT
biomass NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
feed NN O O
protein NN O O
for NN O O
laying NN O I-PAR
hens NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biomass NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
dietary NN O O
protein NN O O
digestion NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
protein NN O O
metabolism NN O O
than NN O O
previously NN O O
perceived NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25572620)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
tobacco NN O I-INT
quitline NN O I-INT
among NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
2010-2013 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
common NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O I-INT
quitlines NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
regularly NN O I-PAR
smoked NN O I-PAR
cigarettes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Adult NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Memphis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Tennessee NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=427 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Proactive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
counselor-initiated NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Reactive NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
participant-initiated NN O I-INT
calls NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
quitline NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
conditions NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
nicotine NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
biochemically-verified NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
salivary NN O O
cotinine NN O O
) NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
While NN O O
12-month NN O O
self-reported NN O O
abstinence NN O O
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
published NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
point NN O O
prevalence NN O O
abstinence NN O O
for NN O O
Proactive NN O O
and NN O O
Reactive NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
cotinine NN O O
failed NN O O
biochemical NN O O
verification NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
falsification NN O O
of NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adjusted NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
intervention NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
traditional NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
ineffective NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
self-reports NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cessation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unreliable NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O O
survivors NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
quitline NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
include NN O O
biochemical NN O O
verification NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
cessation NN O O
among NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
low NN O O
cessation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
design NN O O
alternative NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00827866 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25577772)

The NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
indices NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
stratify NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Early NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
structure NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
important NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
when NN O O
multiple NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
are NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
combining NN O O
individual NN O O
measurements NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
subjective NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
echo NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
summarises NN O O
measurements NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
detect NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
prognostically NN O O
important NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
cardiac NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Standard NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
849 NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
65years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
5.5years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Principal NN O O
components NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
LV NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LA NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
e NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
s NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
create NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
summary NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazard NN O O
models NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
CV NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
estimated NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
estimated NN O O
any NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
principal NN O O
components NN O O
represented NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
echo NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
continuous NN O O
score NN O O
that NN O O
represents NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
components NN O O
was NN O O
derived NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
requires NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
medial NN O O
E NN O O
: NN O O
e NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
s NN O O
' NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HF NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.34 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.15 NN O O
, NN O O
1.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
objective NN O O
score NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
echocardiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
sub-clinical NN O O
cardiac NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2DM NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Initial NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
identify NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
HF NN O O
within NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25579054)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25580916)

N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
proposed NN O O
interference NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
pathophysiologic NN O O
processes NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorders NN O O
( NN O O
ADs NN O O
) 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 I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ADs 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
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ADs NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Community NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
titrated NN O O
between NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
NAC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
600 NN O O
to NN O O
900 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
10-week NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
including NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
5 NN O O
subscales NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
time NN O O
? NN O O
treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity/noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
subscales NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
week NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity/noncompliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
subscales NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
ADs NN O O
with NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25589191)

Afatinib NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
cisplatin-based NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutation-positive NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
afatinib NN O I-INT
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutation-positive NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutation-positive NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIIB NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
adenocarcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=345 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=364 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
2:1 NN O I-INT
ratio NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
afatinib NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
LUX-Lung NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
gemcitabine-cisplatin NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
LUX-Lung NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stratified NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
EGFR NN O I-INT
mutation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
exon NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
deletion NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
del19 NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Leu858Arg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ethnic NN O I-INT
origin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LUX-Lung NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
planned NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
mature NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
data NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
209 NN O O
( NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
237 NN O O
( NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
deaths NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
ongoing NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
numbers NN O O
NCT00949650 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT01121393 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
was NN O O
41 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
35-44 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
213 NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
345 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
was NN O O
33 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
31-37 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
246 NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
364 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
died NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
24.6-33.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
28.2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
20.7-33.2 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pemetrexed-cisplatin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.88 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.66-1.17 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
23.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
20.4-27.3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
23.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
18.0-25.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gemcitabine-cisplatin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.93 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.72-1.22 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.61 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
preplanned NN O O
analyses NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
del19-positive NN O O
tumours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
26.8-41.5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
21.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
16.3-30.7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.54 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.36-0.79 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.0015 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
31.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
24.2-35.3 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
18.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
14.6-25.6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
0.64 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.44-0.94 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
contrast 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
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
Leu858Arg-positive NN O O
tumours NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
27.6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
19.8-41.7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
40.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
24.3-not NN O O
estimable NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.80-2.11 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
19.6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
17.0-22.1 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
24.3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
19.0-27.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
1.22 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.81-1.83 NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
afatinib-related NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3-4 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
rash NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
37 NN O O
[ NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
229 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
35 NN O O
[ NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
239 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
LUX-Lung NN O I-PAR
6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
33 NN O O
[ NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
[ NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
paronychia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26 NN O O
[ NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
[ NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
only NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
[ NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
111 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
14 NN O O
[ NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
leucopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
nine NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O O
grade NN O O
3-4 NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
in NN O O
LUX-Lung NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
chemotherapy-related NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
3-4 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
[ NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
113 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22 NN O O
[ NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
leucopenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
[ NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Although NN O O
afatinib NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
was NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
del19 NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Leu858Arg NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
EGFR NN O O
del19-positive NN O O
disease NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
distinct NN O O
from NN O O
Leu858Arg-positive NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
subgroups NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
separately NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Boehringer NN O O
Ingelheim NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25594611)

Exploring NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
tanezumab NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Evaluate NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
tanezumab NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
humanized NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
nerve NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
neuropathic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Two NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DPN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
postherpetic NN O I-PAR
neuralgia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PHN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
DPN NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
tanezumab NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluations NN O O
included NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O O
DPN NN O O
pain NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Patient NN O O
's NN O O
Global NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
DPN NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
( NN O O
including NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
assessments NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
clinical NN O O
hold NN O O
limiting NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
landmark NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
modified NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
from NN O O
Week NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
PHN NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
intravenous NN O O
tanezumab NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
, NN O O
tanezumab NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluations NN O O
included NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
endpoint NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Brief NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Inventory-short NN O I-OUT
form NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
PHN NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
DPN NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O I-INT
tanezumab NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
Patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DPN NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not 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

Neither NN O I-INT
tanezumab NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PHN NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
tanezumab NN O O
200 NN O O
?g/kg NN O O
provided NN O O
some NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neuropathy NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
no NN O O
meaningful NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Tanezumab NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
effective NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
DPN NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
PHN NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O I-INT
tanezumab NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
new NN O O
safety NN O O
concerns NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
despite NN O I-PAR
preexisting NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25612845)

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
study NN O O
between NN O O
a NN O O
bilayer NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
fentalyl NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
monolayer NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
single NN O O
dose NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Transdermal NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
pain 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
is NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
from NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
transdermal NN O O
systems NN O O
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
plasma NN O O
drug NN O O
concentrations NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
Fentalgon? NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
novel NN O I-INT
bilayer NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Durogesic NN O I-INT
SMAT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
reference NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
monolayer NN O I-INT
matrix NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
Fentalgon NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
the NN O O
upper NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
reservoir NN O O
layer NN O O
maintains NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
concentration NN O O
gradient NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
donor NN O O
layer NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
system NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
drug NN O O
delivery NN O O
over NN O O
72 NN O O
h. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
label NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
centre NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
period NN O O
crossover NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patches NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
non-irritated NN O O
and NN O O
non-irradiated NN O O
skin NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intraclavicular NN O O
pectoral NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
h NN O O
post-removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
devices NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
concentrations NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
LC/MS/MS NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Bioequivalence NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
claimed NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
AUC NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
t NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
ratios NN O O
( NN O O
test NN O O
: NN O O
reference NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
acceptance NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75-133 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
t NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
116.3 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
109.6 NN O O
, NN O O
123.4 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
max NN O O
) NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
114.4 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
105.8 NN O O
, NN O O
123.8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
narrower NN O O
bounds NN O O
of NN O O
80-125 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
safety NN O O
profiles NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
preparations NN O O
investigated NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
adequately NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
expected NN O O
for NN O O
opioid-na?ve NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
new NN O O
bilayer NN O O
matrix NN O O
type NN O O
patch NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Fentalgon? NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
bioequivalent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
monolayer NN O O
matrix NN O O
type NN O I-INT
Durogesic NN O I-INT
SMAT NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
patch NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
( NN O O
Eudra/CT NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

2005-000046-36 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25616941)

Hepatic NN O O
cytoprotective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ischemic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
before NN O O
liver NN O O
resection NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
intermittent NN O O
vascular NN O O
inflow NN O O
occlusion NN O O
: 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
Ischemic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IPC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
APC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
attenuate NN O O
ischemia-reperfusion NN O O
( NN O O
IR NN O O
) NN O O
injury NN O O
after NN O O
liver NN O O
resection NN O O
under NN O O
continuous NN O O
inflow NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
strategies NN O O
enhance NN O O
hepatic NN O O
protection NN O O
of NN O O
remnant NN O O
liver NN O O
against NN O O
IR NN O O
after NN O O
liver NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-INT
clamping NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
INT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
underlying NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
INT NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
IPC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inflow NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
reperfusion NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
transection NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
APC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
transection NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
INT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
preconditioning NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hepatectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Cytoprotection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O I-OUT
hepatocyte NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
endothelial NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
preoperative NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
steatosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
warm NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Kinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transaminases NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
aspartate NN O O
aminotransferase NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.137 NN O O
; NN O O
alanine NN O O
aminotransferase NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.616 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.980 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.514 NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
apoptosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
mild-to-moderate NN O I-OUT
leukocyte NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
steatosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
sinusoidal NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
distribution NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
major NN O O
versus NN O O
minor NN O O
resections NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
similar 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
these NN O O
protocols NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
IPC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
APC NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
better NN O O
cytoprotection NN O O
from NN O O
IR NN O O
when NN O O
INT NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25617202)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
self-collection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HPV NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
offered NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
on NN O O
uptake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
EMA NN O O
study NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
cluster-randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Control NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
developing NN O O
countries NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
hampered NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
high NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HPV NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
self-collection NN O I-INT
could NN O O
increase NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
coverage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
technology NN O O
is NN O O
difficult NN O O
in NN O O
countries NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
income NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
offering NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
self-collection NN O I-INT
during NN O O
routine NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
workers NN O O
could NN O O
increase NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
cluster-randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
province NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Jujuy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Argentina NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Dec NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
scored NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
enrolment NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
worker NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
offered NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chance NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
self-collect NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sample NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
cervical NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
advised NN O I-INT
women NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
attend NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
clinic NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
cervical NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
screening NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
having NN O O
any NN O O
HPV NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
worker NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial 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
NCT02095561 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
100 NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
workers NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
nine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
take NN O O
part NN O O
. NN O O

191 NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
97 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
contacted NN O I-PAR
7650 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
3632 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
contacted NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3049 NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4018 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
contacted NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2964 NN O I-PAR
agreed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2618 NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
3049 NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
any NN O O
HPV NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
community NN O O
health NN O O
worker NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
599 NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
2964 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
4?02 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3?44-4?71 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Offering NN O O
self-collection NN O O
of NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
HPV NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
community NN O O
health NN O O
workers NN O O
during NN O O
home NN O O
visits NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
four-fold NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
showing NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
improve NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
coverage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
barriers NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
and NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
coverage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O I-OUT
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
HPV NN O O
testing NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
extended NN O O
throughout NN O O
Argentina NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
countries NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
cervical NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
coverage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FUNDING NN O I-OUT
Instituto NN O O
Nacional NN O O
del NN O O
C?ncer NN O O
( NN O O
Argentina NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25619686)

Three-Arm NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
Trial NN O O
: NN O O
Quality NN O O
Aloe NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Placebo NN O I-INT
Cream NN O O
Versus NN O O
Powder NN O I-INT
as NN O O
Skin NN O O
Treatment NN O O
During NN O O
Breast NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Radiation NN O I-PAR
Therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
aloe NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
3-arm NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
quality-tested NN O O
aloe NN O O
extract NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
radiation-induced NN O O
skin NN O O
injury NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
secondarily NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
moist NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
248 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
powder NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
aloe NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acute NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
scored NN O O
weekly NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
10-point NN O O
Catterall NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
scored NN O O
their NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
6-point NN O O
Likert NN O O
scale NN O O
and NN O O
kept NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
phase NN O O
diary NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
aloe NN O O
formulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
creams NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O O
powder NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
evidence NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
quality NN O O
aloe NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
or NN O O
cream NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
or NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
a NN O O
dry NN O O
skin NN O O
care NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
powder NN O O
during NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25622776)

Using NN O O
behavioral NN O O
economics NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
opioid NN O O
use NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
prescription NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Research NN O O
grounded NN O O
in NN O O
behavioral NN O O
economics NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
linked NN O O
addictive NN O O
behavior NN O O
to NN O O
disrupted NN O O
decision-making NN O O
and NN O O
reward-processing NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
principles NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
prescription NN O O
opioid NN O O
addiction NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
whether NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
drug NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
value NN O O
predicted NN O O
opioid NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
prescription NN O O
opioid NN O O
addiction NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Secondary NN O O
analyses NN O O
examined NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prescription NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
buprenorphine-naloxone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-site NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=353 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
measures NN O O
assessed NN O O
opioid NN O I-OUT
source NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reinforcement NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
income NN O O
spent NN O O
on NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Weekly NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
screens NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
opioid NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Obtaining NN O O
opioids NN O O
from NN O O
doctors NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
drug NN O O
spending NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
obtaining NN O O
opioids NN O O
from NN O O
dealers/patients NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
spending NN O O
. NN O O

Controlling NN O O
for NN O O
demographics NN O O
, NN O O
opioid NN O O
use NN O O
history NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
opioid NN O O
source NN O O
frequency NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
spent NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
total NN O O
amount NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.30 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
income NN O O
on NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
OR=1.31 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
opioids NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
drug NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
value NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
of NN O O
economic NN O O
resources NN O O
to NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
reflects NN O O
propensity NN O O
for NN O O
continued NN O O
opioid NN O O
use NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
among NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prescription NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
addiction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O O
studies NN O O
should NN O O
examine NN O O
disrupted NN O I-OUT
decision-making NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reward-processing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
prescription NN O O
opioid NN O O
users NN O O
more NN O O
directly NN O O
and NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
reinforcer NN O O
pathology NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
remediated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25623276)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
via NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
ileus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
colorectal NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
SANICS NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
ileus NN O O
and NN O O
anastomotic NN O O
leakage NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
complications NN O O
following NN O O
colorectal NN O O
surgery NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
intervention NN O O
with NN O O
enriched NN O O
enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
dampens NN O O
inflammation NN O O
via NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
reduces NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ileus NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
enteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
reduced NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nutritional NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
after NN O O
colorectal NN O O
surgery NN O O
on NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O O
ileus NN O O
and NN O O
anastomotic NN O O
leakage NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
280 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
selfmigrating NN O I-INT
nasojejunal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
that NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
connected NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
specially NN O O
designed NN O O
blinded NN O O
tubing NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
allocated NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
perioperative NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
ileus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
include NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
aspiration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
classified NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Clavien-Dindo NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gut NN O I-OUT
barrier NN O I-OUT
integrity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
analysis NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
autonomic NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
via NN O O
perioperative NN O O
enteral NN O O
feeding NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
dampen NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
ileus NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enriched NN O O
nutrition NN O O
given NN O O
shortly NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02175979 NN O O
- NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
25 NN O O
June NN O O
2014 NN O O
. NN O O

Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Registry NN O O
: NN O O
NTR4670 NN O O
- NN O O
date NN O O
of NN O O
registration NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
August NN O O
2014 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25629971)

The NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
power NN O I-PAR
asymmetries NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
cooperation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
punishment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
prisoner NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
dilemma NN O I-OUT
game NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recent NN O O
work NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
punishment NN O I-INT
is NN O O
detrimental NN O O
because NN O O
punishment NN O O
provokes NN O O
retaliation NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
cooperation NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
overall NN O O
payoffs NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
may NN O O
stem NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
unrealistic NN O O
assumption NN O O
that NN O O
all NN O O
players NN O O
are NN O O
equal NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
reality NN O O
individuals NN O O
are NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
vary NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
punish NN O O
defectors NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
allowed NN O O
strong NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
interact NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
weak NN O I-PAR
players NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
iterated NN O I-INT
prisoner NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
dilemma NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
punishment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Defecting NN O O
players NN O O
were NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
cooperation NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
partner NN O O
cooperated NN O O
: NN O O
adding NN O O
punishment NN O I-INT
yielded NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
under NN O O
some NN O O
circumstances NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
chance NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
partner NN O O
would NN O O
both NN O O
defect NN O O
and NN O O
retaliate NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
punisher NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
two-player NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cooperation NN O I-OUT
begets NN O O
cooperation NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
punishment NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
any NN O O
additional NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
work NN O O
should NN O O
explore NN O O
whether NN O O
strong NN O O
punishers NN O O
might NN O O
prevail NN O O
in NN O O
multi-player NN O O
games NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25644584)

A NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
in NN O O
psoriatic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
REmoval NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
REmission NN O O
in NN O O
psoriatic NN O O
ArThritis NN O O
( NN O O
RETREAT NN O O
( NN O O
F NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

TNF NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
psoriatic NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
costly NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
causes NN O O
concern NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
from NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psoriatic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
availability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
participate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
arm NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
relapsed NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
disease NN O O
state NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
minimal NN O O
disease NN O O
activity NN O O
criteria NN O O
( NN O O
MDA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
relapse NN O O
by NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
these NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
phased NN O I-INT
withdrawal NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
where NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
treatment NN O O
added NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
withdrawn NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monthly NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
before NN O O
study NN O O
exit NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-six NN O O
( NN O O
36.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
subsequently NN O O
attended NN O O
the NN O O
screening NN O O
visit NN O O
but NN O O
9 NN O O
failed NN O O
eligibility NN O O
criteria NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
29.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
57 NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients 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
18.4 NN O O
, NN O O
43.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
2:1 NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
withdrawals NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
flare NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
relapse NN O O
rate NN O O
54.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
23.4 NN O O
, NN O O
83.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
flares NN O O
were NN O O
apparent NN O O
from NN O O
visit NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
starting NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
preference NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25659828)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
zonisamide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Zonisamide NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS 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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
zonisamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
subanalysis NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
adjunctive NN O I-INT
zonisamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
target NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/day NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
skeletal NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
sexual NN O O
maturation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
179 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
6-18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
zonisamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
370.6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
for NN O O
64 NN O O
of NN O O
179 NN O O
( NN O O
35.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
zonisamide-treated NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
46.9 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
overweight/obese NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
23.4 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
48.4 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
65.6 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
underweight NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
more NN O O
became NN O I-OUT
underweight NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
end NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
consistent NN O O
correlations NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skeletal NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Approximately NN O O
one-third NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
zonisamide NN O I-INT
experienced NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
most NN O O
apparent NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
baseline NN O O
BMI NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
consistent NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25660225)

Lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
staging NN O O
with NN O O
endobronchial NN O I-INT
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
approaches NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
staging NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
process NN O O
that NN O O
identifies NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
and NN O O
guides NN O O
disease NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
endobronchial NN O I-INT
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
investigation NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
recruited NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
scan NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
endobronchial NN O I-INT
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
diagnosis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
staging NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
and NN O O
staging NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
node NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
accessed NN O O
by NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
ultrasound-guided NN O I-INT
fine NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EUS-FNA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
allowed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Randomisation NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
measuring NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
axis NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
recruiting NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
telephone NN O O
randomisation NN O O
method NN O O
with NN O O
permuted NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
generated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
masking NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
consenting NN O O
investigators NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
time-to-treatment NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
staging NN O O
investigations NN O O
and NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention-to-diagnose NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
NCT00652769 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O O
June NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
2008 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
July NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
2011 NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
133 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
EBUS-TBNA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
CDS NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
one NN O O
later NN O O
withdrew NN O O
consent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
group NN O O
underwent NN O O
EUS-FNA NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
decision NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
with NN O O
EBUS-TBNA NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
14-15 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
CDS NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
23-35 NN O O
) NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1?98 NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
1?39-2?82 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
pneumothorax NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
CT-guided NN O O
biopsy NN O O
sample NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
CDS NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
intercostal NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
admitted NN O O
to NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O I-INT
Transbronchial NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
guided NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
endobronchial NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
should NN O I-INT
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
investigation NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
it NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
decision NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
staging NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
UK NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25668435)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
a NN O O
real-time NN O O
, NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
social NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
affect NN O O
~1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
social-communicative NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
neural NN O O
underpinnings NN O O
. NN O O

Here NN O O
we NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
improves NN O O
a NN O O
core NN O O
problem NN O O
that NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
in NN O O
using NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
appropriately NN O O
in NN O O
real-world NN O O
social NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
within-subjects NN O O
design NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
how NN O O
intranasal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
affects NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
32 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
real-time NN O I-PAR
interaction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
researcher NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
interactive NN O O
paradigm NN O O
bypasses NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
limitations NN O O
encountered NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O O
static NN O O
or NN O O
computer-based NN O O
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eye NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
using NN O O
eye NN O O
tracking NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
looking NN O O
patterns NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
commonly NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
group NN O O
spending NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O O
looking NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
eye NN O O
region NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
selectively NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eyes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
transformed NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
eye-fixation NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
second=0.082 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O O
CI:0.025-0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
fixation NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
impaired NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
d=0.86 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
extend NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
real-time NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25670026)

Real-Time NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Biofeedback NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Migraine NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Biofeedback NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
assessed NN O O
its NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
using NN O O
paper-and-pencil NN O O
diaries NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
very NN O O
reliable NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
using NN O O
computerized NN O O
ecological NN O O
momentary NN O O
assessment NN O O
( NN O O
EMA NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BF NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
migraine 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

METHOD NN O O
The NN O O
subjects NN O O
comprised NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
biofeedback NN O I-INT
or NN O O
wait-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
carry NN O O
a NN O O
palmtop-type NN O O
computer NN O O
to NN O O
record NN O O
momentary NN O O
symptoms NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
biofeedback NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache-related NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
least NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pain NN O O
rating NN O O
?50 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Headache NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
significant NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
before NN O O
vs. NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
biofeedback NN O O
vs. NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.42 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
period NN O O
? NN O O
group NN O O
interaction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Biofeedback NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headaches NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
1.9 NN O I-OUT
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
?50 NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
2.4 NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache-related NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
used NN O O
computerized NN O O
EMA NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
psychological NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache-related NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25670541)

Hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
70.6 NN O O
Gy NN O O
with NN O O
concurrent NN O O
5-FU/Mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
of NN O O
77.6 NN O O
Gy NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ARO NN O O
95-06 NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ARO NN O O
95-06 NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O O
accelerated NN O O
chemoradiation NN O O
with NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C/5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C-HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
hyperfractionated NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
locoregional NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
LRC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
eighty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
59.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
cavity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
Gy/2 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
70.6 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
concurrently NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C/5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C-HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
Gy/2 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
twice-daily NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
77.6 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Statistical NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
8.7 NN O O
years 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
7.8-9.7 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
LRC NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
38.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
C-HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
26.0 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
P=.002 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
cancer-specific NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
39 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
C-HART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
30.0 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HART NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
P=.042 NN O O
and NN O O
P=.049 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
multivariate NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
LRC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
0.6 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.5-0.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P=.002 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
LRC NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
P=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
hypopharyngeal NN O O
or NN O O
oral NN O O
cavity NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
P=.264 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
C-HART NN O I-INT
remains NN O I-INT
superior NN O O
to NN O O
HART NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
terms NN O O
of NN O O
LRC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
oropharyngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25673113)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
fully NN O O
controlled NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pre NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
diet NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
relatively NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sodium NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
potassium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
supplemental NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
equals NN O I-INT
7.6 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supplemental NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
. NN O I-OUT
Fasting NN O I-OUT
office NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
pre-treatment NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
145/81 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
69 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
had NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
?140 NN O O
mm NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
98 NN O O
mmol NN O O
per NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
63 NN O O
mmol NN O O
per NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
during NN O O
active NN O O
interventions NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
office NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
7.5/3.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
7.5/2.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
8.5/3.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
3.9/1.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
2.9 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
Hg NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pulse NN O I-OUT
wave NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
conclusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increased NN O O
potassium NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
top NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
relatively NN O O
low-sodium NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arterial NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
materially NN O O
change NN O O
during NN O O
4-week NN O O
interventions NN O O
with NN O O
sodium NN O O
or NN O O
potassium NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25675062)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
lumbar NN O O
interlaminar NN O O
epidural NN O O
injections NN O O
in NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
While NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
one NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
disability NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
, NN O O
lumbar NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
along NN O O
with NN O O
intervertebral NN O O
disc NN O O
herniation NN O O
and NN O O
degenerative NN O O
spondylolisthesis NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
and NN O O
leg NN O O
pain NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Numerous NN O O
modalities NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
including NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
complex NN O O
surgical NN O O
fusions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
spinal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
. NN O O

Epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
are NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
commonly NN O O
performed NN O O
nonsurgical NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
central NN O O
spinal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
paucity NN O O
of NN O O
literature NN O O
in NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
in NN O O
managing NN O O
central NN O O
spinal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
with NN O O
lumbar NN O I-INT
interlaminar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
active NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Private NN O O
interventional NN O O
pain NN O O
management NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
specialty NN O O
referral NN O O
center NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
lumbar NN O I-INT
interlaminar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O O
status NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
low NN O O
back NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
pain NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
lumbar NN O O
central NN O O
spinal NN O O
stenosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
active-control NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
lumbar NN O I-INT
interlaminar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
Group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
lumbar NN O I-INT
interlaminar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
betamethasone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OUTCOMES NN O O
ASSESSMENT NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
utilizing NN O O
the NN O O
numeric 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
and NN O I-OUT
Oswestry NN O I-OUT
Disability NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ODI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
post NN O O
treatment 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
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
considering NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
successful NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
for NN O O
65.7 NN O O
? NN O O
37.3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
68.9 NN O O
? NN O O
37.7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
when NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
77 NN O O
? NN O O
27.8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
77.9 NN O O
? NN O O
30.2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
successful NN O O
categories NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O O
was NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

LIMITATIONS NN O O
Limitations NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
include NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
multiple NN O O
procedures NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Lumbar NN O I-INT
interlaminar NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O O
without NN O O
steroids NN O O
provide NN O O
relief NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
lumbar NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CLINICAL NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
NCT00681447 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25681235)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
paravalvular NN O O
aortic NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
after NN O O
transcatheter NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
intra-core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
variability NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
significant NN O O
disparity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reported NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
paravalvular NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
Placement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Aortic NN O I-PAR
Transcatheter NN O I-PAR
Valves NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PARTNER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
PARTNER NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
methodologies NN O O
used NN O O
by NN O O
separate NN O O
core NN O O
laboratories NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
further NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
PAR NN O O
, NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
grading NN O O
of NN O O
PAR NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
of NN O O
PARTNER NN O O
IIB NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
consortium NN O O
of NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
directors NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
PARTNER NN O O
IIB NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
reevaluated NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
primarily NN O O
the NN O O
circumferential NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
regurgitant NN O O
jet NN O O
for NN O O
PAR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
consortium NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
directors NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
formed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
echocardiographic NN O I-INT
images NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
grade NN O O
PAR NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
central NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
aortic NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
chosen NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PARTNER NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multiwindow NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multiparametric NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
a NN O O
four-class NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
none NN O O
or NN O O
trace NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
seven-class NN O O
( NN O O
none NN O O
, NN O O
trace NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
scale NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
grading NN O O
agreement NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
consortium NN O O
and NN O O
original NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
weighted NN O O
? NN O O
statistics NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Only NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
consortium NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
readings NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PARTNER NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
the NN O O
four-class NN O O
grading NN O O
scheme NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
weighted NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
statistic NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.481 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
0.367 NN O O
, NN O O
0.595 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
seven-class NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
weighted NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
statistic NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
0.517 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
0.431 NN O O
, NN O O
0.607 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
either NN O O
grading NN O O
scheme NN O O
, NN O O
15.9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
graded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
PARTNER NN O O
IIB NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
would NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
been NN O O
graded NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
multiparametric NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Using NN O O
primarily NN O O
the NN O O
circumferential NN O O
extent NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PARTNER NN O O
IIB NN O O
core NN O O
laboratory NN O O
overestimated NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
PAR NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
consortium NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
multi-parametric NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
granular NN O O
classification NN O O
scheme NN O O
for NN O O
PAR NN O O
may NN O O
slightly NN O O
improve NN O O
concordance NN O O
between NN O O
core NN O O
laboratories NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
PAR NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
likely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
grading NN O O
methodology NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multiparametric NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
advocated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
methods NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
PAR NN O O
deserve NN O O
further NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25690266)

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
telephone NN O I-INT
triage NN O I-INT
for NN O O
managing NN O O
same-day NN O O
consultation NN O O
requests NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
general NN O I-INT
practitioner-led NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nurse-led NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
with NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
ESTEEM NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Telephone NN O I-INT
triage NN O I-INT
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
managing NN O O
increasing NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
involved NN O O
small NN O O
samples NN O O
in NN O O
limited NN O O
settings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
nurse NN O O
roles NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
workload NN O O
, NN O O
costs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
experience NN O O
when NN O O
triage NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
requesting NN O I-PAR
same-day NN O I-PAR
consultations NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
GP-led NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
triage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nurse-led NN O I-INT
computer-supported NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
triage NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
workload NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
requesting NN O O
same-day NN O O
consultations NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Pragmatic NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
incorporating NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
process NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
General NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
regions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
England NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Devon NN O O
, NN O O
Bristol/Somerset NN O O
, NN O O
Warwickshire/Coventry NN O O
, NN O O
Norfolk/Suffolk NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
requesting NN O I-PAR
same-day NN O I-PAR
consultations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O I-PAR
Practices NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
GPT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
NT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Data NN O O
collection NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
blinded NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
statistician NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
practice NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Primary NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
practice NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
out-of-hours NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
accident NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
E NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
walk-in NN O O
centre NN O O
attendances NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
consultation NN O O
request NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
index NN O O
request NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
A NN O O
& NN O O
E NN O O
attendance NN O O
within NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
20,990 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UC NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
7283 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
GPT NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6695 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
NT NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
7012 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analysed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
16,211 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
UC NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5572 NN O O
; NN O O
GPT NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5171 NN O O
; NN O O
NT NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5468 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
, NN O O
GPT NN O O
and NN O O
NT NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
28-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
) NN O O
1.33 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
1.30 NN O O
to NN O O
1.36 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.48 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.44 NN O O
to NN O O
1.52 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
GPT NN O O
, NN O O
NT NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
marginal NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.04 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.01 NN O O
to NN O O
1.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Triage NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
redistribution NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
contacts NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
GPT NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
UC NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
GP NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
face NN O O
to NN O O
face NN O O
and NN O O
telephone NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
by NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.38 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.28 NN O O
to NN O O
1.50 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
GP NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
contacts NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
0.61 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.54 NN O O
to NN O O
0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

NT NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
GP NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
0.84 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.78 NN O O
to NN O O
0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
GP NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
contacts NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
0.80 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.71 NN O O
to NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
nurse NN O O
contacts NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
triage NN O O
arms NN O O
is NN O O
largely NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
telephone NN O O
contacts NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Estimated NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
patient-clinician NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
triage NN O O
( NN O O
GPT NN O O
= NN O O
10.3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
; NN O O
NT NN O O
= NN O O
14.8 NN O O
minutes NN O O
; NN O O
UC NN O O
= NN O O
9.6 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
clinician NN O O
use NN O O
varied NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Taking NN O O
account NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
contacts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
28-day NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
?75 NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Triage NN O O
appeared NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

NT NN O O
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
less NN O O
acceptable NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
GPT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
UC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
process NN O O
evaluation NN O O
identified NN O O
the NN O O
complexity NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
introducing NN O O
triage NN O O
but NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
consistency NN O O
across NN O O
practices NN O O
about NN O O
what NN O O
works NN O O
and NN O O
what NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
work NN O O
when NN O O
implementing NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Introducing NN O O
GPT NN O O
or NN O O
NT NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
redistribution NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
workload NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
requesting NN O O
same-day NN O O
consultations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
cost NN O O
to NN O O
UC NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
triage NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
circumstances NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
deaths NN O O
or NN O O
admissions NN O O
after NN O O
triage NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
warranted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
events NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
as NN O O
triage NN O O
is NN O O
implemented NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN20687662 NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
This NN O O
project NN O O
was NN O O
funded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
NIHR NN O O
Health NN O O
Technology NN O O
Assessment NN O O
programme NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
published NN O O
in NN O O
full NN O O
in NN O O
Health NN O O
Technology NN O O
Assessment NN O O
; NN O O
Vol NN O O
. NN O O

19 NN O O
, NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

13 NN O O
. NN O O

See NN O O
the NN O O
NIHR NN O O
Journals NN O O
Library NN O O
website NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
project NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25694364)

Computer-Assisted NN O I-INT
Face NN O I-INT
Processing NN O I-INT
Instruction NN O I-INT
Improves NN O O
Emotion NN O I-OUT
Recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Mentalizing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
computer-based NN O I-INT
social NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
called NN O I-INT
FaceSay NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mentalizing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
FaceSay NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
students NN O I-PAR
simulated NN O O
practice NN O O
with NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
gaze NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
included NN O O
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
educational NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
participants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
improved NN O O
their NN O O
affect NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mentalizing NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
targeting NN O O
face-processing NN O O
skills NN O O
, NN O O
computer-based NN O O
interventions NN O O
may NN O O
produce NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
broader NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social-skills NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
cost- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time-efficient NN O I-OUT
manner NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25700292)

The NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
response NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
review NN O O
factors NN O O
influencing NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
response NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
ways NN O O
to NN O O
optimize NN O O
trial NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
mood NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

DATA NN O O
SOURCES NN O O
PubMed NN O O
searches NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
by NN O O
cross-referencing NN O O
the NN O O
terms NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
depressive NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
studies NN O I-PAR
published NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
English NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1970 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
SELECTION NN O O
Relevant NN O O
abstracts NN O O
were NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
PubMed NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
quantitative NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
obtained NN O O
and NN O O
reviewed NN O O
relevant NN O O
articles NN O O
and NN O O
utilized NN O O
their NN O O
information NN O O
to NN O O
synthesize NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
review NN O O
. NN O O

DATA NN O O
EXTRACTION NN O O
Included NN O O
articles NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
relevance NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
biological NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
baseline NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
chronicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
medical NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
comorbidity NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
prospective NN O O
treatment NN O O
phases NN O O
( NN O O
lead-in NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
dosing NN O O
schedule NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Several NN O O
key NN O O
elements NN O O
emerge NN O O
as NN O O
critical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ultimate NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O I-OUT
schedule NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visit NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blinded NN O I-OUT
lead-in NN O I-OUT
phases NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
centralized NN O I-OUT
raters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comorbid NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
increasing NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
response NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
lends NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
, NN O O
gradually NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
predictable NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
hopefully NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
that NN O O
becomes NN O O
lesser NN O O
in NN O O
magnitude NN O O
and NN O O
variability NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
elements NN O O
have NN O O
emerged NN O O
that NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
critical NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
trial NN O O
success NN O O
, NN O O
gradually NN O O
reshaping NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
translational NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
mechanistic NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25714521)

Long-term NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
predictors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shunt-dependent NN O I-OUT
hydrocephalus NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ruptured NN O I-PAR
intracranial NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
BRAT NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
revisiting NN O O
the NN O O
clip NN O O
vs NN O O
coil NN O O
debate NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Acute NN O I-PAR
hydrocephalus NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
well-known NN O O
sequela NN O O
of NN O O
aneurysmal NN O O
subarachnoid NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
( NN O O
SAH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Controversy NN O O
exists NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
open NN O O
microsurgical NN O O
methods NN O O
serve NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
shunt NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
endovascular NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
shunt-dependent NN O I-OUT
hydrocephalus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
aneurysmal NN O O
SAH 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
471 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
2003 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2007 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
retrospectively NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
variables NN O O
including NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medical NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
additional NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Ultimately NN O O
, NN O O
147 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
ventriculoperitoneal NN O O
shunt NN O O
( NN O O
VPS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
series NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
, NN O O
dissecting NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
ruptured NN O O
vertebrobasilar NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
Hunt NN O O
and NN O O
Hess NN O O
grade NN O O
, NN O O
admission NN O O
intraventricular NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
, NN O O
admission NN O O
intraparenchymal NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
ventricle NN O O
on NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
perioperative NN O O
ventriculostomy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hemicraniectomy NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shunt-dependent NN O I-OUT
hydrocephalus NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
intraventricular NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intraparenchymal NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
shunt NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clipping NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
coiling NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
VPS NN O O
after NN O O
SAH NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
VPS NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
Glasgow NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Barthel NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
functionally NN O O
independent NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
return NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery 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
There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
shunt NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
SAH NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
endovascular NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
microsurgical NN O I-PAR
means NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
shunt-dependent NN O I-OUT
hydrocephalus NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
develop NN O O
after NN O O
SAH NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O O
long-term NN O O
functional NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25719544)

Mask NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
face NN O O
masks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
room NN O O
for NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
If NN O O
an NN O O
infant NN O I-PAR
fails NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
initiate NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
breathing NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
international NN O O
guidelines NN O O
recommend NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
pressure NN O O
ventilation NN O O
( NN O O
PPV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
PPV NN O O
by NN O O
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
inadequate NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
leak NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
and NN O O
mask NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
available NN O O
face NN O O
masks NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
and NN O O
compare NN O O
leak NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
commercially NN O I-OUT
available NN O I-OUT
round NN O I-OUT
face NN O I-OUT
masks NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
Fisher NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
Paykel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Laerdal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Infants NN O I-PAR
born NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Royal NN O I-PAR
Alexandra NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
mask NN O I-INT
PPV NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
room NN O I-PAR
routinely NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
flow NN O O
sensor NN O O
placed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
mask NN O O
and NN O O
T-piece NN O O
resuscitator NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
PPV NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Laerdal NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
resuscitators NN O O
were NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
face NN O O
masks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
mask NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=28 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean?s.d NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
28?3 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
1210?448 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Apgar NN O I-PAR
scores NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
were NN O O
5?3 NN O O
and NN O O
7?2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
F NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Laerdal NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
similar NN O I-OUT
mask NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
25-38 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
35 NN O O
( NN O O
24-46 NN O O
) NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
median NN O O
( NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.40 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7.1 NN O O
( NN O O
4.9-8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
6.6 NN O O
( NN O O
5.2-8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
ml NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.69 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
PPV 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 I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
face NN O O
mask NN O O
during NN O O
PPV NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
delivery NN O O
room NN O O
yields NN O O
similar NN O I-OUT
mask NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25726411)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
multivendor NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
perfusion NN O O
imaging NN O O
with NN O O
regadenoson NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
single NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
CT. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
CT NN O O
perfusion NN O O
( NN O O
CTP NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hypothesize NN O O
that NN O O
regadenoson NN O O
CTP NN O O
is NN O O
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
regadenoson NN O O
single NN O O
photon NN O O
emission NN O O
CT NN O O
( NN O O
SPECT NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
or NN O O
excluding NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
124 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
sequences NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
regadenoson NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
regadenoson NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
CTA NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CTA NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
acquisition NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
regadenoson NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CTA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
regadenoson NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Scanning NN O O
platforms NN O O
included NN O O
64- NN O O
, NN O O
128- NN O O
, NN O O
256- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
320-slice NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
agreement NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
CTP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SPECT NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
detecting NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
excluding NN O I-OUT
reversible NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
2 NN O O
myocardial NN O O
segments NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
independent NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
readers NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Complete NN O O
and NN O O
interpretable NN O O
CTP NN O O
and NN O O
SPECT NN O O
scans NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Regadenoson NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
noninferior NN O O
to NN O O
SPECT NN O O
for NN O I-OUT
detecting NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
excluding NN O I-OUT
reversible NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O O
agreement NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.87 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.77-0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
0.90 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.71-1.00 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.84 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.77-0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
agreement NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
or NN O O
excluding NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
fixed NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
regadenoson NN O O
CTP NN O O
and NN O O
SPECT NN O O
was NN O O
0.86 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.74-0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
SPECT NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracies NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
or NN O O
excluding NN O O
ischemia NN O O
by NN O O
regadenoson NN O O
CTP NN O O
and NN O O
CTA NN O O
alone NN O O
were NN O O
0.85 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.78-0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.69 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.60-0.77 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
establishes NN O O
the NN O O
noninferiority NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
regadenoson NN O I-INT
CTP NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
detecting NN O O
or NN O O
excluding NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25733274)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
prevention NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
differential NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
high- NN O O
and NN O O
low-grade NN O O
disease 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
finasteride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
androst-4-ene-3,17-dione NN O O
( NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
among NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
serum NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
317 NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
353 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Prevention NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
that NN O O
found NN O O
finasteride NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
risk NN O O
. NN O O

Androstenedione NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
circulating NN O O
androgen NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
besides NN O O
testosterone NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
substrate NN O O
for NN O O
5?-reductase NN O O
enzyme NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
androstenedione NN O I-OUT
levels NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-OUT
finasteride NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
vary NN O O
by NN O O
case-control NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
tertile NN O O
of NN O O
absolute NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
androstenedione NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
tertile NN O O
were NN O O
0.42 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.19-0.94 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
low-grade NN O O
( NN O O
Gleason NN O O
score NN O O
< NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
analyzed NN O O
using NN O O
percent NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
serum NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
high-grade NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
nested NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
confirm NN O O
that NN O I-INT
finasteride NN O I-INT
blocks NN O O
the NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
testosterone NN O O
to NN O O
dihydrotestosterone NN O O
( NN O O
DHT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
to NN O O
5?-androstanedione-3,17-dione NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
also NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
DHT NN O O
formation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
DHT NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
low-grade NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
androstenedione NN O O
also NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
high-grade NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancers NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
androgen NN O O
for NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25760553)

A NN O O
possible NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
early NN O O
probiotic NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropsychiatric NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Recent NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
gut NN O O
microbiota NN O O
may NN O O
alter NN O O
function NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
providing NN O O
new NN O O
insight NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
neuropsychiatric NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Seventy-five NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
Lactobacillus NN O I-INT
rhamnosus NN O I-INT
GG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATCC NN O I-INT
53103 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed-up NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gut NN O I-OUT
microbiota NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
y NN O O
using NN O I-INT
fluorescein NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
situ NN O I-INT
hybridization NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FISH NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
qPCR NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
indirectly NN O O
by NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
secretor NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
y NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADHD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Asperger NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
child NN O O
neurologist NN O O
or NN O O
psychiatrist NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
ICD-10 NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
y NN O O
, NN O O
ADHD NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
AS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O O
in NN O O
6/35 NN O O
( NN O O
17.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
probiotic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Bifidobacterium NN O I-OUT
species NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
feces NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
mo NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
in NN O O
affected NN O O
children NN O O
8.26 NN O O
( NN O O
1.24 NN O O
) NN O O
log NN O O
cells/g NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
children NN O O
9.12 NN O O
( NN O O
0.64 NN O O
) NN O O
log NN O O
cells/g NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-INT
Probiotic NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
in NN O O
life NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neuropsychiatric NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
later NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
not NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
gut NN O O
microbiota NN O O
composition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2576261)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
monophasic NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
gestodene NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
lipid NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-35 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
taking NN O O
an NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
containing NN O O
75 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
gestodene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GTD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
with NN O O
150 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
desogestrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
EE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
cycles NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
18th NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
22nd NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
14 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
8 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
GTD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DSG NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
6.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
sixth NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
did NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
preparations NN O O
exerted NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
probably NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25764092)

Lateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
Explains NN O O
the NN O O
Presence NN O O
of NN O O
Prominent NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
Wave NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R NN O O
? NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prominent NN O O
R NN O O
wave NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
post-myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
posterior NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
currently NN O I-INT
inferobasal NN O I-INT
segment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
as NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
recently NN O O
by NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
contrast-enhanced NN O O
cardiac NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
[ NN O O
ECG-CE-CMR NN O O
] NN O O
correlations NN O O
studies NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
155 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inferolateral NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
detected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
CE-CMR NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
following NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evaluated NN O O
and NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
MI NN O O
location NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
CE-CMR NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
R/S NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
classic NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
posterior NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
R/S NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
R NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
R/S NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
criterion NN O O
: NN O O
Present NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
cases NN O O
: NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Absent NN O I-INT
in NN O O
135 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
81 NN O O
of NN O I-INT
lateral/inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
28/53 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
of NN O O
inferior NN O O
MI NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
19.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
SP NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

R/S NN O O
? NN O O
0.5 NN O O
criterion NN O O
: NN O O
Present NN O O
in NN O O
47 NN O O
cases NN O O
: NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
39 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
MI NN O O
. NN O O

Absent NN O O
in NN O O
108 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
56 NN O O
of NN O O
lateral/inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
25/31 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
52 NN O O
of NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SE NN O O
44.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
SP NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

R NN O O
? NN O O
3 NN O O
mm NN O O
criterion NN O O
: NN O O
Present NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
cases NN O O
: NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
IM NN O I-INT
lateral NN O I-INT
, NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Absent NN O O
in NN O O
125 NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
73 NN O O
lateral/inferolateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
26/47 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
52 NN O I-INT
inferior NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SE NN O O
27.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
SP NN O O
96.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
prominent NN O O
the NN O O
R NN O O
wave NN O O
in NN O O
V1 NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
not NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
inferobasal NN O O
segment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inferior NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
old NN O O
posterior NN O O
wall NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25776840)

Qingre NN O O
quyu NN O O
granule NN O O
stabilizes NN O O
plaques NN O O
through NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
tenascin-C NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Qingre NN O I-INT
Quyu NN O I-INT
Granule NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QQG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
it NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Ninety-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n=48 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=48 NN O O
) NN O O
randomly NN O O
using NN O O
consecutively NN O O
numbered NN O O
envelopes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
Western NN O I-INT
medicine NN O I-INT
merely NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
went NN O O
through NN O O
endarterectomy NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Plaques NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
CD3 NN O O
, NN O O
CD68 NN O O
, NN O O
soluble NN O O
intercellular NN O O
adhesion NN O O
molecule NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
ICAM-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
matrix NN O O
metalloprotease-9 NN O O
( NN O O
MMP-9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
CD40L NN O O
, NN O O
tenascin-C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
collagen NN O O
content NN O O
lipid NN O O
content NN O O
by NN O O
immunohistochemistry NN O O
or NN O O
polarized NN O O
light NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
experiment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
expressions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD68 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MMP9 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD40L NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tenascin-C NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
plaques NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QQG NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interstitial NN O O
collagen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tissue NN O O
sections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
plaques NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
QQG NN O I-INT
could NN O O
stabilize NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
plaques NN O O
through NN O O
inhibiting NN O O
pro-inflammation NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
restraining NN O O
the NN O O
tenascin-C NN O O
and NN O O
MMP9 NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25778317)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
nasopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III/IV NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
fractionated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
fractionated NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Short-term NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shortand NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
87 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
local NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group 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
the NN O O
hematological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1- NN O O
, NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
5-year NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
87 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
74 NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group 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
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
NPC NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25778837)

Examining NN O O
the NN O O
Relationship NN O O
Between NN O O
Parental NN O O
Anxiety NN O O
and NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Response 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
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Anxiety NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
co-occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
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
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
several NN O O
interventions NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
promising NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
some NN O O
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
respond NN O O
only NN O O
minimally NN O O
to NN O O
such NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
understand NN O O
potential NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
impact NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
explores NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
parental NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
youth NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
7-18 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O I-INT
completed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
State/Trait NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
youth NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
parental NN O I-OUT
trait NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
for NN O O
parents NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
research NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
youth-to-parent NN O O
influence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25791707)

Magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
otospongiosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
applicability NN O O
of NN O O
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
as NN O O
a NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
monitoring NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
otospongiotic NN O O
lesions NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
clinical NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
tertiary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cosmopolitan NN O I-PAR
city NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
ears NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
audiometric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tomographic NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
otosclerosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
If NN O O
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CT NN O O
) NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
active NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
to NN O O
detect NN O O
otospongiotic NN O O
foci NN O O
, NN O O
seen NN O O
as NN O O
areas NN O O
of NN O O
gadolinium NN O O
enhancement NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
alendronate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
audiometric NN O O
evaluations NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
neuroradiologist NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
otolaryngologist NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O O
( NN O O
visual NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
specific NN O O
eFilm NN O O
Workstation NN O O
software NN O O
) NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Otospongiosis NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
predominantly NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
region NN O O
anterior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
oval NN O O
window NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
site NN O O
was NN O O
reliable NN O O
for NN O O
comparing NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
scans NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alendronate NN O O
and NN O O
sodium NN O O
fluoride NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
findings NN O O
that NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
otospongiotic NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
relevant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alendronate NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
evaluations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
MRI NN O O
shows NN O O
higher NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
than NN O O
clinical NN O O
or NN O O
audiometric NN O O
assessment NN O O
for NN O O
detecting NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
otospongiosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
software NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
accurate NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
clinical NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
otospongiosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25795413)

Selective NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
homeostatic NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
control NN O O
brain NN O O
areas NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Impaired NN O O
brain NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
obesity NN O O
, NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neurodegenerative NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O O
humans NN O O
still NN O O
remain NN O O
ill NN O O
defined NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
study NN O O
thus NN O O
far NN O O
has NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
brain NN O O
areas NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
lean NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
overweight/obese NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
to NN O O
measure NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
explicitly NN O O
rated NN O O
pictures NN O O
of NN O O
high-caloric NN O O
savory NN O O
and NN O O
sweet NN O O
food NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
spray NN O O
for NN O O
wanting NN O O
and NN O O
liking NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
CBF NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamus NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
lean NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overweight/obese NN O I-OUT
participants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
visceral NN O O
adipose NN O O
tissue NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
fat NN O O
compartments NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lean NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
overweight/obese NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
insulin-induced NN O I-OUT
CBF NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
lean NN O O
participants NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
response NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
measures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
disinhibition NN O O
and NN O O
food NN O O
craving NN O O
. NN O O

Behaviorally NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
observe NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
wanting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sweet NN O I-OUT
foods NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
insulin NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
lean NN O O
men NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Brain NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
was NN O O
selectively NN O O
impaired NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O O
and NN O O
obese NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamus NN O O
in NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
visceral NN O O
adipose NN O O
tissue NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
promoting NN O O
an NN O O
altered NN O O
homeostatic NN O O
set NN O O
point NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
control NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
overeating NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25795561)

Offering NN O O
personalized NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25797097)

The NN O O
neural NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
semantic NN O O
richness NN O O
: NN O O
evidence NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
fMRI NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
word NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
neural NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
concrete NN O O
nouns NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
many NN O O
or NN O O
few NN O O
semantic NN O O
features NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
asked NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
categorize NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
learned NN O I-PAR
words NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-INT
familiar NN O I-INT
words NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
living NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonliving NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
scanner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
reliable NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
semantic NN O I-OUT
richness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
located NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
angular NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
middle NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
gyrus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MTG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
where NN O O
activation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
semantically NN O O
rich NN O O
than NN O O
poor NN O O
words NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
areas NN O O
showing NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pattern NN O O
included NN O O
bilateral NN O O
precuneus NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
gyrus NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
AG NN O O
and NN O O
anterior NN O O
MTG NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multimodal NN O O
network NN O O
, NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
representing NN O O
and NN O O
integrating NN O I-OUT
semantic NN O I-OUT
features NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
different NN O O
input NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
propose NN O O
that NN O O
activation NN O O
in NN O O
bilateral NN O O
precuneus NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
cingulate NN O O
gyrus NN O O
reflects NN O O
interplay NN O O
between NN O O
AG NN O O
and NN O O
episodic NN O O
memory NN O O
systems NN O O
during NN O O
semantic NN O O
retrieval NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25798575)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
life-limiting NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
For NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
some NN O O
medication NN O O
risks NN O O
may NN O O
outweigh NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
when NN O O
benefits NN O O
take NN O O
years NN O O
to NN O O
accrue NN O O
; NN O O
statins NN O O
are NN O O
one NN O O
example NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O O
and NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
expectancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
medications NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
palliative NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O O
, NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eligibility NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
expectancy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
secondary 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 I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
deterioration NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
discontinue NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continue NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
monthly NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2011 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Statin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuation NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
statins NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
included NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
60 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nonstatin NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
381 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
189 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
statins NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
192 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
74.1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11.6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
cognitively NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
48.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
vs NN O O
continuation NN O O
groups NN O O
who NN O O
died NN O O
within NN O O
60 NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
20.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=.36 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
noninferiority NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
statin NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
McGill NN O O
QOL NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
7.11 NN O O
vs NN O O
6.85 NN O O
; NN O O
P=.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Few NN O O
participants NN O O
experienced NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
continuation NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
$ NN O O
3.37 NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
$ NN O O
716 NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
This NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
trial NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
stopping NN O O
statin NN O O
medication NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
benefits NN O O
including NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fewer NN O I-OUT
nonstatin NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
corresponding NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thoughtful NN O O
patient-provider NN O O
discussions NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
uncertain NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
decrement NN O O
in NN O O
QOL NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
statin NN O O
continuation NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
are NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01415934 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25798729)

Initial NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
contingency NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
does NN O O
race NN O O
matter NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Limited NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
evaluated NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
response NN O O
to NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
treatments 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 O
of NN O O
contingency NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
White NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
secondary NN O O
analysis NN O O
evaluated NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
cocaine NN O O
urine NN O O
sample NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
444 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
White NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
403 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
abusers NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
CM NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
White NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cocaine-negative NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
remained NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
similar NN O O
durations NN O O
and NN O O
submitted NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
samples NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
type NN O O
; NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
was NN O O
efficacious NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
races NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
engendering NN O O
longer NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
abstinence NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
began NN O O
treatment NN O O
abstinent NN O O
. NN O O

Whites NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
began NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
remained NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
longer NN O O
and NN O O
submitted NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
samples NN O O
when NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
than NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
African NN O I-PAR
Americans NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
remain NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
terms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
muted NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
Whites NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
interaction NN O O
effect NN O O
persisted NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
9-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
among NN O O
all NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
specifically NN O O
African NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
cocaine NN O I-PAR
upon NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Future NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
improving NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25801058)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
medicines NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
simvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Concomitant NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-INT
Chinese NN O I-INT
medicines NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TCMs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
be NN O O
the NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
relative NN O O
poor NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
statins NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dyslipidemia NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
5-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
Chinese NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O O
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
certain NN O I-INT
TCMs NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
each NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Treatment NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
B NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
D NN O O
or NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O I-INT
Tong NN O I-INT
Xin NN O I-INT
Luo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Nao NN O I-INT
Xin NN O I-INT
Tong NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Guan NN O I-INT
Mai NN O I-INT
Ning NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Yin NN O I-INT
Xing NN O I-INT
Ye NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
7 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
Day NN O I-INT
7 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
97.5 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
AUC0-48 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
after NN O O
multiple NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-INT
TCMs NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
simvastatin NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
fully NN O O
contained NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
bounds NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
0.50 NN O O
, NN O O
2.00 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Exposures NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
simvastatin NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
simvastatin NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
following NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
multiple NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TCM NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
tested NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Simvastatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
TCMs NN O I-INT
were NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25806587)

The NN O O
Impact NN O O
of NN O O
Partial NN O I-INT
Vascular NN O I-INT
Occlusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Oxidative NN O O
Stress NN O O
Markers NN O O
during NN O O
Resistance NN O I-INT
Exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O I-INT
vascular NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PVO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
markers NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
resistance-trained NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
resistance-trained NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
counterbalanced NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LIRE NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
1RM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
moderate-intensity NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MIRE NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
1RM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
resistance NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
PVO NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
carbonyls NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
absorbance NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ORAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
xanthine NN O I-OUT
oxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
XO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
LIRE NN O I-INT
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
plasma NN O O
PC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MIRE NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
, NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
PC NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutathione NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
LIRE NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
MIRE NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
PC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
MIRE NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
LIRE NN O I-INT
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
was NN O O
attenuated NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
PVO NN O I-INT
during NN O O
LIRE NN O I-INT
may NN O O
alter NN O O
ROS-induced NN O O
accumulation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
cellular NN O O
signaling NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25807670)

Role NN O O
of NN O O
warm NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
warm NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
dental NN O O
extractions NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Apparently NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Oral NN O I-PAR
Surgery NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
indication NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
non-surgical NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pathologic NN O I-PAR
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
and NN O O
uniformly NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
warm NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
gargle NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
no NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
instructions NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Information NN O O
on NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
indications NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Comparative NN O O
statistics NN O O
were NN O O
done NN O O
using NN O O
Pearson NN O O
's NN O O
chi NN O O
square NN O O
or NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
as NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
p NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
indications NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
extractions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
X2 NN O O
= NN O O
15.00 NN O O
, NN O O
df NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
.The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4 NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
= NN O O
4.33 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
Warm NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
rinse NN O I-INT
instruction NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
alveolar NN O I-OUT
osteitis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
dental NN O O
extractions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25810108)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
stimulating NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
for NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
plexus NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
stimulating NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
can NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
plexus NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
1-3 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-INT
plexus NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
30 NN O O
ml NN O O
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
up-and-down NN O O
staircase NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
minimum NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
volume50 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7.3-17.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
stimulating NN O O
catheter NN O O
and NN O O
24.8 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
23.2-27.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
catheter NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
plexus NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stimulating NN O O
catheter NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
catheter NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
stimulating NN O O
catheter NN O O
halves NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
effective NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
volume50 NN O O
of NN O O
mepivacaine NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
while NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
continuous NN O O
lumbar NN O O
plexus NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25818246)

MDMA-assisted NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
A NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MDMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-assisted NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
commenced NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spring NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
psychotherapeutic NN O O
options NN O O
for NN O O
autistic NN O O
individuals NN O O
is NN O O
imperative NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
diagnoses NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Serious NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
Events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SAEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
involving NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
rare NN O O
and NN O O
non-life NN O O
threatening NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
date NN O O
, NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
has NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
1133 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
purposes NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
unexpected NN O I-OUT
drug-related NN O I-OUT
SAEs NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
require NN O O
expedited NN O O
reporting NN O O
per NN O O
FDA NN O O
regulations NN O O
. NN O O

Now NN O O
that NN O O
safety NN O O
parameters NN O O
for NN O O
limited NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
case NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
develop NN O O
MDMA-assisted NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
that NN O O
could NN O O
support NN O O
autistic NN O O
adults NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
adaptability NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
typically NN O O
developing NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
with NN O O
classic NN O O
hallucinogens NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
psychedelic NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
catalyzes NN O O
shifts NN O O
toward NN O O
openness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
introspection NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
require NN O O
ongoing NN O O
administration NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
lasting NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
infrequent NN O O
dosing NN O O
mitigates NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improves NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk/benefit NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
MDMA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
medications NN O O
that NN O O
require NN O O
daily NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Consequently NN O O
, NN O O
clinicians NN O O
could NN O O
employ NN O O
new NN O O
treatment NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
similar NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
distress NN O O
administering NN O O
MDMA NN O I-INT
on NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
several NN O O
occasions NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supportive NN O O
and NN O O
integrative NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25820842)

Serotonergic NN O I-INT
psychedelics NN O I-INT
temporarily NN O O
modify NN O O
information NN O O
transfer NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Psychedelics NN O I-INT
induce NN O O
intense NN O O
modifications NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensorium NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
self NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
reality NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
advances NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
molecular NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
level NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
actions NN O O
on NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
still NN O O
incomplete NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
imaging NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
found NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
functional NN O O
coupling NN O O
between NN O O
frontal NN O O
and NN O O
parietal NN O O
brain NN O O
structures NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
modification NN O O
in NN O O
information NN O O
flow NN O O
between NN O O
brain NN O O
regions NN O O
during NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Here NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
psychedelic-induced NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
directionality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
psychedelic NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
measured NN O O
modifications NN O O
in NN O O
connectivity NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
oscillations NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
transfer NN O O
entropy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
directed NN O O
functional NN O O
connectivity NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
information NN O O
theory NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psychedelics NN O I-INT
participated NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
experimental NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ayahuasca NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
psychedelic NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
serotonergic NN O I-INT
5-HT2A NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
N NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N-dimethyltryptamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
coupling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
oscillations NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
anterior NN O O
and NN O O
posterior NN O O
recording NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Transfer NN O O
entropy NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
frontal NN O O
sources NN O O
decreased NN O O
their NN O O
influence NN O O
over NN O O
central NN O O
, NN O O
parietal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
occipital NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
sources NN O O
in NN O O
posterior NN O O
locations NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
influence NN O O
over NN O O
signals NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
anterior NN O O
locations NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
correlations NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
anterior-to-posterior NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
entropy NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
imbalance NN O O
between NN O O
anterior-to-posterior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
posterior-to-anterior NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
entropy NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
incapacitation NN O O
experienced NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
psychedelics NN O I-INT
induce NN O O
a NN O O
temporary NN O I-OUT
disruption NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
neural NN O I-OUT
hierarchies NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
top-down NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
increasing NN O O
bottom-up NN O O
information NN O O
transfer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
brain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25822242)

Randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
joint NN O O
engagement NN O O
outcomes NN O O
as NN O O
augmentations NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
program NN O O
for NN O O
toddlers 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 I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Participants NN O O
included NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
toddlers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
22-36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
caregiver NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Caregiver-child NN O I-PAR
dyads NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
hands-on NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
developmental NN O I-INT
behavioral NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
joint NN O I-INT
attention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
symbolic NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
engagement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
regulation-JASPER NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
parent-only NN O I-INT
psychoeducational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dose NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
researcher-parent NN O O
contact NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
services NN O O
received NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
yielded NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
JASPER NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
large NN O O
( NN O O
Cohen NN O O
's NN O O
f? NN O O
= NN O O
.69 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

JASPER NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
diversity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
highest NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
generalization NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
classroom NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-INT
PEI NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
secondary NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
generally NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
highlight NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
targeted NN O O
, NN O O
parent-mediated NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
studies NN O O
may NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O I-INT
JASPER NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PEI NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
for NN O O
optimal NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
child NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

Trial NN O O
registry NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

NCT00999778 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25840597)

Subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
bortezomib NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
induction NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
GMMG-MM5 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
bortezomib NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
MM5 NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
German-Speaking NN O O
Myeloma NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Group NN O O
which NN O O
compared NN O O
bortezomib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bortezomib NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
relapsed NN O O
myeloma NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
for NN O O
bortezomib NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
from NN O O
intravenous NN O O
to NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
after NN O O
314 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
604 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
598 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
bortezomib NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
intravenous=65 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
subcutaneous=56 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
bortezomib NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O O
intravenous=8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
subcutaneous=2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
intravenously NN O O
or NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
International NN O I-OUT
Staging NN O I-OUT
System NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
cytogenetic NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
comparing NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bortezomib NN O O
in NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
myeloma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
show NN O O
better NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
similar NN O O
overall NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
for NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bortezomib NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
eudract.ema.europa.eu NN O O
as NN O O
n. NN O O
2010-019173-16 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25840599)

Prolonged NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
moderate-severe NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effective NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
strategies NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
hematopoietic NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
prevent NN O O
serious NN O O
chronic NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
facilitate NN O O
donor-recipient NN O O
immune NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
pro-tolerogenic NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
sirolimus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rapamycin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
with NN O O
promise NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
these NN O O
goals NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
sirolimus/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
methotrexate/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
matched NN O I-PAR
sibling NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unrelated NN O I-PAR
donor NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O I-PAR
sirolimus NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
post-transplant NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
surviving NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
27-60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-INT
sirolimus/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
49 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
29-63 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-INT
methotrexate/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sirolimus/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
National NN O I-OUT
Institutes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Consensus NN O I-OUT
moderate-severe NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
34 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
20 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O I-INT
sirolimus/tacrolimus NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
prednisone NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
earlier NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tacrolimus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
tacrolimus NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
368 NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
821 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
discontinuation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
60-month NN O O
estimate NN O O
: NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Prolonged NN O I-INT
sirolimus NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
a NN O O
viable NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
mitigate NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
moderate-severe NN O O
chronic NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
acute NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
successful NN O O
immune NN O O
suppression NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25841244)

Coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
medical NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25842725)

1H NN O O
nuclear NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance-based NN O O
metabolomic NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Qingrehuatan NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
against NN O O
abundant NN O O
phlegm-heat NN O O
syndrome NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
observe NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
Qingrehuatan NN O I-INT
decoction NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QRHT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
YEH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abundant NN O I-PAR
phlegm-heat NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decoction NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
YEH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
QRHT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
using NN O O
metabolomic NN O O
technology NN O O
with NN O O
1H NN O O
nuclear NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
metabolites NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
principal NN O O
component NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
least NN O O
squares-discriminate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
produced NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
loadings NN O O
plots NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
substances NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
distinguished NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
YEH NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
abundant NN O O
phlegm-heat NN O O
syndrome NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
specific NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
endog- NN O I-OUT
enous NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

QRHT NN O I-INT
can NN O O
appropriately NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
citric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
high-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phosphatidylcholine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glycerophosphate NN O I-OUT
choline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hydroxybutyrate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glutamate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
QRHT NN O I-INT
could NN O O
also NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein/very NN O I-OUT
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
N-acetyl NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
O-acetyl NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
QRHT NN O O
can NN O O
effectively NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
YEH NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
abundant NN O O
phlegm-heat NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

1H NN O O
NMR-based NN O O
metabolomic NN O O
technology NN O O
can NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
YEH NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abundant NN O I-PAR
phlegm-heat NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
QRHT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25851025)

A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Double NN O O
Blind NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
Sabgh NN O I-INT
Formulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Vitiligo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
problem NN O O
that NN O O
vitiligo NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
affects NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
psychologically NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
vitiligo NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
cover NN O O
their NN O O
white NN O O
skin NN O O
patches NN O O
with NN O O
cosmetic NN O O
products NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
are NN O O
formulations NN O O
in NN O O
traditional NN O O
Iranian NN O O
pharmacy NN O O
to NN O O
color NN O O
these NN O O
white NN O O
skin NN O O
patches NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
formulations NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cosmetic NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
marketed NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
Iranian NN O I-INT
Pharmacy NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Dermatology NN O O
Life NN O O
Quality NN O O
Index NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
statistically NN O O
improved NN O O
Dermatology NN O I-OUT
Life NN O I-OUT
Quality NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.436 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Traditional NN O I-INT
Iranian NN O I-INT
Pharmacy NN O I-INT
formulation NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
vitiligo NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25854713)

Visual NN O I-INT
Assessment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Relative NN O I-INT
Apical NN O I-INT
Sparing NN O I-INT
Pattern NN O I-INT
Is NN O O
More NN O O
Useful NN O O
Than NN O O
Quantitative NN O O
Assessment NN O O
for NN O O
Diagnosing NN O O
Cardiac NN O O
Amyloidosis NN O O
in NN O O
Borderline NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Mildly NN O I-PAR
Increased NN O I-PAR
Left NN O I-PAR
Ventricular NN O I-PAR
Wall NN O I-PAR
Thickness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Relative NN O I-INT
apical NN O I-INT
sparing NN O I-INT
pattern NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
longitudinal NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
cardiac NN O O
amyloidosis NN O O
( NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
presumptive NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
thickness NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LVWT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
?14 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Apart NN O O
from NN O I-INT
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
visually NN O I-INT
identified NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relative NN O I-INT
apical NN O I-INT
longitudinal NN O I-INT
strain NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RapLSI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
defined NN O O
as NN O O
[ NN O O
average NN O O
apical NN O O
LS/ NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
basal NN O O
LS+average NN O O
mid-ventricle NN O O
LS NN O O
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
finally NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-OUT
RapLSI NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
LVWT NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
overlap NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
visually NN O I-INT
assessed NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
CA NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31/47 NN O O
, NN O O
66.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
preserved NN O O
LV NN O O
ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
normal NN O O
LVWT NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mildly NN O O
decreased NN O O
global NN O O
LS NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
least NN O O
advanced NN O O
CA NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
added NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RapLSI NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
top NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
conventional NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
RapLSI NN O I-INT
produced NN O I-INT
only NN O O
borderline NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
curve NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multivariate NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
it NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Visual NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
RapSP-LS NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
useful NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
added NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
quantitative NN O O
calculation NN O O
of NN O O
RapLSI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Its NN O O
clinical NN O O
application NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25861158)

The NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
transcranial NN O I-INT
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
electroencephalography NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Abnormal NN O O
synaptic NN O O
maturation NN O O
and NN O O
connectivity NN O O
are NN O O
possible NN O O
etiologies NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
alpha NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
normal NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore 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
anodal NN O I-INT
tDCS NN O I-INT
on NN O O
peak NN O O
alpha NN O O
frequency NN O O
( NN O O
PAF NN O O
) NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
autism NN O O
treatment NN O O
evaluation NN O O
checklist NN O O
( NN O O
ATEC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
tDCS NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
mA NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
F3 NN O O
( NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
to NN O O
postsession NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
impacted NN O O
by NN O O
tDCS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ATEC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
associations NN O O
between NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postsession NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PAF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
ATEC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
show NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
postsession NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
two NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ATEC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
health/behavior NN O I-OUT
domains NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
active NN O O
tDCS NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
sham NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

PAF NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
stimulation NN O O
site NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PAF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
domains NN O O
of NN O O
ATEC NN O I-OUT
impacted NN O O
by NN O O
tDCS NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
session NN O O
of NN O O
anodal NN O I-INT
tDCS NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
F3 NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
those NN O O
benefits NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
PAF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25865294)

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
caloric NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Preclinical NN O O
studies NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
anorexigenic NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
nutrition NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
caloric NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
appetite NN O O
and NN O O
alter NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
appetite-regulating NN O O
hormones NN O O
. NN O O

Metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oxytocin NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O I-INT
intranasal NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
fasting NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
oxytocin/placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
selected NN O I-INT
breakfast NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
menu NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
portions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Caloric NN O I-INT
content NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Visual NN O I-INT
analog NN O I-INT
scales NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
drawn NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
appetite-regulating NN O I-INT
hormones NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
oxytocin/placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Indirect NN O I-INT
calorimetry NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
resting NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
expenditure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
REE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
substrate NN O I-INT
utilization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Oxytocin NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
caloric NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
preferential NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anorexigenic NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
cholecystokinin NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
affecting NN O O
appetite NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
appetite-regulating NN O O
hormones 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
oxytocin NN O O
on NN O O
REE NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Oxytocin NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O O
from NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
to NN O O
fat NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intranasal NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
caloric NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
beneficial NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
concerning NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
sustained NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O O
warrants NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2586565)

Peritoneovenous NN O I-INT
shunting NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
medical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
massive NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O O
Administration NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Alcoholic NN O O
Cirrhosis NN O O
with NN O O
Ascites NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
optimal NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
ascites NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
a NN O O
5 NN O O
1/2-year NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
299 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-INT
medical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
peritoneovenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LeVeen NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
shunting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
identified NN O O
three NN O O
risk NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
liver-function NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
prerenal NN O I-PAR
azotemia NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
1093 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
222 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
37 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
ascites NN O O
was NN O O
5.4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
3.0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O O
patients 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

Within NN O O
each NN O O
risk NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
and NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ascites NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
was NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
medical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
[ NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.1 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
2 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
. NN O O

Group NN O O
3 NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
small NN O O
to NN O O
permit NN O O
a NN O O
meaningful NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
encephalopathy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
peritoneovenous NN O O
shunting NN O O
alleviated NN O O
disabling NN O I-OUT
ascites NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
than NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
closely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
illness NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
shunting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25865762)

A NN O O
Regulated NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Bicuspid NN O O
Aortic NN O O
Valve NN O O
Repair NN O O
Supported NN O O
by NN O O
Geometric NN O I-INT
Ring NN O I-INT
Annuloplasty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Annular NN O O
stabilization NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
during NN O O
bicuspid NN O O
aortic NN O O
valve NN O O
( NN O O
BAV NN O O
) NN O O
repair NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
bicuspid NN O O
annuloplasty NN O O
ring NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
purpose NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Under NN O O
regulatory NN O O
supervision NN O O
( NN O O
NCT02071849 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
geometric NN O I-INT
bicuspid NN O I-INT
annuloplasty NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Sievers NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
valves NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Sievers NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
Sievers NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
left-/right-coronary NN O I-PAR
cusp NN O I-PAR
fusion NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
right-/noncoronary NN O I-PAR
cusp NN O I-PAR
fusion NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
present NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
AI NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
aneurysms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ascending NN O O
aortic NN O O
aneurysms NN O O
, NN O O
root NN O O
aneurysms NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
were NN O O
replaced NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Dacron-covered NN O I-INT
titanium NN O I-INT
ring NN O I-INT
had NN O O
circular NN O O
base NN O O
geometry NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
outwardly NN O O
flaring NN O O
subcommissural NN O O
posts NN O O
positioned NN O O
opposite NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
circumference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ring NN O O
was NN O O
implanted NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
annulus NN O O
beneath NN O O
the NN O O
valve NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
leaflet NN O O
repair NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Immediate NN O I-OUT
postrepair NN O I-OUT
echocardiograms NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
AI NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
cusp NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
gradients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
mortalities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
leaflet NN O I-OUT
tears NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
long NN O O
annular NN O O
suture NN O O
tails NN O O
, NN O O
requiring NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
valve NN O I-OUT
replacement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
lateral NN O O
suture NN O O
fixation NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
New NN O I-OUT
York NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
I NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
predominant NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
AI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
As NN O O
a NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
BAV NN O O
repair NN O O
, NN O O
internal NN O O
ring NN O O
annuloplasty NN O O
produces NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
annular NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Annular NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
reshaping NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
50/50 NN O O
% NN O O
symmetric NN O O
circular NN O O
geometry NN O O
facilitates NN O I-OUT
leaflet NN O I-OUT
repair NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enhances NN O I-OUT
cusp NN O I-OUT
coaptation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Geometric NN O O
ring NN O O
annuloplasty NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
useful NN O O
applications NN O O
in NN O O
BAV NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25865864)

Fall NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
individualised NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
programmes NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
, NN O O
stepped-wedge NN O O
, NN O O
cluster-randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Falls NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
hospitals NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
individualised NN O I-INT
falls-prevention NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
, NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
training NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
staff NN O I-INT
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
ward-level NN O O
programme NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
stepped-wedge NN O O
, NN O O
cluster-randomised NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
undertaken NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Units NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
intervention NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
by NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
, NN O O
random NN O O
allocation NN O O
sequences NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Mini-Mental NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
Examination NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MMSE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
23/30 NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
individualised NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
that NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
a NN O O
trained NN O O
health NN O O
professional NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
provided NN O O
information NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
goals NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
about NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ward NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
perceived NN O I-INT
barriers NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
engagement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
falls-prevention NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
to NN O O
staff NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
trained NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
strategies NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
coprimary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
1000 NN O I-OUT
patient-days NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
fallers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
analyses NN O O
were 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
trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the 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
, NN O O
number NN O O
ACTRN12612000877886 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
Jan NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Dec NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3606 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=1983 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n=1623 NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
fewer NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=196 NN O O
, NN O O
7?80/1000 NN O O
patient-days NN O O
vs NN O O
n=380 NN O O
, NN O O
13?78/1000 NN O O
patient-days NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
rate NN O O
ratio NN O O
0?60 NN O O
[ NN O O
robust NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?42-0?94 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?003 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
injurious NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=66 NN O O
, NN O O
2?63/1000 NN O O
patient-days NN O O
vs NN O O
131 NN O O
, NN O O
4?75/1000 NN O O
patient-days NN O O
, NN O O
0?65 NN O O
[ NN O O
robust NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?42-0?88 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
fallers NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
n=136 NN O O
[ NN O O
8?38 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
n=248 NN O O
[ NN O O
12?51 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
adjusted NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
0?55 NN O O
[ NN O O
robust NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?38 NN O O
to NN O O
0?81 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?003 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention 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

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
intervention NN O O
median NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
7-19 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
6-18 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O I-INT
Individualised NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
programmes NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O O
training NN O O
and NN O O
feedback NN O O
to NN O O
staff NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
usual NN O O
care NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
falls NN O O
and NN O O
injurious NN O O
falls NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
hospital-units NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
FUNDING NN O I-PAR
State NN O O
Health NN O O
Research NN O O
Advisory NN O O
Council NN O O
, NN O O
Department NN O O
of NN O O
Health NN O O
, NN O O
Government NN O O
of NN O O
Western NN O O
Australia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25871593)

Feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sensory-adapted NN O O
dental NN O O
environment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
example NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
occupational NN O O
therapy NN O O
feasibility NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
pilot NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
trial NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sensory-adapted NN O O
dental NN O O
environment NN O O
( NN O O
SADE NN O O
) NN O O
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
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6-12 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
attended NN O O
a NN O O
dental NN O O
clinic NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
urban NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
two NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
cleanings NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3-4 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
apart NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
SADE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Feasibility NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
recruitment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
accrual NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dropout NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Intervention NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
stress 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
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
successfully NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
retained NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O O
expressed NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
research NN O O
study NN O O
participation NN O O
. NN O O

Dentists NN O O
stated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
incorporated NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
SADE NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Preliminary NN O O
positive NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
SADE NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
warrants NN O O
moving NN O O
forward NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
large-scale NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25885180)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
cool NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
toxin NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
rationale NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cool NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
often NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
intra-dialytic NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
maintenance NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
toxin NN O O
removal NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
that NN O O
inter-compartmental NN O O
resistance NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
barrier NN O O
for NN O O
toxin NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Cool NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
can NN O O
potentially NN O O
increase NN O O
this NN O O
resistance NN O O
by NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
impair NN O O
the NN O O
toxin NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
toxin NN O O
removal NN O O
outcome NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cool NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHOD/DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
dialysate NN O O
temperature NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
maneuver NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
stability NN O O
during NN O O
HD NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
inter-compartmental NN O O
resistance NN O O
and NN O O
hence NN O O
, NN O O
toxin NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
quantum NN O O
of NN O O
removed NN O O
toxins NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
spent NN O O
dialysate NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dialysis NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Collected NN O O
samples NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
urea NN O O
, NN O O
creatinine NN O O
, NN O O
phosphate NN O O
, NN O O
?2-microglobulin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
uric NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
self-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
research NN O O
where NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
undergo NN O O
2 NN O O
dialysis NN O O
sessions NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cool NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
at NN O O
35.5?C NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O I-INT
warm NN O I-INT
dialysis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dialysate NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
37?C NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-dialysis NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
collected NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O I-OUT
adequacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxin NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
clinical NN O O
research NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dialysate NN O O
temperature NN O O
on NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
small NN O O
and NN O O
large-sized NN O O
toxins NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
important NN O O
knowledge NN O O
pertaining NN O O
to NN O O
dialysate NN O O
temperature NN O O
prescription NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
can NN O O
also NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
cool NN O O
dialysate NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
in NN O O
by NN O O
preventing NN O O
intra-dialytic NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
prolonged NN O O
prescription NN O O
of NN O O
cool NN O O
dialysate NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
comorbidities NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
excess NN O O
toxin NN O O
accumulation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
new NN O O
knowledge NN O O
will NN O O
encourage NN O O
for NN O O
personalized NN O O
dialysate NN O O
temperature NN O O
profiling NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
-- NN O O
NCT02064153 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25888263)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
castration-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PREVAIL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Enzalutamide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
radiographic NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PREVAIL NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
castration-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1:1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=872 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=845 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
orally NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Functional NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Therapy-Prostate NN O O
( NN O O
FACT-P NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
EQ-5D NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
week NN O O
13 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
25 NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Brief NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BPI-SF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
a NN O O
mixed-effects NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
least NN O O
square NN O O
means NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
61 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HRQoL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population 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
NCT01212991 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Median NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
16?6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
10?1-21?1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4?6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
2?8-9?7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
mixed-effects NN O O
model NN O O
analyses NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
week NN O O
61 NN O O
with NN O I-INT
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
most NN O I-INT
FACT-P NN O O
endpoints NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FACT-P NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11?3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
11?1-13?9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5?6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
5?5-5?6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
0?62 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?54-0?72 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
reported NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
FACT-P NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
327 NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
826 NN O O
vs NN O O
181 NN O O
[ NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
790 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
EQ-5D NN O I-OUT
utility NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
224 NN O O
[ NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
812 NN O O
vs NN O O
99 NN O O
[ NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
623 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
218 NN O O
[ NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
803 NN O O
vs NN O O
106 NN O O
of NN O O
[ NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
603 NN O O
; NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BPI-SF NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
its NN O O
worst NN O O
was NN O O
5?7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
5?6-5?7 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5?6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
5?4-5?6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HR NN O O
0?62 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?53-0?74 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
worst NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enzalutamide NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
220 NN O O
[ NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
769 NN O O
vs NN O O
257 NN O O
[ NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
610 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
225 NN O O
[ NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
705 NN O O
vs NN O O
135 NN O O
[ NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
360 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?068 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

278 NN O O
( NN O O
32 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
872 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
309 NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
845 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
cutoff NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O O
31?1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
29?5-not NN O O
reached NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
31?3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
23?9-not NN O O
reached NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HR NN O I-INT
0?72 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?61-0?84 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0?0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
relative NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enzalutamide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
patient-related NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
delays NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
skeletal-related NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-OUT
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
castration-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Astellas NN O O
Pharma NN O O
and NN O O
Medivation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25892145)

Afatinib NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous-cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
progressing NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LUX-Head NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
Neck NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
squamous-cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
progressing NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
platinum NN O I-PAR
regimens NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
and NN O O
few NN O O
treatment NN O O
options NN O O
. NN O O

Afatinib NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
irreversible NN O O
ERBB NN O O
family NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting 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
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
afatinib NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
second-line NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
progressing NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
open-label NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cytologically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
HNSCC NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
progressed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
amenable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
salvage NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ECOG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
allowed NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR-targeted NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
EGFR-targeted NN O I-INT
tyrosine-kinase NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
allowed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
afatinib NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
ECOG NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
previous NN O O
EGFR-targeted NN O O
antibody NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
or NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease 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
an NN O O
interactive NN O O
voice NN O O
or NN O O
web-based NN O O
response NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
; NN O O
independent NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O O
imaging NN O O
review NN O O
committee NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
ongoing 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
NCT01345682 NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Between NN O O
Jan NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Dec NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2013 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
483 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
322 NN O O
to NN O O
afatinib NN O I-INT
and NN O O
161 NN O O
to NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
6?7 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
3?1-9?0 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
median NN O O
2?6 NN O O
months NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
2?0-2?7 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
1?7 NN O O
months NN O O
[ NN O O
1?5-2?4 NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
0?80 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?65-0?98 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0?030 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
drug-related NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
31 NN O O
[ NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
320 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
afatinib NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
160 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
[ NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
three NN O O
[ NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
stomatitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
[ NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
[ NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
five NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
[ NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
11 NN O O
[ NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
44 NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O I-INT
afatinib-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O I-INT
methotrexate-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O I-INT
Afatinib NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
manageable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
important NN O O
new NN O O
insights NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
support NN O O
further NN O O
investigations NN O O
with NN O O
irreversible NN O O
ERBB NN O O
family NN O O
blockers NN O O
in NN O O
HNSCC NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Boehringer NN O O
Ingelheim NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25898050)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O I-PAR
problems 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
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
Disruptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Behavioral NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
disruptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
but NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
large-scale NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials 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 O
of NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
This NN O O
24-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
89 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Emory NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Indiana NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ohio NN O I-PAR
State NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pittsburgh NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Rochester NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Yale NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
267 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
180 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
disruptive NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
86 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
88 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O I-INT
Parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
optional NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
boosters NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
specific NN O O
strategies NN O O
to NN O O
manage NN O O
disruptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O I-INT
Parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
core NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
autism NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
behavior NN O O
management NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Parents NN O I-OUT
rated NN O I-OUT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
noncompliance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
co-primary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
0-45 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Home NN O I-OUT
Situations NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-Autism NN O I-OUT
Spectrum NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
0-9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
both NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
higher NN O O
scores NN O O
indicate NN O O
greater NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
indicates NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinician NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
assignment NN O O
rated NN O O
the NN O O
Improvement NN O O
scale NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Global NN O O
Impression NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1-7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-Irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
declined NN O I-OUT
47.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
23.7 NN O I-INT
to NN O O
12.4 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
31.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
23.9 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
16.3 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
-3.9 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-6.2 NN O O
to NN O O
-1.7 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
standardized NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
Home NN O I-OUT
Situations NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire-Autism NN O I-OUT
Spectrum NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
declined NN O I-OUT
55 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
4.0 NN O O
to NN O O
1.8 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
34.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
( NN O O
3.8 NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
-1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
standardized NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
measure NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
prespecified NN O O
minimal NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportions NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
68.5 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
parent NN O I-OUT
training NN O O
vs NN O O
39.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
parent NN O O
education NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
For NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
24-week NN O O
parent NN O O
training NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
reducing NN O I-INT
disruptive NN O O
behavior NN O O
on NN O O
parent-reported NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
clinician NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O I-INT
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01233414 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2590611)

Differential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
biosynthesis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
bradykinin-stimulated NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
biosynthesis NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
6-oxo-PGF1 NN O O
alpha NN O O
and NN O O
13,14-dihydro-15-oxo-PGF2 NN O O
alpha NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
samples NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
repeated NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TXB2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
blood NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
clot NN O O
at NN O O
37 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin NN O I-OUT
inhibited NN O I-OUT
bradykinin NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
PG NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
TX NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
0.5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
TXB2 NN O I-OUT
remained NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
PG NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
6 NN O O
h. NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
salicylate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
identically NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Prostanoid NN O I-OUT
biosynthesis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
inhibited NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

Biosynthesis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prostacyclin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TXA2 NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
subjects NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O I-OUT
2,3-dinor-6-oxo-PGF1 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2,3-dinor-TXB2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hourly NN O O
urine NN O O
samples NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
occasion NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
vehicle NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
metabolites NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
2,3-dinor-6-oxo-PGF1 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
2,3-dinor-TXB2 NN O O
. NN O O

6 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
cyclo-oxygenase NN O O
is NN O O
rapidly NN O I-OUT
synthesised NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bradykinin-responsive NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
reflects NN O O
similarly NN O O
rapid NN O O
enzyme NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
in NN O O
tissues NN O O
that NN O O
produce NN O O
PGI2 NN O O
under NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25907208)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cooling NN O I-OUT
proparacaine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
comfort NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
instillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25912520)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Quest NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Lava NN O I-INT
Mountain NN O I-INT
Computer NN O I-INT
Game NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Dietary NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Elementary NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Group-Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Computer-based NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
games NN O I-INT
present NN O O
an NN O O
opportunity NN O O
for NN O O
health NN O O
education NN O O
in NN O O
school NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
feasibility NN O O
in NN O O
school NN O O
settings NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
in NN O O
changing NN O O
behavior NN O O
are NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
, NN O O
acceptability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Quest NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
Lava NN O I-INT
Mountain NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QTLM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
on NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
ethnically NN O I-PAR
diverse NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Texas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Quasi-experimental NN O O
group-randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
conducted NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
2012-2013 NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS/SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
107 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
fourth NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fifth NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
consented NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
attrition NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O O
random NN O O
24-hour NN O O
recalls NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
child NN O O
self-report NN O O
surveys NN O O
measured NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Process NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
QTLM NN O I-INT
usability NN O O
and NN O O
back-end NN O O
server NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
QTLM NN O O
exposure NN O O
and NN O O
progress NN O O
achieved NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTION NN O O
QTLM NN O I-INT
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
in-school NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
afterschool NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recommended NN O O
game NN O O
exposure NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
90 NN O O
min/wk NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

STATISTICAL NN O O
ANALYSIS NN O O
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
covariance NN O O
or NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
models NN O O
evaluated NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
QTLM NN O I-INT
on NN O O
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychosocial NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
exploratory NN O O
analysis NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
among NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Significance NN O O
was NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Children NN O O
played NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
274?110 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
4.6 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O I-INT
QTLM NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
recommended NN O O
dosage NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
group 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
reported NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.021 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
nutrition/physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=0.041 NN O O
) NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
postintervention NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
QTLM NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
higher NN O I-INT
QTLM NN O I-INT
exposure NN O O
and NN O O
gaming NN O O
progress NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
QTLM NN O I-INT
has NN O O
some NN O O
promising NN O O
acceptability NN O O
and NN O O
initial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25912590)

Peritonsillar NN O O
infiltration NN O O
with NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
posttonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
concentration NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
effect NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Post-tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
noxious NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
C-fiber NN O O
afferents NN O O
located NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
peritonsillary NN O O
space NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
infiltration NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
pain NN O O
by NN O O
blocking NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
pathways NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
preventing NN O O
the NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
impulses 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
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
preincisional NN O O
peritonsillar NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
infiltration NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
design NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
obtaining NN O O
Institutional NN O O
Ethics NN O O
Committee NN O O
approval NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
sealed NN O O
envelope NN O O
technique NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
III NN O O
receiving NN O O
preincisional NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
peritonsillar NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mL NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
tonsil NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
nausea-vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
postoperative 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
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
when NN O O
FLACC NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paracetamol NN O I-OUT
administrations NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
defined NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
FLACC NN O O
> NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
60.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
54.2 NN O O
% NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea-vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
0.50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
levobupivacaine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
preincisional NN O O
peritonsillar NN O O
infiltration NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
NCT NN O O
number NN O O
: NN O O
02322346 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25915138)

Indicators NN O O
for NN O O
Cervical NN O O
Length NN O O
in NN O O
Twin NN O I-PAR
Pregnancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Cervical NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O O
birth NN O O
( NN O O
PTB NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
CL NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
pathway NN O O
of NN O O
PTB NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
which NN O O
factors NN O O
are NN O O
predictive NN O O
for NN O O
CL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
in NN O O
twin NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
baseline NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
obstetrical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
are NN O O
potential NN O O
indicators NN O O
for NN O O
CL NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
insight NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiological NN O O
pathway NN O O
of NN O O
PTB NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Secondary NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
twin NN O I-OUT
pregnancies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
CL NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
potential NN O O
indicators NN O O
, NN O O
known 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
risk NN O O
of NN O O
PTB NN O O
and/or NN O O
which NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
plausible NN O O
mechanism NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
selected NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
multivariable NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
with NN O O
backward NN O O
selection NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
independent NN O O
indicators NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1,447 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
twin NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mean NN O I-OUT
CL NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
43.7 NN O O
( NN O O
?8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multivariable NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
0.27 NN O O
mm/y NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
0.16 NN O O
to NN O O
0.39 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproductive NN O O
technologies NN O O
( NN O O
ART NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
-1.42 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-2.6 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
delivered NN O O
at NN O O
term NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
1.32 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.25 NN O O
to NN O O
2.39 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
CL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
twin NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ART NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
delivered NN O O
term NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
CL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25919773)

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
amalgam NN O I-INT
dental NN O I-INT
fillings NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
quadruple NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
levofloxacin-based NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
AIM NN O O
Mercury NN O O
exposure NN O O
is NN O O
encountered NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-INT
fillings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
toxic NN O O
, NN O O
bactericidal NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
mercury NN O O
are NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
multiple NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
resistance NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
transferred NN O O
, NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
mercury NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
dyspeptic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-PAR
fillings NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-PAR
fillings NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dyspeptic NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
endoscopy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
sixty-nine NN O O
( NN O O
35.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
306 NN O O
( NN O O
64.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
underwent NN O O
dental NN O O
examinations NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
amalgam NN O O
fillings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori-positive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
subgroups NN O O
: NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rabeprazole-amoxicillin-clarithromycin-metronidazole NN O I-INT
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
n=122 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
quadruple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
QT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rabeprazole-tetracycline-metronidazole-colloidal NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
subcitrate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
n=97 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
levofloxacin-based NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rabeprazole-amoxicillin-levofloxacin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
n=87 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
urea NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
filling NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nonfilling NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
53.7 NN O O
and NN O O
78.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
QT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
LT NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
65.5 NN O O
, NN O O
67.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
58.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
( NN O O
ITT NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
69.6 NN O O
, NN O O
70.7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
62.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
separately NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
LT NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
filling NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nonfilling NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
QT NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
fillings NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
0.003 NN O O
, NN O O
0.012 NN O O
, NN O O
0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
amalgam NN O O
filling NN O O
exerts NN O O
independent NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION 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
show NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
colonization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-INT
fillings NN O I-INT
than NN O O
without NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-INT
fillings NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25920470)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
the NN O O
less-affected NN O O
side NN O O
( NN O O
MTLA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
post-stroke NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
Poststroke NN O O
, NN O O
less-severe NN O O
motor NN O O
impairment NN O O
occurs NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ipsilesional NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
involving NN O O
the NN O O
less-affected NN O O
side NN O O
( NN O O
MTLA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
occupational NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
Institute NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
convenience NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28.76 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
17 NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
entire NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
provided NN O O
MTLA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neurophysiological-based NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
24 NN O O
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Affected NN O O
side NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
Brunnstrom NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Fugl-Meyer NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
less-affected NN O O
side NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
Minnesota NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
dexterity NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMDT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Purdue NN O I-OUT
peg NN O I-OUT
board NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PPBT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Manual NN O I-OUT
Muscle NN O I-OUT
Testing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MMT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Postintervention NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
less-affected NN O O
side NN O O
of NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
MMDT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
PPBT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
MMT NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
to NN O O
0.043 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, 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
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
exhibited NN O O
positive NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
measure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
BRS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
FMA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
to NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
at NN O O
post NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O I-OUT
MTLA NN O I-OUT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
dexterity NN O O
and NN O O
coordination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
less-affected NN O O
side NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
affected NN O O
side NN O O
in NN O O
poststroke NN O I-PAR
hemiparetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (25923852)

A NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
d-cycloserine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
deficit NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
difficult NN O O
for NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
impaired NN O O
social NN O O
communication NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
transition NN O O
to NN O O
adult NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

d-Cycloserine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
glycine NN O O
agonist NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
N-methyl-d-aspartic NN O O
acid NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
two NN O O
dosing NN O O
strategies NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
versus NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
weekly NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
. NN O O

d-Cycloserine NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
statistically NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
differentiation NN O O
between NN O O
dosing NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Social NN O I-OUT
Responsiveness NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
d-cycloserine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25953148)

A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
Comparison NN O O
Between NN O O
Pivotal NN O I-INT
Response NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Adult-Driven NN O I-INT
Applied NN O I-INT
Behavior NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
Disruptive NN O I-OUT
Behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
Public NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
demanding NN O O
teaching NN O O
tasks NN O O
. NN O O

Language NN O O
intervention NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
difficult NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
involves NN O O
social NN O O
and NN O O
communicative NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
challenging NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
naturalistic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Pivotal NN O I-INT
Response NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adult-directed NN O I-INT
ABA NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
public NN O O
schools NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
utterance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
PRT NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
antecedent NN O O
manipulations NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (25963425)

The NN O O
SOFT NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dihydropyrimidine NN O I-INT
dehydrogenase NN O I-INT
inhibitory NN O I-INT
fluoropyrimidine NN O I-INT
S-1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SOX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
leucovorin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FOLFOX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
bevacizumab NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first-line NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
S-1 NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
fluoropyrimidine NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
combines NN O I-INT
tegafur NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
prodrug NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
modulators NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
oxaliplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
S-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SOX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
Asia NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
promising NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
replace NN O O
mFOLFOX6 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
SOFT NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
JapicCTI-090699 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
noninferiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
SOX NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
bevacizumab NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mFOLFOX6 NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
bevacizumab NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mCRC NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
review NN O O
summarizes NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
S-1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
S-1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
SOX NN O I-INT
in NN O O
CRC NN O O
and NN O O
presents NN O O
an NN O O
overview NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SOFT NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25963675)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
supraglotttic NN O I-INT
devices NN O I-INT
used NN O O
by NN O O
paramedics NN O O
during NN O O
simulated NN O O
CPR NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Ensuring NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
airway NN O O
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
is NN O O
fundamental NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
blind NN O O
intubation NN O O
during NN O O
simulated NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
by NN O O
untrained NN O I-PAR
personnel NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
devices NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
scenario NN O O
: NN O O
ILMA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Intavent NN O O
Direct NN O O
Ltd NN O O
, NN O O
Buckinghamshire NN O O
, NN O O
United NN O O
Kingdom NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Cobra NN O I-INT
PLA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Engineered NN O O
Medical NN O O
Systems NN O O
Inc NN O O
, NN O O
Indianapolis NN O O
, NN O O
IN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Supraglottic NN O I-INT
Airway NN O I-INT
Laryngopharyngeal NN O I-INT
Tube NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SALT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ECOLAB NN O O
, NN O O
St. NN O O
Paul NN O O
, NN O O
MN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Air-Q NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Mercury NN O O
Medical NN O O
, NN O O
Clearwater NN O O
, NN O O
FL NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
210 NN O I-PAR
paramedics NN O I-PAR
intubated NN O O
a NN O O
manikin NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
chest NN O O
compressions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
intubation NN O O
were NN O O
40.46 NN O O
? NN O O
4.64 NN O O
, NN O O
33.96 NN O O
? NN O O
6.23 NN O O
, NN O O
17.2 NN O O
? NN O O
4.63 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
49.23 NN O O
? NN O O
13.19 NN O O
seconds NN O O
( NN O O
SALT NN O O
vs NN O O
ILMA NN O O
, NN O O
Cobra NN O O
PLA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Air-Q NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blind NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
devices NN O O
were NN O O
86.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SALT NN O O
vs NN O O
ILMA NN O O
, NN O O
Cobra NN O O
PLA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Air-Q 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
The NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
efficient NN O O
device NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
blind NN O O
intubation NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
SALT NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (25973096)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuroprotective NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desflurane NN O I-INT
as NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
pre-conditioning NN O O
on NN O O
ischemia/reperfusion NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
reports NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
mainly NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
veterinary NN O O
anesthesiology NN O O
. NN O O

Less NN O O
attention NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
focused NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
inhalational NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
neurosurgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
is NN O O
regretful NN O O
particularly NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
during NN O O
neurosurgery NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
extreme NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
subtlety NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
cerebral NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
process NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
mechanisms 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
retrospective NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
knowledge NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
volatile NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agents NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desflurane NN O I-INT
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
and NN O O
emergence NN O O
characteristics NN O O
after NN O O
volatile NN O O
anesthetics-induced NN O O
preconditioning NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
desflurane NN O I-INT
for NN O O
inpatient NN O I-PAR
ischemia/reperfusion NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
neural NN O I-PAR
surgeries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
their NN O O
neuroprotective NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
analyzing NN O O
and NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Chinese NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
faster NN O O
emergence NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
intermediate NN O O
recovery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
systematically NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
sevoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O O
provided NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
stability NN O O
but NN O O
allowed NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
smoother NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
emergence NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
better NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
experiencing NN O I-PAR
substantial NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
vasodilation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
Sevoflurane NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
several NN O O
advantages NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
a NN O O
relative NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
irritation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
other NN O O
potent NN O O
inhaled NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
properties NN O O
would NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
afford NN O O
sevoflurane NN O O
significant NN O O
clinical NN O O
potential NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25978402)

Multicomponent NN O O
interdisciplinary NN O O
group NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
self-management NN O O
of NN O O
fibromyalgia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
mixed-methods NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PASSAGE NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
structured NN O O
multicomponent NN O I-INT
interdisciplinary NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
self-management NN O O
of NN O O
FMS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
mixed-methods NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
INT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
waitlist NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
FMS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
T0 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
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
T1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
( NN O O
T2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0-10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
fibromyalgia NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
interference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health-related NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGIC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Qualitative NN O O
group NN O O
interviews NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
T0 NN O O
to NN O O
T2 NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
PGIC NN O O
measures 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
PASSAGE NN O O
Program NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
perceived NN O O
overall NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
WL NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
( NN O O
Intervention NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
Waitlist NN O O
Group NN O O
: NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
? NN O I-OUT
50 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
INT NN O O
Group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
qualitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
line NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O O
findings NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
PASSAGE NN O O
Program NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
helping NN O I-PAR
FMS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
gain NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
over NN O O
their NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
including NN O O
PGIC NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
FMS NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
capture NN O O
important NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
International NN O O
Standard NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
Number NN O O
Register NN O O
ISRCTN14526380 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (25992523)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
bromazepam NN O I-INT
over NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
frontal NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
EEG NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
bromazepam NN O I-INT
while NN O I-PAR
executing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
intend NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
alpha NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
under NN O O
two NN O O
experimental NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
bromazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
included NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
theta NN O O
and NN O O
beta NN O O
frequencies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
electroencephalographic NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
execution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
Two NN O I-INT
Way NN O I-INT
ANOVA NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
investigate NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PL NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
Br6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
moment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pre NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
variables NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
electrodes NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Fp1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Fp2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
F7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
F3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Fz NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
F4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
F8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
C3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CZ NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
C4 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
condition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
electrodes NN O O
FP1 NN O O
, NN O O
F7 NN O O
, NN O O
F3 NN O O
, NN O O
Fz NN O O
, NN O O
F4 NN O O
, NN O O
C3 NN O O
and NN O O
CZ NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
alpha NN O O
and NN O O
beta NN O O
bands NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
beta NN O O
band NN O O
we NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
condition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
electrodes NN O O
Fp2 NN O O
, NN O O
F8 NN O O
and NN O O
C4 NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
theta NN O O
band NN O O
we NN O O
identified NN O O
a NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
condition NN O O
on NN O O
C3 NN O O
, NN O O
Cz NN O O
and NN O O
C4 NN O O
electrodes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O O
task NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
electrocortical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
alpha NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
existing NN O O
modifications NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
due NN O O
merely NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
its NN O O
anxiolytic NN O O
and NN O O
sedative NN O O
action NN O O
, NN O O
bromazepam NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
when NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
executed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
finger NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
task NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26002536)

A NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Teaching NN O O
Modalities NN O O
and NN O O
Fidelity NN O O
of NN O O
Simulation NN O O
Levels NN O O
in NN O O
Teaching NN O O
Resuscitation NN O O
Scenarios NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
novices NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
learn NN O O
selected NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
Advanced NN O O
Cardiac NN O O
Life NN O O
Support NN O O
( NN O O
ACLS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
training NN O O
conditions NN O O
that NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
incorporate NN O O
simulation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
contained NN O O
low- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-fidelity NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
activities NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
at NN O O
what NN O O
level NN O O
additional NN O O
educational NN O O
opportunities NN O O
and NN O O
simulation NN O O
fidelity NN O O
become NN O O
superfluous NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
learning NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physician NN O I-PAR
assistant NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lecture NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
video-based NN O I-INT
didactic NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-fidelity NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
written NN O O
pretest NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ACLS NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Following NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lecture NN O I-INT
outlining NN O I-INT
ACLS NN O I-INT
science NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
algorithm NN O I-INT
interpretation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Participants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
aspects NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ACLS NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
instructional NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
participant NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
Megacode NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
written NN O I-OUT
posttest NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
groups NN O O
performed NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
written NN O O
posttest NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pretest NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
groups NN O O
outperformed NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
Megacode NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
video-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low- NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-fidelity NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.028 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.019 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Equivalence NN O O
testing NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
high-fidelity NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
video-based NN O I-INT
and NN O O
low-fidelity NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Video-based NN O I-INT
and NN O O
simulation-based NN O I-INT
training NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
learning NN O O
outcomes NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
traditional NN O O
didactic NN O O
lectures NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Video-based NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-fidelity NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high-fidelity NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
yield NN O O
equivalent NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
high-fidelity NN O O
simulation NN O O
is NN O O
superfluous NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
novice NN O I-PAR
trainee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26016867)

Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-INT
blend NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
krill NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
salmon NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
metabolic NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
overweight NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Krill NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
increasingly NN O O
popular NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
marine NN O O
n-3 NN O O
( NN O O
?-3 NN O O
) NN O O
PUFA NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
seen NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
premium NN O O
product 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
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O I-INT
krill-oil NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
whether NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
blend NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
krill NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
salmon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
KS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
EPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
docosahexaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
( NN O O
DHA NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
affects NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
47 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
46.5 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
5.1 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
in 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
from NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
otherwise NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
1-g NN O O
capsules NN O O
of NN O O
KS NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
canola NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O O
wk NN O O
and NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
8-wk NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Matsuda NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
oral-glucose-tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carotid NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
intimamedia NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Unexpectedly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Matsuda NN O O
index NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
KS NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
oil NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
mediation NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
likely NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
i.e. NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
index NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
KS-oil NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
more NN O O
marked NN O O
[ NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
oil NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Supplementation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
blend NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
KS NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
krill-oil NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
overweight NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
exacerbate NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
prospectively NN O O
registered NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Australian NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
as NN O O
ACTRN12611000602921 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26035186)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
conducted NN O O
August NN O O
2010-May NN O O
2012 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
direct NN O O
modulation NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5-HT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin NN O I-OUT
transporter NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHOD NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MDD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV-TR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Montgomery-Asberg NN O I-PAR
Depression NN O I-PAR
Rating NN O I-PAR
Scale NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MADRS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1:1:1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
or NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
MADRS NN O I-OUT
analyzed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
mixed NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
suicidal NN O I-OUT
ideation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Columbia-Suicide NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
C-SSRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sexual NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Arizona NN O I-OUT
Sexual NN O I-OUT
Experience NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ASEX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
1,111 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
469 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
157 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
152 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Differences NN O O
from NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O I-INT
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
or NN O O
vortioxetine NN O O
15 NN O O
mg. NN O I-OUT
Nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dry NN O I-OUT
mouth NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flatulence NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
vortioxetine NN O O
. NN O O

Discontinuation NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
7 NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
4.4 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 I-INT
, NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

ASEX NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
trends NN O O
within NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
C-SSRS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vortioxetine NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
MADRS NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
MDD NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT01179516 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26036434)

Melatonin NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
neck NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
osteopenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Melatonin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
known NN O O
for NN O O
its NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
circadian NN O O
rhythm NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
skeleton NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
increasing NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
melatonin NN O O
levels NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
imbalanced NN O O
bone NN O O
remodeling NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
could NN O O
improve NN O O
bone NN O O
mass NN O O
and NN O O
integrity NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
RCT NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
randomized NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteopenic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1-yr NN O I-PAR
nightly NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
melatonin NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1-yr NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
( NN O O
BMD NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
dual NN O I-INT
X-ray NN O I-INT
absorptiometry NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
quantitative NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
QCT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-resolution NN O I-INT
peripheral NN O I-INT
QCT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HR-pQCT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
determined NN O O
calciotropic NN O O
hormones NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
markers NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
56-73 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
melatonin 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
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.55 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
melatonin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
trabecular NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tibia NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
volumetric NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vBMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
other NN O O
sites NN O O
or NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
24-hr NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
by NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
1-yr NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
high-dose NN O O
melatonin NN O O
increased NN O O
vBMD NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
nighttime NN O O
melatonin NN O I-INT
will NN O O
protect NN O O
against NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26036646)

Managing NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviours NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
parent NN O I-PAR
group NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
intervention NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
tends NN O O
to NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
enhancing NN O O
social-communication NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
acceptability NN O O
, NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
child NN O O
functioning NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
parent-group NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
manage NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
behaviours NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
RRB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
3-7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
RCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
four NN O O
occasions NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
capture NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
independent NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent-reported NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
RRB NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-OUT
pilot NN O O
established NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
willing NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
format NN O O
and NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fidelity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
90 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
fully NN O O
powered NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
planned NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26037035)

Intradermal NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
achieves NN O O
faster NN O O
insulin NN O O
action NN O O
than NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
3-day NN O O
wear NN O O
. NN O O

Rapid NN O O
uptake NN O O
previously NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
intradermal NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
indicates NN O O
compound NN O O
delivery NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
dermis NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
advantages NN O O
for NN O O
certain NN O O
drug NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
microneedle-based NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
, NN O O
device NN O O
wearability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intradermal NN O O
microneedle NN O O
insulin NN O O
kinetics NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
multi-day NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
wear NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
two-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
T1DM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSII NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
interventional NN O O
visits NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O I-INT
ID NN O I-INT
basal/bolus NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
aspart NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NovoRapid? NN O I-INT
U-100 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
over NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
exposed NN O O
to NN O O
trial NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Bolus NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
standardized NN O O
breakfast NN O O
and NN O O
lunch NN O O
test NN O O
meals NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
at NN O O
predefined NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
for NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
aspart NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
ID NN O O
bolus NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O I-OUT
intra-subject NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
SC NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
PK NN O I-OUT
endpoints NN O I-OUT
corresponded NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
findings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Postprandial NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
pronounced NN O O
after NN O O
ID NN O O
bolus NN O O
: NN O O
For NN O O
most NN O O
endpoints NN O O
ID NN O O
vs. NN O O
SC NN O O
, NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
0-1.5 NN O O
or NN O O
0-2 NN O O
h NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Intradermal NN O O
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
is NN O I-INT
a NN O O
viable NN O O
delivery NN O O
route NN O O
alternative NN O O
providing NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
intra-subject NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
glycemic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26037484)

The NN O O
Beyond NN O O
Ageing NN O O
Project NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
selective NN O O
prevention NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sertraline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Late-life NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
caregiver NN O I-OUT
burden NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
approaches NN O O
are NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
prevention NN O O
or NN O O
early NN O O
intervention NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ideal NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
depressive NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
populations NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
sub-threshold NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
screened NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-centre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
parallel NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
involving NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sertraline NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
current NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
suicide NN O I-PAR
ideation NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
antidepressants NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
supplement NN O I-PAR
containing NN O I-PAR
omega-3 NN O I-PAR
fatty NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
cerebrovascular NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
neurological NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
neurodegenerative NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
outcome NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
will NN O I-INT
undergo NN O I-INT
structural NN O I-OUT
neuroimaging NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-INT
assess NN O I-INT
whether NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
depressive NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
correlate NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
proton NN O I-OUT
spectroscopy NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
capture NN O O
brain-imaging NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
urban NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Wales NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
will NN O O
recruit NN O O
a NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
450 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
depression NN O O
scores NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
omega-3 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
sertraline NN O O
interventions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
The NN O O
current NN O O
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
late-life NN O O
depression NN O O
make NN O O
prevention NN O O
imperative NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
perspective NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
innovative NN O O
trial NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
long-neglected NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
targeted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pathophysiology NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
offer NN O O
major NN O O
scientific NN O O
advances NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
neurobiological NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
available NN O O
in NN O O
2017 NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Australian NN O O
and NN O O
New NN O O
Zealand NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
ACTRN12610000032055 NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
January NN O O
2010 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26040302)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
added NN O O
on NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
insulin NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
78-week NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
insulin-treated NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
diabetes NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
glycated NN O I-PAR
haemoglobin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HbA1c NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
?10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
?86 NN O I-PAR
mmol/mol NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
basal NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
glargine NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
detemir NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
NPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
169 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
155 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
170 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
[ NN O O
mean NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
BMI NN O O
32.2 NN O O
kg/m NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
basal NN O O
insulin NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
remain NN O O
constant NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
adjusted NN O O
at NN O O
investigator NN O O
's NN O O
discretion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O O
. NN O O

Key NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
week NN O O
78 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
week NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O O
mean NN O O
? NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
HbA1c NN O O
were NN O O
0.0 NN O O
? NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-6.2 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-0.7 NN O O
? NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
-7.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mmol/mol NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
empagliflozin NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
week NN O O
78 NN O O
, NN O O
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
HbA1c NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
dose NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
all NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
vs NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
confirmed NN O O
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
35-36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Events NN O O
consistent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
empagliflozin NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
events NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
genital NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Empagliflozin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
78 NN O O
weeks NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
basal NN O O
insulin NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoglycaemia NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (26046796)

Erlotinib NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
erlotinib NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
epidermal NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor NN O O
( NN O O
EGFR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
KRAS NN O O
mutations NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-eight NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-na?ve NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
EGFR NN O O
and NN O O
KRAS NN O O
mutations NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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 I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
25 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
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
3.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.4 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
7.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.4 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
33 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
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
5.9 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.4 NN O O
months 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 I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
8.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
6.0 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
KRAS NN O O
mutation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
or NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Gemcitabine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
erlotinib NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O I-INT
gemcitabine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EGFR NN O I-PAR
mutations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01608841 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26052790)

Environmental NN O I-INT
enrichment NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
replication NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
work NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
autism-like NN O O
symptoms NN O O
are NN O O
ameliorated NN O O
following NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
enriched NN O I-INT
sensorimotor NN O I-INT
environment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
sensorimotor NN O I-INT
enrichment NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
improvements NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
ability NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
Woo NN O O
& NN O O
Leon NN O O
, NN O O
2013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
now NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
sensorimotor NN O I-INT
enrichment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
parents NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
enriched NN O O
children NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
atypical NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
receptive NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
enrichment NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
initially NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
an NN O O
autism NN O O
classification NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Observation NN O O
Schedule NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
they NN O O
remained NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
classic NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
controls NN O O
reached NN O O
an NN O O
equivalent NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
subset NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O O
stimuli NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
complement NN O O
of NN O O
enrichment NN O O
exercises NN O O
. NN O O

Sensorimotor NN O O
enrichment NN O O
therapy NN O O
therefore NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O I-OUT
means NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26053242)

Assessment NN O O
from NN O O
Functional NN O O
Perspectives NN O O
: NN O O
Using NN O O
Sensorimotor NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Hand NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
Outcome NN O O
Indicator NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Carpal NN O I-PAR
Tunnel NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
sensorimotor NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
hand NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
indicator NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
carpal NN O O
tunnel NN O O
release NN O O
( NN O O
CTR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
work NN O O
examined NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
manual NN O I-INT
tactile NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MTT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pinch-holding-up NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PHUA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
two-point NN O I-INT
discrimination NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2PD NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Semmes-Weinstein NN O I-INT
monofilament NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SWM NN O O
) NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
included NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
sensory NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
CTS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
conduction NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
MTT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
precision NN O I-OUT
pinch NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PHUA NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
traditional NN O I-OUT
sensibility NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2PD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SWM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
different NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time-points NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
post-operation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
2PD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
SWM NN O I-INT
tests 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
sensorimotor NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
detected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
MTT NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PHUA NN O I-INT
test NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
CTR NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SWM NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MTT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PHUA NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
> NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
two-point NN O O
discrimination NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
< NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
pinch NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
saw NN O O
a NN O O
decline NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
effect NN O O
sizes NN O O
( NN O O
effect NN O O
size NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
MTT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
PHUA NN O I-INT
test NN O O
can NN O O
both NN O O
meet NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O O
criteria NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
assessing NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CTS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
work NN O O
provide NN O O
clinicians NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
sensorimotor NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
hands NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
MTT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PHUA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
are NN O O
responsive NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
changes NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
CTR NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26054177)

Placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
high-adhesion NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strips NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
three-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
parallel-design NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
9.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
balancing NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
tooth NN O O
color NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Strips NN O O
were NN O O
worn NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
maxillary NN O O
arch NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
objectively NN O O
as NN O O
L*a*b* NN O O
color NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
digital NN O O
images NN O O
at NN O O
Days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
As NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
Day NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
subsequent NN O O
visits NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
strip NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
color NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
b* NN O O
and NN O O
L* NN O O
color NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
color NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
continuing NN O O
peroxide NN O O
strip NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
Ab* NN O O
were NN O O
-0.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.16 NN O O
, NN O O
-0.8 NN O O
? NN O O
0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
-1.6 NN O O
? NN O O
0.19 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
? NN O O
0.20 NN O O
at NN O O
Days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
21 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Similar NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
for NN O O
AL* NN O O
. NN O O

Minor NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
strip NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
subjects NN O O
discontinued NN O O
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
9.5 NN O O
% NN O O
hydrogen NN O I-INT
peroxide NN O I-INT
strip NN O I-INT
yielded NN O I-INT
significant NN O O
tooth NN O O
whitening NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
strip NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
product NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26058489)

Pulsed NN O I-INT
electromagnetic NN O I-INT
fields NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
osteoporosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
southwest NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
proximal NN O I-OUT
femur NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Osteoporosis NN O O
( NN O O
OP NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
osteoarthritis NN O O
( NN O O
OA NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
prevalent NN O O
skeletal NN O O
disorders NN O O
among NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Coexistence NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
especially NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
osteoporosis NN O O
( NN O O
PMO NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O O
OA NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
raised NN O O
that NN O O
OP NN O O
and NN O O
OA NN O O
might NN O O
share NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
mechanism NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
electromagnetic NN O I-INT
fields NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEMFs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
anti-osteoporosis NN O O
and NN O O
anti-osteoarthritis NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
suggestion NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
primarily NN O O
on NN O O
biomarker NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
effects NN O O
could NN O O
take NN O O
place NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

This 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
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
PEMFs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
PMO NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
lumbar NN O O
OA NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
PMO NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
OP NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
T-score NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
concomitant NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
OA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
confounding NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
like NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hyperlipidemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
etcetera NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
PEMFs NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
PEMFs NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessment NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
femur NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
enrollment NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
PMO NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O O
OA NN O O
are NN O O
prominent NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
problem NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
hope NN O O
this NN O O
RCT NN O O
will NN O O
provide NN O O
scientific NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
postmenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
nonpharmaceutical NN O O
, NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
modalities NN O O
, NN O O
PEMFs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
PMO NN O O
and NN O O
lumbar NN O O
OA NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Chinese NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trial NN O O
Registry NN O O
: NN O O
ChiCTR-TRC-14005156 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
August NN O O
2014 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26068086)

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
Patient-Reported NN O I-PAR
Visual NN O I-PAR
Function NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
Ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
Vitreomacular NN O I-PAR
Adhesion NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Microplasmin NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Intravitreous NN O I-INT
Injection-Traction NN O I-INT
Release NN O O
Without NN O O
Surgical NN O O
Treatment NN O O
( NN O O
MIVI-TRUST NN O O
) NN O O
Trials NN O O
. NN O O

IMPORTANCE NN O O
The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
vitreomacular NN O I-INT
adhesion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resolution NN O O
on NN O O
patient-reported NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
VMA/vitreomacular NN O I-PAR
traction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VMT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
documented NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
intravitreal NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
25-item NN O O
National NN O O
Eye NN O O
Institute NN O O
Visual NN O O
Function NN O O
Questionnaire NN O O
( NN O I-INT
NEI NN O I-INT
VFQ-25 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
VMA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Two NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
masked NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
studies NN O O
TG-MV-006 NN O O
[ NN O O
between NN O O
December NN O O
2008 NN O O
and NN O O
April NN O O
2010 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
TG-MV-007 NN O O
[ NN O O
between NN O O
December NN O O
2008 NN O O
and NN O O
July NN O O
2010 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
clinic-based NN O O
centers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
United NN O O
States NN O O
and NN O O
Europe NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
652 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
VMA/VMT NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
hole NN O I-PAR
400 NN O I-PAR
?m NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
smaller NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
population NN O O
and NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
May NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
VMA/VMT NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
( NN O O
2:1 NN O O
or NN O O
3:1 NN O O
in NN O O
study NN O O
TG-MV-006 NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
TG-MV-007 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intravitreal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
125 NN O O
?g NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo-injected NN O I-INT
vehicle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
NEI NN O I-INT
VFQ-25 NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOMES NN O O
AND NN O O
MEASURES NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
6-month NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
NEI NN O I-OUT
VFQ-25 NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
?5 NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Across NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
studies NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
464 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
188 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ocriplasmin NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
NEI NN O I-OUT
VFQ-25 NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
3.4 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.7 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Improvements NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
respective NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
: NN O O
vision-related NN O O
dependency NN O O
, NN O O
1.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
-2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
driving NN O O
difficulty NN O O
, NN O O
2.7 NN O O
vs NN O O
-1.5 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
distance NN O O
vision NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
4.1 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.8 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
general NN O O
vision NN O O
, NN O O
6.1 NN O O
vs NN O O
2.1 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
( NN O O
?5-point NN O O
) NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
NEI NN O I-OUT
VFQ-25 NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
36.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
27.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
worsening NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
24.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NEI NN O I-OUT
VFQ-25 NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
ocriplasmin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
VMA NN O O
resolution NN O O
at NN O O
day NN O O
28 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AND NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Ocriplasmin NN O I-INT
produces NN O I-INT
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
patient-reported NN O O
visual NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
VMA/VMT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
Identifiers NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00781859 NN O O
and NN O O
NCT00798317 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26068449)

Self-management NN O O
education NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SMILE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
statistical NN O O
, NN O O
economic NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
educational NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
people NN O O
with NN O O
poorly NN O O
controlled NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SMILE NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
self-management NN O I-PAR
education NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
evaluates NN O O
a NN O O
complex NN O O
service NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
involves NN O O
a NN O O
2-day NN O O
self-management NN O O
course NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O O
, NN O O
economic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
analysis NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
SMILE NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pragmatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two-arm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
superiority NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-INT
group-based NN O I-INT
interactive NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
summary NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
objectives NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
summarised NN O O
and NN O O
inferentially NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
includes NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
modelling NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
employed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
methods NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
assumptions NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
models NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
checked NN O O
. NN O O

Strategies NN O O
are NN O O
described NN O O
for NN O O
handling NN O O
clustering NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
missing NN O O
observations NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
non-compliance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
update NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
trial NN O O
protocol NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
analysis NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
transparent NN O O
and NN O O
specified NN O O
before NN O O
any NN O O
outcome NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
also NN O O
provides NN O O
guidance NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
planning NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN57937389 NN O O
; NN O O
date NN O O
assigned NN O O
: NN O O
27 NN O O
March NN O O
2013 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26078323)

A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O I-INT
Trial NN O O
Evaluating NN O O
Safety NN O O
and NN O O
Immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Killed NN O O
, NN O O
Bivalent NN O O
, NN O O
Whole-Cell NN O I-INT
Oral NN O I-INT
Cholera NN O I-INT
Vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Ethiopia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Killed NN O I-INT
whole-cell NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
cholera NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OCV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
key NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
package NN O O
including NN O O
water NN O O
and NN O O
sanitation NN O O
measures NN O O
for NN O O
recent NN O O
cholera NN O O
epidemics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
two-dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
India NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
where NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Ethiopia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
where NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
216 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OCV NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
elicited NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
robust NN O I-OUT
immunological NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
Vibrio NN O I-OUT
cholerae NN O I-OUT
O1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
children NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
14 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine 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
evaluate NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
outside NN O I-PAR
Asia NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2607948)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
hydraulic NN O O
circuit NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hydraulic NN O O
circuit NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
HCT NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
42.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2.1 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Maximal NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2max NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
simultaneous NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
cardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
post-training NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
nonexercising NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
HCT NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Training NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
participated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
d.wk-1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
HCT NN O I-INT
exercised NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
station NN O I-INT
circuit NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
completing NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
circuits.d-1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
circuit NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
work NN O O
intervals NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
station NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
work NN O O
: NN O O
rest NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
HCT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HCTmax NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
repetitions NN O O
possible NN O O
( NN O O
RM NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
work NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
HCT NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
HCTsub NN O O
) NN O O
exercised NN O O
at NN O O
70-85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
RM NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
training NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ml.kg-1 NN O I-OUT
min-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
18.0 NN O O
, NN O O
12.5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
HCTsub NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HCTmax NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cycle NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
recorded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
HCT NN O O
groups 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

For NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
training NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
VO2max NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
SVmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
COmax NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
maximal NN O O
and NN O O
submaximal NN O O
HCT NN O O
programs NN O O
can NN O O
elicit NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26082615)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
inadequately NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
fimasartan NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
reported NN O O
here NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
-lowering NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
fimasartan NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
goal NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
once-daily NN O I-PAR
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-PAR
mg. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sitting NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
siDBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
?90 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
once-daily NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/HCTZ NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/HCTZ NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
to NN O O
fimasartan NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg/HCTZ NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
or NN O O
from NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
to NN O O
fimasartan NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
if NN O O
siDBP NN O O
was NN O O
?90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
263 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
256 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
analyzed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
fimasartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
siDBP NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
fimasartan NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
6.88?8.10 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs NN O O
3.38?7.33 NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0008 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
persisted NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
8.67?9.39 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs NN O O
5.02?8.27 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0023 NN O O
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fimasartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
10.50?13.76 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs NN O O
5.75?12.18 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0069 NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
Week NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
13.45?15.15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
vs NN O O
6.84?13.57 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
siDBP NN O I-OUT
?10 NN O I-OUT
mmHg NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
and/or NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
siDBP NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
90 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fimasartan/HCTZ NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
53.6 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
39.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.0359 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11.79 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-INT
better NN O O
BP NN O O
control NN O O
than NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
had NN O O
comparable NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerance NN O O
to NN O I-INT
fimasartan NN O I-INT
monotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (26121801)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Preoperative NN O I-INT
Oral NN O I-INT
Rehydration NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Onset NN O O
Time NN O O
and NN O O
Recovery NN O O
Time NN O O
of NN O O
Rocuronium NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
rehydration NN O I-OUT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ORS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
hypovolemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intubating NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-OUT
ORS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
and 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
drinking NN O O
1,500 NN O O
ml NN O O
ORS NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
( NN O I-INT
ORS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nothing NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
mouth NN O I-INT
from NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
remifentanil NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administrated NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O O
, NN O O
acceleromyography NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
adductor NN O O
pollicis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
0.1 NN O O
Hz NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
FloTra/Vigileo NN O O
, NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
twitch NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
twitch NN O I-OUT
re-detection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
SVV NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
ORS NN O I-OUT
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
and NN O O
CI NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
ORS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
TR NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
OT NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
prolonged NN O O
( NN O O
99.0 NN O O
? NN O O
36.3 NN O O
s NN O O
vs. NN O O
84.0 NN O O
? NN O O
37.5 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
rehydration NN O O
possibly NN O O
increases NN O O
circulating NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
shortens NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26122384)

Risk NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
cruciate NN O I-PAR
ligament NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
increased NN O O
by NN O O
limited NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
during NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
repeated NN O O
pivot NN O O
landings NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
reduced NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
hip NN O O
internal NN O O
rotation NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
peak NN O O
anterior NN O O
cruciate NN O O
ligament NN O O
( NN O O
ACL NN O O
) NN O O
strain NN O O
and NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
limiting NN O O
the NN O O
available NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ACL NN O O
to NN O O
fatigue NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

HYPOTHESIS NN O O
Risk NN O O
of NN O O
ACL NN O O
failure NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
, NN O O
smaller NN O O
femoral-ACL NN O O
attachment NN O O
angle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
smaller NN O O
tibial NN O O
eminence NN O O
volume NN O O
during NN O O
repeated NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
simulated NN O O
single-leg NN O O
pivot NN O O
landings NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Controlled NN O O
laboratory NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-INT
custom-built NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
apparatus NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
simulate NN O O
repeated NN O I-INT
single-leg NN O I-INT
pivot NN O I-INT
landings NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4?-body NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
impulsive NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
induces NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
knee NN O I-INT
flexion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
tibial NN O I-INT
torque NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
paired NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
specimens NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
donors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
test NN O O
loads NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
pair NN O O
of NN O O
specimens NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
knee NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
contralateral NN O O
knee NN O O
with NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
resisted NN O O
by NN O O
2 NN O O
springs NN O O
to NN O O
simulate NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
hip NN O O
rotator NN O O
muscles NN O O
' NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
stretch NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
landings NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
until NN O O
ACL NN O O
failure NN O O
occurred NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
executed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
angle NN O O
at NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
ACL NN O O
originates NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
femur NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
tibial NN O O
eminence NN O O
volume NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
images NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
final NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.024 NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
internal NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
rotation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
donor NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
determining NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
ACL NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
specimens NN O O
with NN O O
limited NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
17.1 NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
specimens NN O O
with NN O O
free NN O O
rotation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
female NN O O
knee NN O O
specimens NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ACL NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
26.9 NN O O
times NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
male NN O O
specimens NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.055 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Limiting NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
internal NN O O
femoral NN O O
rotation NN O O
during NN O O
repetitive NN O O
pivot NN O O
landings NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
ACL NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
failure NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
free NN O O
rotation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
cadaveric NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
Screening NN O O
for NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ACL NN O O
injury NN O O
prevention NN O O
programs NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
ACL NN O O
injuries NN O O
and/or NN O O
reconstructions NN O O
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26122982)

Expanding NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
perinatal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
EXPONATE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
package NN O O
for NN O O
perinatal NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Depression NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O O
during NN O O
perinatal NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
adverse NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
mother NN O O
and NN O O
infant NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Nigeria NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
other NN O O
low- NN O O
and-middle-income NN O O
countries NN O O
( NN O O
LMIC NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
perinatal NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
usually NN O O
goes NN O O
unrecognized NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
EXPONATE NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
package NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O O
midwives NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
maternal NN O O
care NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
physician NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
enhanced NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
are NN O O
implemented NN O O
using NN O O
mobile NN O O
phones NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
two-arm NN O O
parallel NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
allocation NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
maternal NN O O
care NN O O
clinics NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
consenting NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
logistics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
eventually NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consenting NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Edinburgh NN O I-OUT
Postnatal NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
EPDS NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
absent NN O I-OUT
psychosis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bipolar NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
actively NN O I-OUT
suicidal NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
686 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Midwives NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
deliver NN O I-INT
psychoeducation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
problem NN O I-INT
solving NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parenting NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eight NN O O
weekly NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
following NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
sessions NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
following NN O O
childbirth NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
supervision NN O O
, NN O O
delivered NN O O
mainly NN O O
by NN O O
mobile NN O O
phone NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
general NN O O
physicians NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatrists NN O O
. NN O O

Automated NN O O
text NN O O
and NN O O
voice NN O O
messages NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
mobile NN O O
phones NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
clinic NN O O
appointments NN O O
and NN O O
'homework NN O O
' NN O O
tasks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
providers NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
depression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O O
are NN O O
undertaken NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
recruitment NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and 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
after NN O O
childbirth NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPDS NN O O
< NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
include NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parenting NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
comprehensively NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Bayley NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
To NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
package NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O O
midwives NN O O
in NN O O
sub-Saharan NN O O
Africa NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Trial NN O O
is NN O O
registered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ISRTCN NN O O
registry NN O O
at NN O O
isrtcn.com NN O O
; NN O O
Trial NN O O
number NN O O
ISRCTN60041127 NN O O
. NN O O

Date NN O O
of NN O O
registration NN O O
is NN O O
15/05/2013 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26129831)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
video NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
Mindlight NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
anxiety NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
impairment NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
that NN O O
effective NN O O
anxiety NN O O
interventions NN O O
are NN O O
implemented NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Recently NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
game NN O I-INT
called NN O I-INT
Mindlight NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
approach NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
recent NN O O
research NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
video NN O I-INT
games NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
suitable NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
vehicle NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
it NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
Mindlight NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
( NN O O
sub NN O O
) NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
involves 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
two NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O O
experimental NN O O
versus NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
Mindlight NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
( NN O O
sub NN O O
) NN O O
clinical NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sub NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
will NN O O
play NN O I-INT
Mindlight NN O I-INT
for NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
will NN O O
play NN O O
the NN O O
puzzle NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
Triple NN O I-INT
Town NN O I-INT
, NN O O
also NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
children NN O O
will NN O O
complete NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
post-intervention NN O O
and NN O O
3-months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
teachers NN O O
will NN O O
also NN O O
complete NN O O
assessments NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
child/parent NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parent/teacher NN O I-OUT
report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DISCUSSION NN O O
This NN O O
paper NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serious NN O O
game NN O O
Mindlight NN O O
on NN O O
( NN O O
sub NN O O
) NN O O
clinical NN O O
anxiety NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ASD NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8-16 NN O I-OUT
years NN O I-OUT
old NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
will NN O O
show NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3-months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
Mindlight NN O I-INT
turns NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
contribution NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
already NN O O
existing NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

Mindlight NN O I-INT
could NN O O
then NN O O
be NN O O
implemented NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
evidence-based NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
mental NN O O
health NN O O
institutes NN O O
and NN O O
special NN O O
education NN O O
schools NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR5069 NN O O
. NN O O

Registered NN O O
20 NN O O
April NN O O
2015 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26135372)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Combined NN O I-INT
Resistive NN O I-INT
Underwater NN O I-INT
Exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Interferential NN O I-INT
Current NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Juvenile NN O I-PAR
Idiopathic NN O I-PAR
Arthritis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O I-PAR
Controlled NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
verify NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
resistive NN O I-INT
underwater NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interferential NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
peak NN O O
torque NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quadriceps NN O O
and NN O O
hamstrings NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polyarticular NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
distributed 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
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
resistive NN O I-INT
underwater NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interferential NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Peak NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hamstrings NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
mo NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
mos NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
HUMAC NN O O
NORM NN O O
, NN O O
CSMI NN O O
Testing NN O O
and NN O O
Rehabilitation NN O O
Isokinetic NN O O
System NN O O
and NN O O
visual NN O O
analog NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
mo NN O O
except NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
torque NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
mos 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
all NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
mos 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
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
mos NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
resistive NN O I-INT
underwater NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
interferential NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potentially NN O O
valuable NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26138912)

Predicting NN O O
Overall NN O I-OUT
Survival NN O I-OUT
After NN O I-OUT
Stereotactic NN O I-OUT
Ablative NN O I-OUT
Radiation NN O I-OUT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Early-Stage NN O O
Lung NN O O
Cancer NN O O
: NN O O
Development NN O O
and NN O O
External NN O O
Validation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Amsterdam NN O O
Prognostic NN O O
Model NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
prognostic NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
5-year NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
recursive NN O O
partitioning NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
RPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nomogram NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ES-NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stereotactic NN O I-INT
ablative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SABR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
dataset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
703 NN O I-PAR
ES-NSCLC NN O I-PAR
SABR NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
training NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
internal NN O O
validation NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
dataset NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
unique NN O O
parameters NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
an NN O O
RPA NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
OS NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O O
and NN O O
multivariate NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
constructed NN O O
for NN O O
RPA-selected NN O O
factors NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
their NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
OS NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
nomogram NN O O
for NN O O
OS NN O O
was NN O O
constructed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
factors NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
multivariate NN O O
modeling NN O O
and NN O O
validated NN O O
with NN O O
calibration NN O O
plots NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
RPA NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
nomogram NN O O
were NN O O
externally NN O O
validated NN O O
in NN O O
independent NN O O
surgical NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
193 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
SABR NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
543 NN O O
) NN O O
datasets NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
RPA NN O I-OUT
identified NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
distinct NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
based NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
World NN O I-OUT
Health NN O I-OUT
Organization NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Charlson NN O I-OUT
comorbidity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
RPA NN O O
had NN O O
moderate NN O O
discrimination NN O O
in NN O O
SABR NN O O
datasets NN O O
( NN O O
c-index NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
0.52-0.60 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
limited NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
validation NN O O
cohort NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nomogram NN O O
predicting NN O O
OS NN O O
included NN O O
smoking NN O O
history NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
RPA-identified NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
RPA NN O O
, NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nomogram NN O O
performed NN O O
well NN O O
in NN O O
internal NN O O
validation NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
external NN O O
SABR NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
surgical NN O O
cohorts NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
Amsterdam NN O I-OUT
prognostic NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
externally NN O O
validated NN O O
prognostication NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
OS NN O O
in NN O O
ES-NSCLC NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
SABR NN O O
available NN O O
to NN O O
individualize NN O O
patient NN O O
decision NN O O
making NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nomogram NN O O
retained NN O O
strong NN O O
performance NN O O
across NN O O
surgical NN O O
and NN O O
SABR NN O O
external NN O O
validation NN O O
datasets NN O O
. NN O O

RPA NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
poor NN O O
in NN O O
surgical NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
2 NN O O
different NN O O
distinct NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
effective NN O O
modalities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26139208)

Disclosure NN O O
of NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
serological NN O O
test NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Kenya NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Herpes NN O O
simplex NN O O
virus NN O O
type NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
) NN O O
biomarkers NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
sub-Saharan NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
studies NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
evaluations NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
disclosure NN O O
outcomes NN O O
are NN O O
rare NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
published NN O O
literature NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
ELISA-positive NN O O
and NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
samples NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
western NN O I-INT
blot NN O I-INT
( NN O O
WB NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
disclosure NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O O
behaviour NN O O
and NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
symptoms NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
WB NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
results NN O O
among NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
orphans NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Kenya NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
2011 NN O O
, NN O O
837 NN O I-PAR
Kenyan NN O I-PAR
orphan NN O I-PAR
youth NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
grades NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HSV-2 NN O I-PAR
biomarker NN O I-PAR
outcomes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
modified NN O O
algorithm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Kalon NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
ELISA NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
specificity NN O O
; NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
WB NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
developed NN O O
culturally NN O O
sensitive NN O O
protocols NN O O
for NN O O
disclosing NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
documented NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O O
contact NN O O
and NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
seropositive NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
as NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
indeterminates NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
WB NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
confirmed NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
youth NN O O
reported NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
brief NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
disclosure NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
22 NN O O
% NN O O
reported NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Boys NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
category NN O O
. NN O O

Self-reported NN O I-OUT
virginity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
with NN O O
WB-confirmed NN O I-OUT
positives NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
manufacturer NN O O
's NN O O
cut-off NN O O
for NN O O
Kalon NN O O
ELISA NN O O
modestly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
false-positive NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O O
false NN O I-OUT
negatives NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Investigators NN O O
should NN O O
consider NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
: NN O O
benefit NN O O
ratio NN O O
in NN O O
deciding NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
disclose NN O O
HSV-2 NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
adolescent NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
specific NN O O
field NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
NCT01501864 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26148018)

Gluten NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
casein NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIM 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
is NN O O
often NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
spectrum NN O O
disorder NN O O
( NN O O
ASD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
gluten NN O O
and NN O O
casein NN O O
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
maladaptive NN O O
behaviour NN O O
, NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
intestinal NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
binding NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
I-FABP NN O O
) NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
maladaptive NN O I-PAR
behaviour NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
I-FABP NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
gluten-casein NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
I-FABP NN O O
excretion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
approach NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
problem NN O O
composite NN O O
subtest NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Pervasive NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
approach NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
composite NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
before NN O O
supplementation NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gluten-casein NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy 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
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
I-FABP NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Administrating NN O O
gluten-casein NN O I-INT
to NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
ASD NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
maladaptive NN O O
behaviour NN O O
, NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptom NN O O
severity NN O O
or NN O O
urinary NN O O
I-FABP NN O O
excretion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O O
administration NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
enterocyte NN O O
damage NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26153884)

Replacing NN O I-INT
Non-Active NN O I-INT
Video NN O I-INT
Gaming NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Active NN O I-INT
Video NN O I-INT
Gaming NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Prevent NN O O
Excessive NN O I-PAR
Weight NN O I-PAR
Gain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
and NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anthropometrics NN O O
, NN O O
sedentary NN O O
screen NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
sugar-sweetened NN O O
beverages NN O O
and NN O O
snacks NN O O
among NN O O
non-active NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
gaming NN O I-INT
adolescents NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
assigned NN O O
270 NN O I-PAR
gaming NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
i.e NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
hours/week NN O I-PAR
non-active NN O I-PAR
video NN O I-PAR
game NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
140 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
games NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
encouragement NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-PAR
waiting-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
130 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BMI-SDS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SDS NN O O
= NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
mean NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
score NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
waist NN O O
circumference-SDS NN O O
, NN O O
hip NN O O
circumference NN O O
and NN O O
sum NN O O
of NN O O
skinfolds NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
ten NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sedentary NN O O
screen NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
sugar-sweetened NN O O
beverages NN O O
and NN O O
snacks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
process NN O O
measures NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
with NN O O
self-reports NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
and NN O O
ten NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Multi-level-intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat-regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
BMI-SDS NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.074 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.008 NN O O
; NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
skinfolds NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
3.22 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.27 NN O O
; NN O O
6.17 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
overall NN O O
effects NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
had NN O I-INT
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-reported NN O I-OUT
non-active NN O I-OUT
video NN O I-OUT
game NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
-1.76 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-3.20 NN O O
; NN O I-OUT
-0.32 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sedentary NN O I-OUT
screen NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Exp NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
0.74 NN O O
; NN O O
0.88 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
effects NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
process NN O O
evaluation NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
played NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Move NN O O
video NN O O
games NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
? NN O O
1 NN O O
hour/week NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
result NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
values NN O O
on NN O O
anthropometrics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
'excessive NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
non-active NN O I-PAR
video NN O I-PAR
gamers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
~ NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
hours/week NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
primarily NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
throughout NN O O
a NN O O
ten-month-period NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
some NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
unexpected NN O O
direction NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
showing NN O I-INT
lower NN O O
BMI-SDS NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
folds NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
did NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
self-reported NN O O
sedentary NN O O
screen NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
biased NN O O
by NN O O
social NN O O
desirability NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
Dutch NN O O
Trial NN O O
Register NN O O
NTR3228 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26156941)

Physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
workplace NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
perceived NN O O
physical NN O O
exertion NN O O
during NN O O
healthcare NN O O
work NN O O
: NN O O
cluster NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
High NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exertion NN O I-INT
during NN O O
work NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
pain NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
sickness NN O O
absence NN O O
. NN O O

Physical NN O O
exertion NN O O
( NN O O
RPE NN O O
) NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
physical NN O O
work NN O O
demands NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
physical NN O O
capacity NN O O
through NN O O
physical NN O O
exercise NN O O
may NN O O
decrease NN O O
physical NN O O
exertion NN O O
during NN O O
work NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
workplace-based NN O O
versus NN O O
home-based NN O O
physical NN O O
exercise NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
exertion NN O O
during NN O O
work NN O O
( NN O O
WRPE NN O O
) NN O O
among NN O O
healthcare NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
42.0 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
24.1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
intensity NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3.1 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
average NN O I-PAR
WRPE NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
3.6 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
from NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
departments NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cluster NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
workplace NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WORK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5?10 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
group-based NN O I-INT
coaching NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
motivation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
regular NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HOME NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
leisure NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5?10 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
week NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
10-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
2.2 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.0 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
1.2 NN O O
) NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
in NN O O
WORK NN O O
and NN O O
HOME NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physical NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
WORK NN O O
than NN O O
HOME NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Between-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
exertion NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
WORK NN O O
vs. NN O O
HOME NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
-0.5 NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
-0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Within-group NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cohen NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
WORK NN O O
and NN O O
HOME NN O O
was NN O O
0.43 NN O O
and NN O O
0.13 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
Physical NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O O
the NN O O
workplace NN O O
appears NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O I-INT
home-based NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
reducing NN O O
physical NN O O
exertion NN O O
during NN O O
daily NN O O
work NN O O
tasks NN O O
in NN O O
healthcare NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26158622)

Optimal NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
no NN O O
suitable NN O O
routine NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
immunization NN O I-INT
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
China NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
establish NN O O
an NN O O
optimal NN O I-OUT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
schedule NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
various NN O O
schedules NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
5143 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
?g NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The 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 I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
mIU/mL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
mIU/mL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assayed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O I-PAR
2438 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
finished NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
full NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
seroconversion/sero-protective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
groups NN O O
A-C NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
vaccine NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
99.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
97.9 NN O O
% NN O O
verse NN O O
64.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
75.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
79.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
tested NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
to NN O O
C NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
12 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
vaccination NN O O
was NN O O
213.16 NN O O
, NN O O
432.58 NN O O
and NN O O
451.47 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
verse NN O O
22.07 NN O O
, NN O O
46.70 NN O O
and NN O O
56.18 NN O O
mIU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seroconversion/sero-protective NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Given NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
seroconversion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GMT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
flexible NN O I-INT
schedule NN O O
for NN O O
Hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
vaccine NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
0-1-12 NN O O
schedule NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
choice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26160997)

Transcranial NN O I-INT
Magnetic NN O I-INT
Stimulation NN O I-INT
to NN O O
Address NN O O
Mild NN O I-PAR
Cognitive NN O I-PAR
Impairment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Elderly NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

Transcranial NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
brain NN O O
stimulation NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
memory NN O O
. NN O O

Mild NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
still NN O O
lacks NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
syndrome NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
high-frequency NN O I-INT
repetitive NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
everyday NN O O
memory NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
randomized NN O O
sham-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
dorsolateral NN O O
prefrontal NN O O
cortex NN O O
( NN O O
DLPFC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
Petersen NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
TMS NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
rTMS NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
110 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
threshold NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2,000 NN O I-INT
pulses NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neuropsychological NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
last NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10th NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
one-month NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ANOVA NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Rivermead NN O I-OUT
Behavioural NN O I-OUT
Memory NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
group-by-time NN O O
interaction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
favoring NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
heterogeneous NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
rTMS NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
enhanced NN O I-OUT
everyday NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
elderly NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MCI NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
10 NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
rTMS NN O I-INT
might NN O I-INT
be NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
MCI NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
a NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
delay NN O O
deterioration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26166077)

1H NN O O
Magnetic NN O O
Resonance NN O O
Spectroscopy NN O O
Predicts NN O O
Hepatocellular NN O O
Carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Subset NN O O
of NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Liver NN O I-PAR
Cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
H NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
spectroscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H-MRS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

Magnetic NN O O
resonance NN O O
spectroscopy NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
probability NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
hepatocellular NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
( NN O O
HCC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B.This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
parenchyma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HCC NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-INT
MRI NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
H-MRS NN O I-INT
scanning NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LCModel NN O O
software NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O I-OUT
Cho NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Choline NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Lip NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cho/Lip NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
one-way NN O O
ANOVA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
metabolites NN O O
between NN O O
groups.Choline NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
HCC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
HCC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Lip NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
HCC NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Cho/Lip NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
HCC NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
and NN O O
HCC NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
.H-MRS NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
LCModel NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
liver NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
HCC NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
H-MRS NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
monitoring NN O O
HCC NN O O
and NN O O
liver NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26181707)

Brief NN O O
Report NN O O
: NN O O
Cobicistat NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
With NN O O
Ritonavir NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
Pharmacoenhancer NN O O
for NN O O
Atazanavir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Combination NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Emtricitabine/Tenofovir NN O I-INT
Disoproxil NN O I-INT
Fumarate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Week NN O O
144 NN O O
Results NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cobicistat NN O I-INT
( NN O O
COBI NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacoenhancer NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
International NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
active-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
COBI NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
ritonavir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
pharmacoenhancer NN O O
of NN O O
atazanavir NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
emtricitabine/tenofovir NN O I-INT
disoproxil NN O I-INT
fumarate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-PAR
treatment-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
followed NN O O
through NN O O
week NN O O
144 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
Week NN O O
144 NN O O
, NN O O
virologic NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
COBI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
RTV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
leading NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mg/dL NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
+0.13 NN O O
( NN O O
COBI NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
+0.07 NN O O
( NN O O
RTV NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
from NN O O
week NN O O
48 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Once-daily NN O O
COBI NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
pharmacoenhancer NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
protease NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
atazanavir NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26204331)

A NN O O
Double-Blind NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Olprinone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
Specific NN O I-INT
Phosphodiesterase NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
Inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
Preventing NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
Atrial NN O O
Fibrillation NN O O
in NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
Undergoing NN O I-PAR
Pulmonary NN O I-PAR
Resection NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
B-type NN O I-PAR
natriuretic NN O I-PAR
peptide NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BNP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
following NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
phosphodiesterase NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
olprinone NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
BNP NN O O
levels NN O O
undergoing NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
resection NN O O
for NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
BNP NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
pg/mL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Low-dose NN O I-INT
olprinone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
continuously NN O O
infused NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
started NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
counts 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 I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
olprinone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-INT
olprinone NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
BNP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
olprinone NN O O
during NN O O
lung NN O O
cancer NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O O
resection NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
preoperative NN O O
BNP NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRY NN O O
Japan NN O O
Primary NN O O
Registries NN O O
Network NN O O
; NN O O
No NN O O
. NN O O

: NN O O
JPRN-UMIN2404 NN O O
; NN O O
URL NN O O
: NN O O
http NN O O
: NN O O
//www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/ NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26205311)

Multiorgan NN O O
protection NN O O
of NN O O
remote NN O I-INT
ischemic NN O I-INT
perconditioning NN O I-INT
in NN O O
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Remote NN O I-INT
ischemic NN O I-INT
perconditioning NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIPerc NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
alternative NN O O
of NN O O
remote NN O O
ischemic NN O O
conditioning NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

RIPerc NN O O
attenuates NN O O
myocardial NN O O
injury NN O O
when NN O O
applied NN O O
during NN O O
cardiac NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
protective NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
other NN O O
organs NN O O
remain NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
RIPerc NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
101 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RIPerc NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
5-min NN O O
ischemia-5-min NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
thigh NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lungs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidneys NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
one-way NN O O
or NN O O
repeated NN O O
measurement NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
RIPerc NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
troponin NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
128.68 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
102.56 NN O O
versus NN O O
172.33 NN O O
? NN O O
184.38 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inotropic NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
96.4 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
73.8 NN O O
versus NN O O
121.5 NN O O
? NN O O
89.6 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
; NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
458.2 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
264.2 NN O I-OUT
versus NN O O
545.1 NN O O
? NN O O
349.0 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
36.6 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
51 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
hyperbilirubinemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
attenuated NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
biomarkers NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O I-INT
RIPerc NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
valve NN O O
replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
induced NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attenuated NN O I-OUT
hyperbilirubinemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26208985)

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
risperidone NN O O
: NN O O
Effects NN O O
on NN O O
aberrant NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritability NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
genders NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
AD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
?12 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Aberrant NN O I-PAR
Behavior NN O I-PAR
Checklist-Community NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ABC-C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
irritability NN O I-PAR
subscale NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ABC-C NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
ABC-C NN O O
subscale NN O O
scores NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
and NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Level NN O O
of NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
time?treatment NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
irritability NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lethargy/social NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.04 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
and NN O O
hyperactivity/non-compliance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P=0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
stereotypic NN O O
behavior NN O O
and NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
speech NN O O
subscales NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
reported NN O O
side-effects NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
preliminary NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pioglitazone NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AD NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26209587)

Fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
AR-13324 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
latanoprost NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
28-day NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
open-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
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIMS NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
ocular NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Rho NN O I-INT
kinase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
norepinephrine NN O I-INT
transport NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
AR-13324 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PG324 NN O O
Ophthalmic NN O O
Solution NN O O
) NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
components NN O O
AR-13324 NN O I-INT
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
0.005 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
used NN O O
bilaterally NN O O
at NN O O
night NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
comparison NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
open-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
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
washout 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
four NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
variable NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
diurnal NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
29 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
randomised NN O I-PAR
298 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
292 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
98 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
Mean NN O I-OUT
unmedicated NN O I-OUT
diurnal NN O I-OUT
IOPs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
eye NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
25.1 NN O O
, NN O O
25.1 NN O O
, NN O O
26.0 NN O O
and NN O O
25.4 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PG324 NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
PG324 NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
and NN O O
AR-13324 NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
diurnal NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
17.3 NN O O
, NN O O
16.5 NN O O
, NN O O
18.4 NN O O
and NN O O
19.1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
variable NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
diurnal NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
29 NN O O
, NN O O
PG324 NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
superiority NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
and NN O O
AR-13324 NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
providing NN O O
additional NN O O
IOP NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
1.9 NN O O
and NN O O
2.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

PG324 NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
also NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
superiority NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
was NN O O
conjunctival NN O I-OUT
hyperaemia NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
30/73 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29/73 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
10/73 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
31/78 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PG324 NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
PG324 NN O O
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
AR-13324 NN O I-INT
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
short-term NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
AR-13324 NN O I-INT
0.02 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
latanoprost NN O O
0.005 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
PG324 NN O O
Ophthalmic NN O O
Solution NN O O
provides NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
individual NN O O
active NN O O
components NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
finding NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
note NN O O
was NN O O
transient NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
hyperaemia NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
typically NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
severity NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
NUMBER NN O O
NCT02207491 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26214440)

Radiofrequency NN O I-INT
thermocoagulation NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pulsed NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
helps NN O O
relieve NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
. NN O O

Trigeminal NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
sudden NN O O
, NN O O
severe NN O O
condition NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
stabbing NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Radiofrequency NN O I-INT
thermocoagulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pulsed NN O I-INT
radiofrequency NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
common NN O O
surgical NN O O
interventions NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
. 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
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
RFT NN O O
and NN O O
PRF NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
. NN O O

Computed NN O I-INT
tomography-guided NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
RFT NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
Gasserian NN O O
ganglion NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
trigeminal NN O I-PAR
neuralgia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFT NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
70?C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RFT NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
75?C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
RFT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
240 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
PRF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
42?C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
Hz NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
240 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O I-INT
months NN O O
later NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
evaluated 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
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
with NN O O
RFT NN O O
at NN O O
70? NN O O
or NN O O
75?C NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
PRF NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
numbness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
masticatory NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
weakness NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
combined NN O O
RFT NN O O
and NN O O
PRF NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Decreased NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
relieved NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
PRF NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
RFT NN O O
at NN O O
75?C NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
PRF NN O O
and NN O O
RFT NN O O
helped NN O O
eliminate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
facial NN O O
numbness NN O O
, NN O O
masticatory NN O O
muscle NN O O
weakness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
corneal NN O O
reflex NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
surgically NN O O
treating NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
neuralgia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26217065)

REVIVE NN O O
Trial NN O O
: NN O O
Retrograde NN O O
Delivery NN O O
of NN O O
Autologous NN O O
Bone NN O O
Marrow NN O O
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
UNLABELLED NN O O
Cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
evolving NN O O
option NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
end-stage NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
optimal NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
goal NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
retrograde NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
cell NN O O
delivery NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
nonischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NIHF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
aspirate NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BMAC NN O O
) NN O O
infused NN O O
retrograde NN O I-INT
into NN O O
the NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
IHF NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
NIHF NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
BMAC NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
care NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
4:1 NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
BMAC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
nonischemic NN O O
BMAC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
nonischemic NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
successfully NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
BMAC NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
without NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
BMAC NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
25.1 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
screening NN O O
to NN O O
31.1 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p=.007 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NIHF NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
26.3 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
31.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
IHF NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p=.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonischemic NN O O
BMAC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
from NN O O
55.6 NN O O
to NN O O
50.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
p=.020 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Retrograde NN O O
BMAC NN O O
delivery NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
BMAC NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
NIHF NN O O
showed NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
B-type NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
provide NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
HF NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

SIGNIFICANCE NN O O
This NN O O
work NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
high-dose NN O O
cell NN O O
therapy NN O O
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
retrograde NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
infusion NN O O
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
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
multinational NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
novel NN O O
, NN O O
translatable NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
scalable NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
retrograde NN O O
coronary NN O O
sinus NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
three NN O O
other NN O O
trials NN O O
under NN O O
way NN O O
using NN O O
this NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26223240)

Women NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Gestational NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
Mellitus NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Higher-Complex NN O O
Carbohydrate/Low-Fat NN O O
Diet NN O O
Manifest NN O O
Lower NN O O
Adipose NN O O
Tissue NN O O
Insulin NN O O
Resistance NN O O
, NN O O
Inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
Glucose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Free NN O O
Fatty NN O O
Acids NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
Pilot NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Diet NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
gestational NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GDM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
focused NN O O
on NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
restriction NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
poorly NN O O
substantiated NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
challenged NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
low-carbohydrate/higher-fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LC/CONV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
hypothesizing NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
higher-complex NN O I-INT
carbohydrate/lower-fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHOICE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adipose NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
At NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
diet-controlled NN O I-PAR
overweight/obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
GDM NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
isocaloric NN O O
LC/CONV NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
carbohydrate/45 NN O O
% NN O O
fat/15 NN O O
% NN O O
protein NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CHOICE NN O I-INT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
/25 NN O O
% NN O O
/15 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
meals NN O I-INT
were NN O O
provided NN O O
. NN O O

AT NN O O
was NN O O
biopsied NN O O
at NN O O
37 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
?7 NN O O
weeks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
on NN O O
CHOICE NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O I-OUT
fasting NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
LC/CONV NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Insulin NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
on NN O O
CHOICE NN O O
versus NN O O
LC/CONV NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
vs. NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
IR NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
proinflammatory NN O I-OUT
genes NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
on NN O O
CHOICE NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Infant NN O I-OUT
adiposity NN O I-OUT
trended NN O I-OUT
lower NN O O
with NN O O
CHOICE NN O O
( NN O O
10.1 NN O O
? NN O O
1.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
12.6 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
CHOICE NN O O
diet NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O I-PAR
maternal NN O I-PAR
IR NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
adiposity NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
challenging NN O I-PAR
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
LC/CONV NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26224825)

Cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
percutaneous NN O I-OUT
Kirschner NN O I-OUT
wires NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
locking NN O I-INT
plate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dorsally NN O I-PAR
displaced NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
DRAFFT NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
present NN O O
an NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Distal NN O O
Radius NN O O
Acute NN O O
Fracture NN O O
Fixation NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
DRAFFT NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
cost NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
Kirschner NN O I-INT
wire NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
K-wire NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
locking-plate NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dorsally-displaced NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
distal NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cost NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
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
was NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
multi-centre NN O O
, NN O O
two-arm NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
assessor-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
which NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
460 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
includes NN O O
both NN O O
a NN O O
National NN O O
Health NN O O
Service NN O O
cost NN O O
perspective NN O O
including NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
implants NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
healthcare NN O I-OUT
resource NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
societal NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
includes NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
off NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
private NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
QALYs NN O I-OUT
gained NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locking-plate NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
over NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
K-wires NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
additional NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
?714 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
588 NN O O
to NN O O
865 NN O O
) NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
locking-plate NN O O
fixation NN O O
presented NN O O
an NN O I-OUT
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
?89,322 NN O O
per NN O O
QALY NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
ICER NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
locking-plate NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
K-wires NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
?30,000 NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
locking-plate NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
K-wire NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
'cost NN O O
saving NN O O
' NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
health NN O O
benefits NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26225500)

Quadratus NN O O
lumborum NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-INT
section NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Effective NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O I-INT
section NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
enables NN O O
early NN O O
ambulation NN O O
and NN O O
facilitates NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
case NN O O
reports NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anaesthetic NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
around NN O O
the NN O O
quadratus NN O O
lumborum NN O O
muscle NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
after NN O O
various NN O O
abdominal NN O O
operations NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
quadratus NN O I-INT
lumborum NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
( NN O O
QLB NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
close NN O O
proximity NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
surface NN O O
and NN O O
uses NN O O
a NN O O
fascial NN O O
compartment NN O O
path NN O O
to NN O O
extend NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
abdominal NN O O
wall NN O O
and NN O O
paravertebral NN O O
space NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
central NN O O
effect NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
vital NN O O
importance NN O O
when NN O O
managing NN O O
the NN O O
visceral NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
QLB NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
provide NN O O
adequate NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
as NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multimodal NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiologists NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
QLB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
0.125 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
ml NN O O
kg?? NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
QLB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
Normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
kg?? NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
demands NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
patient-controlled NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
predetermined NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
itching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
used NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
morphine NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
demand NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
VAS NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
times NN O O
except NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O O
section NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
VAS NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O O
on NN O O
movement NN O O
( NN O O
dynamic NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
QLB NN O O
after NN O O
caesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
effective NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
provided NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
typical NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesic NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
identifier NN O O
: NN O O
NCT02328378 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26225700)

Total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Partial NN O I-OUT
Prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Cancer NN O I-OUT
Across NN O I-PAR
Kerman NN O I-PAR
Province NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Iran NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
Using NN O O
an NN O O
Adapted NN O O
Generalized NN O O
Network NN O O
Scale-Up NN O O
Method NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
nationwide NN O O
population-based NN O O
cancer NN O O
registration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Iran NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
previous NN O O
work NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
basic NN O O
network NN O O
scale-up NN O O
( NN O O
NSU NN O O
) NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
plausible NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
prevalence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Kerman NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
partial NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
southeastern NN O O
Iran NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
adapted NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
generalized NN O O
network NN O O
scale-up NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
survey NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
2014 NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
multi-stage NN O O
cluster NN O O
sampling NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
face-to-face NN O I-PAR
gender-matched NN O I-PAR
interviews NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
performed NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
adapted NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NSU NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interviewees NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
family NN O O
cancer NN O O
history NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
NSU NN O O
estimator NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Monte NN O O
Carlo NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
adopted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
estimation NN O O
of NN O O
upper/lower NN O O
bounds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
uncertainty NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
point NN O O
estimates NN O O
. NN O O

One-yr NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2-3 NN O I-OUT
yr NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4-5 NN O I-OUT
yr NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
100,000 NN O O
people NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
respectively NN O O
estimated NN O O
at NN O O
78 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
128 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
118 NN O O
, NN O O
147 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
78 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
, NN O O
91 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
42 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
32 NN O O
, NN O O
52 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
5-yr NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
cancers NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
at NN O O
0.18 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.27 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
generalized NN O O
familial NN O O
network NN O O
scale-up NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
estimating NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
precision NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26244758)

A NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Following NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Open NN O I-INT
Hysterectomy NN O I-INT
With NN O O
or NN O O
Without NN O O
Lymphadenectomy NN O O
for NN O O
Presumed NN O I-PAR
Early-Stage NN O I-PAR
Endometrial NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
From NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
ASTEC NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
increasingly NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
endometrial NN O O
malignancy NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
benefits NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
particularly NN O O
pronounced NN O O
as NN O O
these NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
likely NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
LH NN O O
are NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
open NN O O
hysterectomy NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
cohort NN O O
study NN O O
nested NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
multicenter NN O O
ASTEC NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
Study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Endometrial NN O O
Cancer NN O O
) NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
1998-2005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

POPULATION NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
presumed NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
OH NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
systematic NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
1408 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1309 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
OH NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
99 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
LH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
LH NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
LH NN O I-INT
105 NN O O
minutes NN O O
[ NN O O
interquartile NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
IQR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
60-150 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
OH NN O I-INT
80 NN O O
minutes NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
60-95 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
LH NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
3-5 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
OH NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
days NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
5-7 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
harvested NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
nodes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
LH NN O I-INT
13 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
10-16 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
OH NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
, NN O O
11-13 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LH NN O I-INT
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
difference NN O O
, NN O O
LH NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
OH NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
borderline NN O O
significance NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
laparotomy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
LH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
37 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
significant NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
LH NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
OH NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.67 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.31-1.43 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
early NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
it NN O O
requires NN O O
longer NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
it NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
favorable NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26279073)

Chromium NN O I-INT
Supplementation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Effects NN O O
on NN O O
Metabolic NN O I-OUT
Status NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Polycystic NN O I-PAR
Ovary NN O I-PAR
Syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
Double-Blind NN O O
, NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chromium NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
polycystic NN O I-PAR
ovary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
?g NN O I-INT
chromium NN O I-INT
picolinate NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
32 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
metabolism NN O O
and NN O O
lipid NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-INT
Chromium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
PCOS NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-3.6 NN O O
? NN O O
7.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
+3.6 NN O O
? NN O O
6.2 NN O O
?IU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
homeostasis NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
assessment-insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA-IR NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
-0.8 NN O O
? NN O O
1.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
+0.9 NN O O
? NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
homeostatic NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
assessment-beta NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HOMA-B NN O I-OUT
; NN O O
-15.5 NN O O
? NN O O
32.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
+13.6 NN O O
? NN O O
23.1 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
quantitative NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
check NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QUICKI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+0.02 NN O O
? NN O O
0.03 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-0.008 NN O O
? NN O O
0.02 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chromium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-12.4 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
74.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
+15.2 NN O O
? NN O O
32.4 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
very NN O O
low-density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-2.5 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
14.9 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
+3.0 NN O O
? NN O O
6.5 NN O O
mg/dl 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
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-8.6 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
21.9 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O O
+0.7 NN O O
? NN O O
22.4 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Eight NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chromium NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
among NN O I-PAR
PCOS NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26279130)

The NN O O
VA NN O I-INT
augmentation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
switching NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
for NN O O
improving NN O O
depression NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
VAST-D NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
Rationale NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
considerations NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Major NN O I-PAR
Depressive NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
remission NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
first NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
next-step NN O O
strategies NN O O
: NN O O
switching NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bupropion-SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
augmenting NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
another NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
bupropion-SR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
atypical NN O I-INT
antipsychotic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
aripiprazole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
compare NN O O
12-week NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
have NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
review NN O O
seven NN O O
key NN O O
efficacy/effectiveness NN O O
design NN O O
decisions NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
mixed NN O O
efficacy-effectiveness NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26315981)

Extended-Release NN O O
Guanfacine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O O
in NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Hyperactivity NN O O
, NN O O
impulsiveness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
distractibility NN O O
are NN O O
common NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Extended-release NN O O
guanfacine NN O O
is NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
attention NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
hyperactivity NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
ASD NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
extended-release NN O O
guanfacine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
, NN O O
impulsiveness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
distractibility NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty-two NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N=53 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
N=9 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age=8.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
SD=2.25 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
guanfacine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=30 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N=32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
guanfacine NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
43.6 NN O O
% NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist-hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
least NN O O
squares NN O O
mean NN O O
from NN O O
34.2 NN O O
to NN O O
19.3 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
13.2 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
least NN O O
squares NN O O
mean NN O O
from NN O O
34.2 NN O O
to NN O O
29.7 NN O O
; NN O O
effect NN O O
size=1.67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
positive NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
much NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression-Improvement NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
guanfacine NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
brief NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
battery NN O I-OUT
tapping NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
planning NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
group NN O O
differences NN O O
before NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
modal NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
guanfacine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
1-4 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
modal NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
2-4 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
guanfacine-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
placebo NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
exited NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
before NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
on NN O O
ECG NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
guanfacine NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
return NN O O
nearly NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
by NN O O
endpoint NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
endpoint NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Extended-release NN O O
guanfacine NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
impulsiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distractibility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26316279)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
instructor NN O I-PAR
confidence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
open NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
teaching NN O O
feedback NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
Feedback NN O O
is NN O O
vital NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
skills-based NN O O
education NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
sandwich NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
and NN O O
learning NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
structured NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
feedback NN O O
delivery NN O O
in NN O O
competency-based NN O O
basic NN O O
life NN O O
support NN O O
( NN O O
BLS NN O O
) NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Open NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
undertaken NN O O
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2015 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Birmingham NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six-hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
undertaking NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Resuscitation NN O I-PAR
Council NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ERC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
BLS NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sandwich NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-eight NN O I-PAR
instructors NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
teach NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
learning NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sandwich NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
, NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
crossing-over NN O O
and NN O O
teaching NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
technique NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
pre-defined NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
skill NN O I-OUT
acquisition NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
end-of-course NN O I-OUT
competency NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
instructors NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
teaching NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
candidates NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
they NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
provided NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Scores NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
conversation NN O O
by NN O O
instructors NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
favourable NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
sandwich NN O O
technique NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
two NN O O
assessed NN O O
domains NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
instructor NN O I-OUT
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
feedback NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
all NN O O
skills-based NN O O
domains NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
pass NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
80.9 NN O O
% NN O O
sandwich NN O O
technique NN O O
vs. NN O O
77.2 NN O O
% NN O O
learning NN O O
conversation NN O O
; NN O O
OR NN O O
1.2 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.85-1.84 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.29 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
any NN O O
domain NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
candidates NN O O
' NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
teaching NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
& NN O O
RELEVANCE NN O O
This NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
feedback NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
medical NN O O
education NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
quantitative NN O O
and NN O O
qualitative NN O O
methodology NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
learning NN O I-INT
conversation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
preferred NN O O
by NN O O
instructors NN O I-PAR
providing NN O I-PAR
competency-based NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
perceived NN O O
to NN O O
favour NN O O
skills NN O O
acquisition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26317618)

High NN O O
Platelet NN O O
Reactivity NN O O
in NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Acute NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Syndromes NN O I-PAR
Undergoing NN O I-PAR
Percutaneous NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Intervention NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Randomised NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
Comparing NN O O
Prasugrel NN O O
and NN O O
Clopidogrel NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Prasugrel NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndromes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
reloading NN O O
in NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
residual NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
( NN O O
HRPR NN O O
) NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

poor NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
prasugrel NN O I-INT
loading NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
platelet NN O I-PAR
reactivity NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ACS NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
who NN O O
were NN O O
scheduled NN O O
for NN O O
PCI NN O I-INT
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
?40 NN O O
AUC NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Multiplate NN O O
Analyzer NN O O
, NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

poor NN O O
responders NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
prasugrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
loading NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
clopidogrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
reloading NN O O
and NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
) 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 I-OUT
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
loading NN O O
with NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
( NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
use NN O O
decreased NN O O
sharply NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
newer NN O O
P2Y12 NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
40 NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
the NN O O
proportions NN O O
were NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
and NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
were NN O O
12 NN O O
versus NN O O
22 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
versus NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Routine NN O O
platelet NN O O
function NN O O
testing NN O O
identifies NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
reactivity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
poor NN O O
responders NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
prasugrel NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
clopidogrel NN O O
reloading NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
earlier NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
sustained NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
reactivity NN O O
. NN O O

Future NN O O
trials NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
if NN O O
this NN O O
translates NN O O
into NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
NCT01339026 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26323772)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
bench NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
partly NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
physical NN O O
and NN O O
mental NN O O
fitness NN O O
. NN O O

Bench NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
practiced NN O O
anywhere NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
bench NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
examining NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
working NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
warehousing NN O I-PAR
industry NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bench NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
practice NN O O
the NN O O
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antioxidative NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
absences NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
improving NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prognosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
oxidative NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
bench NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
work NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
oxidative NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26385172)

An NN O O
endovascular NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
among NN O O
radiology NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
simulation NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
resident NN O O
endovascular NN O I-OUT
simulator NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
prior NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Radiology NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
guided NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lectured NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
endovascular NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
simulate NN O I-INT
femoral NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
iliac NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Simulator NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resident NN O I-OUT
surveys NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Prior NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
iliac NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
resident NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
wire NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
proper NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
positioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.045 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oblique NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
subtraction NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P=.035 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Survey NN O O
respondents NN O O
valued NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Endovascular NN O I-INT
simulator NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
simulation NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Improvement NN O O
of NN O O
real-world NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
generalizability NN O O
remain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26388532)

Skin NN O O
antisepsis NN O O
with NN O O
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
skin NN O O
scrubbing NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular-catheter-related NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
CLEAN NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
two-by-two NN O O
factorial NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Intravascular-catheter-related NN O O
infections NN O O
are NN O O
frequent NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
incidence NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Optimisation NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
antisepsis NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
short-term NN O O
catheter-related NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
skin NN O O
antiseptic NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
intravascular-catheter-related NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
open-label NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
two-by-two NN O O
factorial NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
enrolled NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
?18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
French NN O I-PAR
intensive-care NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
central-venous NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
haemodialysis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
we NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1:1:1:1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
secure NN O I-INT
web-based NN O I-INT
random-number NN O I-INT
generator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
permuted NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
eight NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
stratified NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
centre NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
intravascular NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine-70 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
isopropyl NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-69 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
scrubbing NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
detergent NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
antiseptic NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Physicians NN O O
and NN O O
nurses NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O O
assignment NN O O
but NN O O
microbiologists NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessors NN O O
were NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
population 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
NCT01629550 NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
closed NN O O
to NN O O
new NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
Oct NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2012 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Feb NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2546 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O I-PAR
1181 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2547 NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
594 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
scrubbing NN O O
, NN O O
587 NN O O
without NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1168 NN O O
( NN O O
2612 NN O O
catheters NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
580 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
scrubbing NN O O
, NN O O
588 NN O O
without NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0?28 NN O O
vs NN O O
1?77 NN O O
per NN O O
1000 NN O O
catheter-days NN O O
with NN O O
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
hazard NN O I-INT
ratio NN O O
0?15 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0?05-0?41 NN O O
; NN O O
p=0?0002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scrubbing NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
catheter NN O O
colonisation NN O O
( NN O O
p=0?3877 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
27 NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
vs NN O O
seven NN O O
[ NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
with NN O O
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
p=0?0017 NN O I-INT
) NN O O
and NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
For NN O O
skin NN O O
antisepsis NN O O
, NN O I-OUT
chlorhexidine-alcohol NN O I-OUT
provides NN O I-INT
greater NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
short-term NN O O
catheter-related NN O O
infections NN O O
than NN O O
does NN O O
povidone NN O I-INT
iodine-alcohol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
should NN O I-INT
be NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
bundles NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular NN O I-OUT
catheter-related NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FUNDING NN O I-OUT
University NN O O
Hospital NN O O
of NN O O
Poitiers NN O O
, NN O O
CareFusion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26398887)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
on NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
Lowering NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Atherogenic NN O I-OUT
Lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
Profiles NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Type NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
Diabetic NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
Poorly NN O I-PAR
Controlled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Statins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
exists NN O O
a NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
of NN O O
T2DM NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
first-line NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O O
are NN O O
insufficient NN O O
for NN O O
optimally NN O O
reducing NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
representing NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
CVD NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
RESEARCH NN O O
study NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
modifications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O O
profiles NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
residual NN O O
risks NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Lipid NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
high-potency NN O I-INT
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
ezetimibe NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EAT NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
53 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20mg NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
2mg NN O O
of NN O O
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DST NN O O
: NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
DM NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
optimal NN O I-PAR
LDL-C NN O I-PAR
targets NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lipid NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
with NN O O
secondary NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
targets NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RLP-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
remnant NN O O
like NN O O
particle NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sd-LDL-C NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
characteristic NN O O
atherogenic NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
DM NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
, NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
-24.6 NN O O
in NN O O
EAT NN O O
vs. NN O O
-10.9 NN O O
in NN O O
DST NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
secondary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
, NN O O
EAT NN O O
treatment NN O O
brought NN O O
about NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
sd-LDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-20.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-3.7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RLP-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-19.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
+5.5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
89.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
EAT NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
optimized NN O O
treatment NN O O
goal NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
51.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
DST NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
TC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-16.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-6.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
non-HDL-C NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-20.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
-8.3 NN O O
) NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Ezetimibe NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
high-potency NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
intensified-dose NN O O
statin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
atorvastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pitavastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
helping NN O O
T2DM NN O O
patients NN O O
attain NN O O
more NN O O
LDL-C NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
their NN O O
atherogenic NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
their NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
sd-LDL-C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RLP-C. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
thus NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
ezetimibe NN O O
to NN O O
high-potency NN O O
statin NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
line NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
T2DM NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insufficient NN O I-PAR
statin NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
The NN O O
UMIN NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Registry NN O O
UMIN000002593 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2642730)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
extended NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten-year NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
debate NN O O
over NN O O
possible NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O O
surgery NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
conservative NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
contrasting NN O O
the NN O O
then NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
Halsted NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RDL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
complete NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EXT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
in NN O O
1973 NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1973 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1982 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
Stages NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
series NN O O
, NN O O
112 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
surgeon NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
pathologically NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
mammary NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
more NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
subgroup NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
10-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
errors NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
for NN O O
RDL NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
EXT NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O O
curves NN O O
= NN O O
0.13 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
central-medial NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
comprising NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
RDL NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
EXT NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.62 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
266 NN O O
RDL NN O O
and NN O O
124 NN O O
EXT NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1960 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1978 NN O I-PAR
found NN O O
differences NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26442399)

DESFLURANE NN O O
COMPARED NN O O
TO NN O O
SEVOFLURANE NN O O
FOR NN O O
CIRRHOTIC NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
UNDERGOING NN O I-PAR
MAJOR NN O I-PAR
LIVER NN O I-PAR
RESECTION NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
RANDOMIZED NN O O
CONTROL NN O O
STUDY NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Major NN O O
liver NN O O
resection NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
, NN O O
hepatic NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
changes NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
Desflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
Sevoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
D NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
and NN O O
S NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

End NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
adjusted NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
Entropy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40-60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
monitored NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
trans-oesophageal NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TED NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
Glutathione-S-transferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GST NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
microalbuminuria NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Microalb NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
assayed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Extubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaesthetic NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
post-resection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
D NN O O
vs NN O O
S NN O O
were NN O O
835.04 NN O O
? NN O O
12.02 NN O O
vs NN O O
778.16 NN O O
? NN O O
11.97 NN O O
dyn.sec.cm NN O O
( NN O O
-5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
85.72 NN O O
? NN O O
2.95 NN O O
vs NN O O
76.16 NN O O
? NN O O
6.52 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
corrected NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FTc NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable 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
difference NN O O
post-operatively NN O O
regarding NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
Microalb NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
14.76 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
3.95 NN O O
vs NN O O
l4.24 NN O O
? NN O O
8.65 NN O O
?g/ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.78 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O I-OUT
GST NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.046 NN O I-OUT
? NN O O
[ NN O O
symbols NN O O
: NN O O
see NN O O
text NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
vs NN O O
0.043 NN O O
? NN O O
[ NN O O
symbols NN O O
: NN O O
see NN O O
text NN O O
] NN O O
IU/ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
D NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
73 NN O I-OUT
? NN O I-OUT
17 NN O I-OUT
vs NN O O
64 NN O O
? NN O O
22 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.102 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Egyptian NN O I-OUT
pounds NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LE NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
141.14 NN O O
? NN O O
32.90 NN O O
vs NN O O
320.60 NN O O
? NN O O
114.01 NN O O
, NN O O
LE NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O I-OUT
Extubation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
D NN O O
vS NN O O
( NN O O
4.52 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.72 NN O O
? NN O O
2 NN O O
min 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
( NN O O
1.40 NN O O
0.50 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.64 NN O O
? NN O O
0.48 NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Neither NN O O
D NN O O
nor NN O O
S NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
kidneys NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
D NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
preserve NN O O
better NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
enhance NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
cost NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26446239)

U.S. NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
Approval NN O O
Summary NN O O
: NN O O
Ramucirumab NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Metastatic 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
Following NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
Progression NN O I-PAR
On NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
After NN O I-PAR
Platinum-Based NN O I-PAR
Chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
On NN O O
December NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
2014 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
U.S. NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
( NN O O
FDA NN O O
) NN O O
approved NN O O
ramucirumab NN O I-INT
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anaplastic NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
kinase NN O I-PAR
genomic NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
aberrations NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
have NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
on NN O O
FDA-approved NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
aberrations NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
receiving NN O O
ramucirumab NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
approval NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
( NN O O
OS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
acceptable NN O O
toxicity NN O O
profile NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
1,253 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
1:1 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
ramucirumab NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
docetaxel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
was NN O O
OS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
ramucirumab NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
had NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
[ NN O O
HR NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
0.86 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
: NN O O
0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
0.98 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.5 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ramucirumab NN O O
plus NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
arm NN O O
versus NN O O
9.1 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
plus NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ramucirumab-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
( NN O O
? NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
grade NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
ramucirumab NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPLICATIONS NN O I-OUT
FOR NN O O
PRACTICE NN O O
This NN O O
report NN O O
presents NN O O
key NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
U.S. NN O O
Food NN O O
and NN O O
Drug NN O O
Administration NN O O
approval NN O O
of NN O O
ramucirumab NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
targeting NN O O
vascular NN O O
endothelial NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
receptor-2 NN O O
, NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
docetaxel NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic 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
whose NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
has NN O I-PAR
progressed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
platinum-based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O I-PAR
report NN O O
specifically NN O O
addresses NN O O
the NN O O
issues NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
uncertainties NN O O
regarding NN O O
effects NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
harboring NN O I-PAR
epidermal NN O I-PAR
growth NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
anaplastic NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
kinase NN O I-PAR
genomic NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
aberrations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (26449739)

Rituximab NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
improves NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diffuse NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
B-cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HD2002 NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicentre NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
multicentre NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
HD2002 NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
rituximab NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
375 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
months NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
observation NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
CD20 NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
B-cell NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
. NN O O

Out NN O O
of NN O O
321 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
161 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
160 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
observation NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
OG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
295 NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
sets NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluable NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Estimated NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OG NN O O
( NN O O
logrank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
diffuse NN O O
large NN O O
B-cell NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
( NN O O
DLBCL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
152 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OG NN O O
( NN O O
logrank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
note NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
DLBCL NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
superior NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
OG NN O O
( NN O O
5-year NN O O
RFS NN O O
: NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
logrank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0?05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
regarding NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0?006 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
RFS 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
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
hazard NN O O
in NN O O
females NN O O
than NN O O
males NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
OG NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
OS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
hazard NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
female NN O O
: NN O O
male NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0?11 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
= NN O O
0?00-1?03 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
female NN O O
: NN O O
male NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0?27 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0?05-0?97 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
females NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TG NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O I-INT
Rituximab NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
improves NN O I-INT
survival NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DLBCL NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26467901)

Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
Cellular NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
Multiple NN O I-PAR
Sclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
ACTiMuS NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
study NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
have NN O O
recently NN O O
completed NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
repair NN O O
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
by NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
neurophysiological NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
will NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
in NN O O
progressive NN O O
MS NN O O
. NN O O

Laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
further NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
biology NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
MS NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
repair NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS/DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
stepped NN O O
wedge NN O O
design NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
employed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Bristol NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
secondary NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SPMS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subset NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPMS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
early NN O O
or NN O O
late NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
unfractionated NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
is NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
is NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
derived NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
multimodal NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
potentials NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
include NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
reporting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EDSS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MSFC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSIS-29 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
optical NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OCT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
MRI NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Participants NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
year NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

Outcomes NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
analysed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
Cellular NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
progressive NN O O
Multiple NN O O
Sclerosis NN O O
( NN O O
ACTiMuS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
non-myeloablative NN O I-INT
autologous NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow-derived NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
MS NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
will NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
suggested NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
safety NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
improve NN O O
conduction NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
pathways NN O O
affected NN O O
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
inform NN O O
our NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
infusion NN O O
in NN O O
MS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
cell NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ISRCTN27232902 NN O O
Registration NN O O
date NN O O
11/09/2012 NN O O
. NN O O

NCT01815632 NN O O
Registration NN O O
date NN O O
19/03/2013 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2647294)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
2b-interferon NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
alpha-Interferon NN O I-INT
has NN O O
antitumor NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
malignancies NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
frequently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
agents NN O O
potentially NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
these NN O O
side-effects NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
concern NN O O
for NN O O
possible NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
alpha-interferon NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
what NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
might NN O O
have NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
immunomodulatory NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

53 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
alpha NN O I-INT
2b-interferon NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
per NN O O
m2 NN O O
i.v. NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
million NN O O
units NN O O
per NN O O
m2 NN O O
s.c. NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
complete NN O O
responders NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
partial NN O O
responders NN O O
among NN O O
47 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
interferon NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
102.1 NN O O
to NN O O
100.7 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but 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
interferon-related NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
confusion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
no NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Indomethacin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
permit NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
. NN O O

Indomethacin NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
inhibit NN O O
augmentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Immunological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
response NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
interfering NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
immunomodulatory NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Since NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
rarely NN O O
the NN O O
dose-limiting NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
of NN O O
marginal NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
interferon NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
outlined NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2648816)

Adequacy NN O O
of NN O O
hot NN O O
biopsy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
diminutive NN O O
polyps NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diminutive NN O I-PAR
polyps NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
rectum NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sigmoid NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
hot NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
electrocautery NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
cautery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
cautery NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
visible NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
polyp NN O I-INT
base NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
evident NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
variable NN O I-INT
duration NN O I-INT
cautery NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sigmoidoscopy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
wk NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
determine NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
adequacy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
polyp NN O I-INT
eradication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
duration NN O O
cautery NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
polyps NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
polyps NN O O
( NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
variable NN O O
duration NN O O
cautery NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
analyzed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
visible NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
( NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
polyps NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
duration NN O O
cautery NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
necrosis NN O O
with NN O O
2 NN O O
s NN O O
cautery NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
polyps NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
necrosis NN O O
was NN O O
evident NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
necrosis NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
hot NN O O
biopsy NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
diminutive NN O O
polyps NN O O
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
when NN O O
visible NN O O
necrosis NN O O
is NN O O
achieved NN O O
during NN O O
cautery NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
visible NN O O
necrosis NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
failure NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
polyp NN O O
eradication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26510263)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
on NN O O
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
causes NN O O
reperfusion NN O O
injury NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
most NN O O
severe NN O O
is NN O O
clinically NN O O
manifested NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
systemic NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
response NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
propofol NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
differing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
on NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
CBR NN O I-PAR
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
CPB NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HIF-1? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ELISA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD11 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD18 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
cytometry NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haemoxygenase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HO-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
promoter NN O I-OUT
polymorphisms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PCR/electrophoresis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-CPB NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CD18 NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
propofol NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
HIF-1? NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
CD11 NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
isoflurane NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
propofol NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
CRP NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
CD11 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.009 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-OUT
CD18 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
expression NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
propofol NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
HO-1 NN O I-OUT
GT NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
n NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
repeats NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
isoflurane NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
in NN O O
CPB NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
adverse NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
profile NN O O
than NN O O
is NN O O
isofluorane NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
up-regulation NN O O
of NN O O
HO-1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
propofol NN O O
has NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26529471)

Reducing NN O O
Sitting NN O O
Time NN O O
After NN O O
Stroke NN O O
: NN O O
A NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
Safety NN O O
and NN O O
Feasibility NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
feasibility NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O I-INT
sitting NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
stroke NN O I-INT
survivors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
attention-matched NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
blinded NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Community NN O O
. NN O O

PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Stroke NN O I-PAR
survivors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N=35 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
66.9?12.7y NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O I-INT
Four NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
over NN O O
7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
message NN O O
of NN O I-INT
sit NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
move NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
( NN O O
attention-matched NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spasticity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
feasibility NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
adherence NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
protocol NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
bouts NN O I-OUT
?30min NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stepping NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thigh-worn NN O I-OUT
inclinometer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7d NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
24h/d NN O O
protocol NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
least NN O O
moderate NN O O
intensity NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
triaxial NN O O
accelerometer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Multimedia NN O I-OUT
Activity NN O I-OUT
Recall NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Adults NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O I-PAR
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
full NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
participants NN O O
reported NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
640.7?99.6min/d NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
average NN O O
by NN O O
30?50.6min/d 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
5.8-54.6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
40.4?92.5min/d NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
13.0-93.8 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
their NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
bouts NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
?30min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stepping NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
both NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
feasible NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
spent NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O O
sitting NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
time NN O O
standing NN O O
and NN O O
stepping NN O O
postintervention NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
outcomes NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
intervention NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Attention NN O I-PAR
matching NN O O
is NN O O
desirable NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
outcomes NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2653041)

Treatments NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
rupture NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
membranes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
overview NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
critically NN O O
evaluate NN O O
published NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
rupture NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
membranes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Oxford NN O O
data NN O O
base NN O O
on NN O O
perinatal NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
MEDLINE NN O O
, NN O O
Excerpta NN O O
Medica NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Index NN O O
Medicus NN O O
were NN O O
searched NN O O
. NN O O

Through NN O O
primary NN O O
and NN O O
secondary NN O O
review NN O O
with NN O O
preset NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
independent NN O O
judges NN O O
identified NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
was NN O O
scored NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
regarding NN O O
antenatal NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
combined NN O O
meta-analytically NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.286 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
quality NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
endometritis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Tocolysis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
interventions NN O O
studied NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
proved NN O O
benefit NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
outside 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



-DOCSTART- (26551184)

Elective NN O I-INT
Induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Labor NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
With NN O O
Expectant NN O I-INT
Management NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Nulliparous NN O I-INT
Women NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
Weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Gestation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
elective NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
labor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
nulliparous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
affects NN O O
the NN O O
cesarean NN O O
delivery NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
medical NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

Nulliparous NN O I-PAR
woman NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
0/7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
6/7 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Bishop NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
labor NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
expectant NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
labor NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
enrollment NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
before NN O O
39 NN O O
0/7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
continued NN O O
routine NN O O
prenatal NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
admission NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
labor NN O I-INT
or NN O O
obstetric NN O I-INT
indication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
cesarean NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

Assuming NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
power NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
goal NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
twofold NN O O
increase NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
162 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
2010 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
expectant NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
30.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/82 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
17.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
14/79 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
expectant NN O O
management NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
1.72 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.96-3.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
nulliparous NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Bishop NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
elective NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
after NN O O
39 NN O O
0/7 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
expectant NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pregnancy NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
double NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
cesarean NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

CLINICAL NN O O
TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRACTION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
www.clinicaltrials.gov NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01076062 NN O O
. NN O O

LEVEL NN O O
OF NN O O
EVIDENCE NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26551748)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
horse NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gait NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
some NN O O
aspects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Experiments NN O O
in NN O O
walking NN O O
is NN O O
appropriate NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
coordination NN O O
of NN O O
movement NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
pupils NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
needs NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-INT
riding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
analyzed NN O O
walking NN O O
twice NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
school-term NN O O
: NN O O
full NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
each NN O O
time NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
one-month NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
research NN O O
included NN O O
a NN O O
non-riding NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
together NN O O
104 NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
measured NN O O
mental NN O O
skills NN O O
using NN O O
Pedagogical NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Curriculum NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
parts NN O O
being NN O O
communication NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
socialization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Gait NN O O
Cycle NN O O
Analysis NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
time-series NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gait NN O O
cycle NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
joint NN O O
angles NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
plane NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gait NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
became NN O O
more NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sagital NN O O
plane NN O O
and NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
proved NN O O
that NN O O
horse NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
successfully NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
when NN O O
other NN O O
therapies NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
successful NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26554619)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
routinely NN O O
given NN O O
hyoscine-N-butylbromide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Hyoscine-N-butylbromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
ease NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
improve NN O O
mucosal NN O O
visualization NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
conflicting NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
our NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
evaluating NN O O
whether NN O O
routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
HBB NN O I-INT
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
, NN O O
ease NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
polyps NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenous NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
hyoscine-N-butylbromide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
insertion NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
cecum NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
technical NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colonoscopy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Procedure NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
detected NN O I-OUT
polyps NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pulse NN O O
oximetry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
HBB NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
technically NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
VAS NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
HBB NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
faster NN O O
ileal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
2.0 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
22.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
24.0 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
HBB NN O I-INT
also NN O O
needed NN O O
less NN O O
often NN O O
external NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
48.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
66.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HBB NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
polyp NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.89 NN O O
vs NN O O
0.91 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.90 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

HBB NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Routine NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
HBB NN O I-INT
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
yields NN O O
only NN O O
limited NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
technical NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
compromised NN O O
by NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (26573368)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
investigating NN O O
the NN O O
behavioural NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mineral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
n-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
adolescent NN O I-PAR
schoolchildren NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nutrient NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
implicated NN O O
in NN O O
anti-social NN O O
behaviour NN O O
in NN O O
schoolchildren NN O O
; NN O O
hence NN O O
, NN O O
correcting NN O O
them NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
sociability NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mineral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
n-3 NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behaviour NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
typically NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
UK NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
13-16 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
196 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
erythrocyte NN O O
n-3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
mineral NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
behavioural NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
Conners NN O O
' NN O O
teacher NN O O
ratings NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
disciplinary NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
PUFA NN O O
( NN O O
n-3 NN O O
and NN O O
n-6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
n-3 NN O O
, NN O O
vitamins NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
minerals NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P=0?0005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
group NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
worsened NN O O
( NN O O
F=5?555 NN O O
, NN O O
d=0?35 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0?02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disciplinary NN O I-OUT
infringements NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
low NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
making NN O O
it NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
improvements NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
term NN O O
school NN O I-OUT
disciplinary NN O I-OUT
infringements NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
Bayes NN O O
factor=115 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
split NN O O
into NN O O
high NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
baseline NN O O
infringements NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
subset NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
offences NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
high-misbehaviour NN O O
subset NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
merely NN O O
a NN O O
statistical NN O O
artifact NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
validated NN O O
and NN O O
standardised NN O O
Conners NN O O
teacher NN O O
tests NN O O
( NN O O
but NN O O
less NN O O
clearly NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
school NN O O
discipline NN O O
records NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
school NN O O
where NN O O
misbehaviour NN O O
was NN O O
infrequent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
supplementary NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
might NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
against NN O O
worsening NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26609668)

Socio-demographic NN O O
, NN O O
anthropometric NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
psychosocial NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O O
across NN O O
behavioral NN O O
weight-loss NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Preventing NN O O
attrition NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
behavioral NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
six-month NN O O
predictors NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
participant NN O O
attrition NN O O
across NN O O
three NN O O
independent NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
interventions NN O O
( NN O I-INT
PREFER NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SELF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
SMART NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
that NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Barriers NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Healthy NN O I-OUT
Eating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Beck NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Inventory-II NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BDI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hunger NN O I-OUT
Satiety NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Binge NN O I-OUT
Eating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BES NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Medical NN O I-OUT
Outcome NN O I-OUT
Study NN O I-OUT
Short NN O I-OUT
Form NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MOS NN O I-OUT
SF-36 NN O I-OUT
v2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Weight NN O I-OUT
Efficacy NN O I-OUT
Lifestyle NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WEL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attendance NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Attrition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
504 NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
loss NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sample NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
84.92 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
73.61 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a 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
of NN O I-PAR
47.35 NN O I-PAR
? NN O I-PAR
9.75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
every NN O O
one NN O O
unit NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
BMI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
every NN O O
year NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O O
included NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
attempts NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
lose NN O I-PAR
50-79 NN O I-PAR
lbs NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
possessing NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
insurance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
BES NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
BDI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HSS NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
attrition NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
group NN O O
session NN O O
attendance NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
percent NN O O
weight NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
trials NN O O
showed NN O O
education NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
BMI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
BES NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
attrition NN O O
( NN O O
ps NN O O
? NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
may NN O O
inform NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
robust NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
attrition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26628383)

Body NN O O
Mass NN O O
Index NN O O
and NN O O
Adverse NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
Elderly NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
With NN O I-PAR
Atrial NN O I-PAR
Fibrillation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
AMADEUS NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
Obesity NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation 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
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
AMADEUS NN O O
( NN O O
Evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
Use NN O O
of NN O O
SR34006 NN O O
Compared NN O O
to NN O O
Warfarin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Acenocoumarol NN O I-INT
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
trial NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
1588 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
categorized NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18.5-25 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
n=515 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
32.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
overweight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
25-30 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
n=711 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
44.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMI?30 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
n=362 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
22.8 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke/systemic NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O O
BMI NN O O
category NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
5.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
patient-years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
trend=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
analysis NN O O
found NN O O
obesity NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
composite NN O O
outcome NN O O
( NN O O
hazard NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.29 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.11-0.77 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=814 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
multivariate NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
obesity NN O O
was NN O O
independently NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
higher NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
range NN O O
?60 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.84 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.21-2.80 NN O O
; NN O O
P=0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Obesity NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
elderly NN O I-PAR
anticoagulated NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Obesity NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
good NN O O
quality NN O O
anticoagulation NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26650831)

Ultrasound NN O I-INT
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
good NN O O
as NN O O
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
in NN O O
predicting NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
post-neoadjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
tumour NN O I-INT
post-neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
post-neoadjuvant NN O O
histological NN O O
tumour NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
varies NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
subtype NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
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
and NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
invasive NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
INTENS NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
2006 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2009 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
182 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
post-NAC NN O I-PAR
MRI NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=155 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
US NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n=123 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
histopathological NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
MRI NN O O
estimated NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
< NN O O
10-mm NN O O
discordance NN O O
in NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
overestimated NN O O
size NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
underestimated NN O O
size NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
US NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
hormone NN O O
receptor-positive NN O O
tumours NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
MRI NN O O
and NN O O
US NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P25=26 NN O O
, NN O O
P75=100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P25=22 NN O O
, NN O O
P75=100 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
MRI NN O O
and NN O O
US NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P=0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
US NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
good NN O O
as NN O O
breast NN O O
MRI NN O O
in NN O O
providing NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
residual NN O O
tumour NN O O
size NN O O
post-neoadjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
modalities NN O O
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
over- NN O O
and NN O O
underestimation NN O O
of NN O O
tumour NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
both NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Gov NN O O
nr NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00314977 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26653722)

NSAID NN O I-INT
Pretreatment NN O O
Inhibits NN O O
Prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
Release NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Femtosecond NN O I-INT
Laser-Assisted NN O I-INT
Cataract NN O I-INT
Surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
short-term NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
inhibits NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
detected NN O O
elevated NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
femtosecond NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
identified NN O O
them NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
potential NN O O
mediator NN O O
for NN O O
laser-induced NN O O
miosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
image-guided NN O I-INT
femtosecond NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
cataract NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
cataract NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eyes NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Aqueous NN O O
humor NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ELISA NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
aqueous NN O I-OUT
humor NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Femtosecond NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
cataract NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
higher NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
cataract NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
NSAID NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
reduced NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
femtosecond NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
65.3 NN O O
? NN O O
13.2 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
pretreated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
( NN O O
294.4 NN O O
? NN O O
66.5 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
prevented NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-INT
image-guided NN O I-INT
femtosecond NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
limit NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
laser-induced NN O O
miosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26665290)

Clinical NN O O
Study NN O O
to NN O O
Assess NN O O
the NN O O
Stain NN O I-OUT
Removal NN O I-OUT
Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
Tooth NN O I-INT
Whitening NN O I-INT
Regimen NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Added NN O I-INT
Whitening NN O I-INT
Booster NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
extrinsic NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
brushing NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
whitening NN O O
dentifrice NN O O
and NN O O
powered NN O O
toothbrush NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
whitening NN O O
booster NN O O
paste NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
regimen NN O O
would NN O O
enhance NN O O
its NN O O
stain NN O I-OUT
reducing NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
qualifying NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
either NN O O
to NN O O
Regimen NN O O
One NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
& NN O O
Hammer NN O O
Truly NN O O
Radiant NN O O
[ NN O O
TR NN O O
] NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
powered NN O I-INT
toothbrush NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Arm NN O O
& NN O O
Hammer NN O O
Truly NN O O
Radiant NN O O
[ NN O O
TR NN O O
] NN O O
Extra NN O O
Whitening NN O O
Spinbrush NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Two NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-INT
dentifrice NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
powered NN O I-INT
toothbrush NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
whitening NN O I-INT
booster NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Three NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Colgate NN O I-INT
Cavity NN O I-INT
Protection NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
ADA NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
brush NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
assigned NN O O
products NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
brushed NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Extrinsic NN O I-OUT
tooth NN O I-OUT
stain NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Modified NN O I-OUT
Lobene NN O I-OUT
Stain NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MLSI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
Lobene NN O O
inclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
of NN O O
? NN O O
1.5 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
MLSI NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
time-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Day NN O O
14 NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Colgate NN O O
Cavity NN O O
Protection NN O O
, NN O O
29.1 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Regimen NN O O
One NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
34.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Two NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reductions NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Regimen NN O O
One NN O O
and NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Two NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Three NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
for NN O O
Regimen NN O O
Two NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Regimen NN O O
One NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
14 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
directionally NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0673 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Truly NN O I-INT
Radiant NN O I-INT
toothpaste NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Truly NN O I-INT
Radiant NN O I-INT
Spinbrush NN O I-INT
provides NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
stain NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
enhanced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
whitening NN O O
booster NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26678641)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
colchicine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
pericardial NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
open-heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pericardial NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
complication NN O O
after NN O O
open-heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
reversible NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
life NN O O
threatening NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
tamponade NN O O
in NN O O
large NN O O
effusions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
colchicine NN O O
on NN O O
PE NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
open-heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
triple-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
single-center NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Tehran NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
149 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
transthoracic NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
colchicine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
74 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
underwent NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
graft NN O O
numbers NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
PE NN O I-OUT
sizes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.440 NN O O
and NN O O
.844 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
( NN O O
25th-75th NN O O
percentiles NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
effusion NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
1-7.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
colchicine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
( NN O O
1-6.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.932 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
and NN O O
posttreatment NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
isolated NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.607 NN O O
, NN O O
.539 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
.628 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
possible NN O O
confounders NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
still NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
PE NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-0.285 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.776 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
prescription NN O O
of NN O O
colchicine NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
asymptomatic NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
PE NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
justified NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
etiology NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PEs NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
be NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
noninflammatory NN O O
factors NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
better NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
dealt NN O O
with NN O O
observational NN O O
approaches NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26691535)

Cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
communication-focused NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Autism NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
impairments NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
life-time NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
individuals NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
growing NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
early NN O O
interventions NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
substantial NN O O
economic NN O O
burden NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
little NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
interventions NN O O
with NN O O
which NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
resource NN O O
allocation NN O O
decisions NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
an NN O O
economic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
parent-mediated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
communication-focused NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
carried NN O O
out NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
Pre-School NN O I-INT
Autism NN O I-INT
Communication NN O I-INT
Trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
152 NN O I-PAR
pre-school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
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
or NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O I-INT
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
symptoms NN O O
at NN O O
13-month NN O O
follow-up NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Economic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
education NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
services NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
childcare NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parental NN O I-OUT
productivity NN O I-OUT
losses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
informal NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O I-OUT
Clinically NN O I-OUT
meaningful NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
evident NN O O
for NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
PACT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
TAU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.91 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.074 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Service NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-INT
higher NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
?4,489 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
societal NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
smaller NN O O
and NN O O
non-significant NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
?1,385 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.788 NN O O
) NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
informal NN O O
care NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Improvements NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
generated NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
come NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
this NN O O
cost NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
when NN O O
burden NN O O
on NN O O
parents NN O O
is NN O O
included NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
and NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
results NN O O
presented NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O I-INT
PACT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
TAU NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
TRIAL NN O I-INT
REGISTRATION NN O I-INT
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
ISRCTN58133827 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26725450)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chimpanzee NN O I-INT
adenovirus-vectored NN O I-INT
Ebola NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1/2a NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
ongoing NN O O
Ebola NN O O
outbreak NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
accelerated NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
vaccine NN O O
candidates NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
request NN O O
by NN O O
WHO 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
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
monovalent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chimpanzee NN O I-INT
adenovirus NN O I-INT
type-3 NN O I-INT
vector-based NN O I-INT
Ebola NN O I-INT
Zaire NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ChAd3-EBO-Z NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
did NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
1/2a NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Centre NN O I-PAR
Hospitalier NN O I-PAR
Universitaire NN O I-PAR
Vaudois NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Lausanne NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
2:2:1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
via NN O O
two NN O O
computer-generated NN O O
randomisation NN O O
lists NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
potentially NN O I-PAR
deployed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
deployed NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
viral NN O O
particles NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2?5 NN O I-INT
? NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
viral NN O O
particles NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Deployed NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
allocation NN O O
was NN O O
concealed NN O O
from NN O O
non-deployed NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
investigators NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
assessors NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
masked NN O O
for NN O O
potentially NN O O
deployed NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
therefore NN O O
not NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
analysis NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
non-deployed NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
objectives NN O O
were NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
ChAd3-EBO-Z NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
analysis 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
trial 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
NCT02289027 NN O O
. NN O I-PAR
FINDINGS NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
Oct NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2014 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2015 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
potentially NN O I-PAR
deployed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
102 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
non-deployed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=49 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-dose NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=51 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
vaccine-related NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recorded NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
30 NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
33 NN O O
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
malaise NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
systemic NN O O
adverse NN O O
event NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
headache NN O O
, NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fever NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
Ebola NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
day NN O O
28 NN O O
at NN O O
51 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
41?1-63?3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
44?9 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
25?8-56?3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5?2 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
3?5-7?6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
respective NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
85?7-99?5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
86?5-99?5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
0?1-24?9 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
day NN O O
180 NN O O
to NN O O
25?5 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
20?6-31?5 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
22?1 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
19?3-28?6 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3?2 NN O O
?g/mL NN O O
( NN O O
2?4-4?9 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

28 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
given NN O O
high-dose NN O O
vaccine NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
participants NN O O
given NN O O
low-dose NN O O
vaccine NN O O
developed NN O I-OUT
glycoprotein-specific NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
33 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
67 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
35 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
developed NN O O
CD8 NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
ChAd3-EBO-Z NN O O
was NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
systemic NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
common NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
immunogenic NN O O
in NN O O
almost NN O O
all NN O O
vaccine NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

Antibody NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
significantly NN O O
present NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
acceptable NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
basis NN O O
to NN O O
proceed NN O O
with NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
phase NN O O
3 NN O O
efficacy NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
Africa NN O O
. NN O O

FUNDING NN O O
Swiss NN O O
State NN O O
Secretariat NN O O
for NN O O
Education NN O O
, NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Innovation NN O O
( NN O O
SERI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
EU NN O O
Horizon NN O O
2020 NN O O
Research NN O O
and NN O O
Innovation NN O O
Programme NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2672925)

Amiprilose NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
synthetic NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
with NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
immunomodulatory NN O O
properties NN O O
, 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
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
12-week NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
classic NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
modifying NN O I-PAR
antirheumatic NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
flared NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
g/d NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
concomitant NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
or NN O O
antirheumatic NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
permitted NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
and NN O O
propoxyphene NN O O
napsylate NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
supplemental NN O O
analgesic NN O O
medication NN O O
allowed 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
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swollen NN O I-OUT
joints NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
grip NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
investigator NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
differences NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
within NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
protocol NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
satisfied NN O O
by NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
of 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

Approximately NN O O
0.5 NN O O
tablet NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
less NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
taken NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
amiprilose 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
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
sedimentation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-reactive NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rheumatoid NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
similar NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
amiprilose NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
unknown NN O O
cause NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
serious NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Amiprilose NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
has NN O O
significant NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
antirheumatic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Synthetic NN O O
carbohydrates NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
new NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
, NN O O
autoimmune NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26742304)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
acupoints NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
JiaJi NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T10-13 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Ciliao NN O O
( NN O O
BL NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
Han NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Acupoint NN O I-INT
Nerve NN O I-INT
Stimulator NN O I-INT
on NN O O
labour NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O I-INT
current NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
produced NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
Han NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Acupoint NN O I-INT
Nerve NN O I-INT
Stimulator NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
HANS NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
Totally NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
including NN O O
: NN O O
HANS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCIA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCEA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
HANS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
stimulating NN O O
the NN O O
acupoints NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
JiaJi NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T10-L3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Ciliao NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BL NN O O
32 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
DC NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
of NN O O
100 NN O O
Hz NN O O
and NN O O
15-30 NN O O
mA NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
portable NN O I-INT
battery-powered NN O I-INT
Han NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
Acupoint NN O I-INT
Nerve NN O I-INT
Stimulator NN O I-INT
for NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PCIA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
intravenously NN O O
infused NN O O
Ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
then NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
slowly NN O O
dripped NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
BaxterAP NN O O
II NN O O
electronic NN O O
pump NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
mL NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
background NN O O
infusion NN O O
2 NN O O
mL/h NN O O
, NN O O
PCA NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
lockout NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
PCEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O O
received NN O O
intrathecal NN O O
injection NN O I-INT
ropivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
L2-3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
epidural NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
connected NN O O
to NN O O
BaxterAP NN O O
II NN O O
electronic NN O O
pump NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mL NN O O
Ropivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Sufentanil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
ug NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
background NN O O
infusion NN O O
5 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
Patient NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
lockout NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
received NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
manner NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
newborn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
weights NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
were NN O O
all NN O O
stable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
analgesic NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
HANS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
PCEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
PCIA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
labor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Apgar NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
newborn NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
birth NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PCIA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
weights NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
labor NN O O
analgesia NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
PCIA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
that NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
three 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
postpartum NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PCEA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
itching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uroschesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
asphyxia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
PCIA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
asphyxia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
HANS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
DC NN O O
pulse NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
HANS NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
non-pharmacological NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
labor NN O O
pain NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26746121)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Low-Dose NN O I-INT
Buspirone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Restricted NN O O
and NN O O
Repetitive NN O O
Behavior NN O O
in NN O O
Young NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Autism NN O I-PAR
Spectrum NN O I-PAR
Disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Randomized NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5HT1A NN O I-INT
serotonin NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
core NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
associated NN O O
features NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
spectrum NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Children NN O I-PAR
2-6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
166 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
2.5 NN O O
or NN O O
5.0 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
Observation NN O I-OUT
Schedule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADOS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Composite NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Secondary NN O O
objectives NN O O
included NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repetitive NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
language NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
assess NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Positron NN O I-OUT
emission NN O I-OUT
tomography NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tryptophan NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
serotonin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ADOS NN O I-OUT
Composite NN O I-OUT
Total NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.400 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ADOS NN O I-OUT
Restricted NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Repetitive NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
time-by-treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
2.5-mg NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5.0-mg NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2.5-mg NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
fewer NN O O
foci NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
brain NN O O
tryptophan NN O O
metabolism NN O O
on NN O O
positron NN O O
emission NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.018 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
showed NN O O
normal NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
serotonin NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.044 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
among NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ASD NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
target NN O O
restrictive NN O O
and NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
behavioral NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

TRIAL NN O O
REGISTRATION NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
: NN O O
NCT00873509 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2679258)

Prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
bacillus NN O I-INT
Calmette-Gu?rin NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
Canadian NN O I-PAR
Cree NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O I-PAR
184 NN O I-PAR
Cree NN O I-PAR
Indian NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
purified NN O O
protein NN O O
derivative NN O O
( NN O O
PPD NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O I-INT
bacillus NN O I-INT
Calmette-Gu?rin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O O
, NN O O
Candida NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
streptokinase NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
paired NN O O
values NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
BCG NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
rose NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
PPD NN O O
stimulation NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
SI NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
2.7 NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
to NN O O
3.9 NN O O
before NN O O
2 NN O O
yr NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SI NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
Candida NN O O
and NN O O
streptokinase NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
rose NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
yr 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

In NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
life NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
PPD-SI NN O I-OUT
rose NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
3.1 NN O O
to NN O O
35.3 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

In NN O O
17 NN O O
infants NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
later NN O O
but NN O O
before NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
rose NN O O
from NN O O
3.1 NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
to NN O O
24.9 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
it NN O O
between NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
rose NN O O
from NN O O
2.2 NN O O
to NN O O
52.9 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O O
after NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
older NN O O
infants NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
raised NN O I-OUT
PPD-SI NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
BCG NN O O
vaccination NN O O
affected NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
vaccination NN O O
with NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
birth NN O O
to NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
enhances NN O I-OUT
immunologic NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PPD NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2682347)

Auditory NN O O
evoked NN O O
potential NN O O
modifications NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evoked NN O O
potentials NN O O
to NN O O
auditory NN O O
stimulations NN O O
varying NN O O
in NN O O
intensity NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Modifications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
single-trial NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
considered NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
responders NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
clinically NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Electrophysiological NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
affected NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
evoked NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
amplitude NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
single-trial NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
intensity NN O O
level NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
responders NN O O
whose NN O O
dopaminergic NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
fenfluramine NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
modification NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
electrophysiological NN O O
results NN O O
argued NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
amphetamine-like NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
those NN O O
autistic NN O O
children NN O O
whose NN O O
attention NN O O
deficits NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
motor NN O O
disturbances NN O O
including NN O O
hyperactivity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2688237)

[ NN O I-INT
EMLA NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lidocaine/prilocaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
infiltration NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
carbocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mepivacaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
vasectomy NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
EMLA NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
infiltration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
carbocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
vasectomies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O O
patients NN O O
preferred NN O O
infiltration NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

EMLA NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
supplemented NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
incision NN O O
reached NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
tissue NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (26882812)

The NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
Valsartan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Amlodipine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
Levels NN O O
of NN O O
Irisin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Adropin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Perilipin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
obesity NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
two NN O O
major NN O O
threats NN O O
for NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
. NN O O

Up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
medications NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
life NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
etiopathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
now NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
research NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
hypertension NN O O
and NN O O
obesity NN O O
also NN O O
suggests NN O O
the NN O O
link NN O O
between NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agents NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
irisin NN O O
, NN O O
adropin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
perilipin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
them NN O O
with NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
energy NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocols NN O O
: NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
valsartan NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
valsartan NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
amlodipine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
perilipin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irisin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adropin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-INT
kits NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
discovered NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
lower NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perilipin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adropin 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

Both NN O O
amlodipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
valsartan NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
perilipin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
irisin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adropin NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
regulating NN O O
energy NN O O
balance NN O O
, NN O O
perilipin NN O O
, NN O O
irisin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adropin NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
pathogenic NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
obesity-induced NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hence NN O O
, NN O O
ongoing NN O O
trials NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
elucidate NN O O
this NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2691638)

The NN O O
Relaxation NN O O
Inventory NN O O
: NN O O
self-report NN O O
scales NN O O
of NN O O
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
self-report NN O O
measure NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
relaxation NN O O
training NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
rigorous NN O O
statistical NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
scale NN O O
construction NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scale NN O O
discrimination NN O O
technique NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
45-item NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
representing NN O O
three NN O O
orthogonally NN O O
derived NN O O
scales NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
Physiological NN O O
Tension NN O O
, NN O O
Physical NN O O
Assessment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
Tension NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
adequate NN O O
internal NN O O
consistency NN O O
with NN O O
KR20 NN O O
reliability NN O O
coefficients NN O O
of NN O O
.89 NN O O
, NN O O
.95 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
.81 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
validity NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tension NN O I-INT
inducement NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pre-postcontrol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
postcontrol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Univariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
findings NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
dimensions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inventory NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Physiological NN O O
Tension NN O O
Scale NN O O
detected NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
tension NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
tension NN O O
inducement NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
Physical NN O O
Assessment NN O O
Scale NN O O
and NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
Tension NN O O
Scale NN O O
detected NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recommendations NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
research NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
inventory NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2691974)

[ NN O O
Are NN O O
there NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2693850)

Dacarbazine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
dacarbazine-vindesine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
disseminated NN O O
malignant NN O O
melanoma NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
119 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
vindesine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
reveal NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O O
. NN O O

Dacarbazine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m-2 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
X NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
regimen NN O O
vindesine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
mg NN O O
m-2 NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
was NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
4/51 NN O O
patients NN O O
obtained NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
5/51 NN O O
patients NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
dacarbazine-vindesine NN O I-INT
8/59 NN O O
patients NN O O
obtained NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
7/59 NN O O
patients NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
response NN O O
duration NN O O
was NN O O
123 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
dacarbazine NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
171 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
dacarbazine-vindesine NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2694356)

Low NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
shoulder NN O I-PAR
tendonitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
supraspinatus NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
bicipital NN O I-PAR
tendonitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
active NN O I-INT
infrared NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
at NN O O
904 NN O O
nm NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
weekly NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
dummy NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Objectively NN O O
maximum NN O O
active NN O O
extension NN O O
, NN O O
flexion NN O O
and NN O O
abduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
shoulder NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
subjectively NN O O
pain NN O O
stiffness NN O O
movement NN O O
and NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
dummy NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
noted NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
seven NN O O
assessments NN O O
. NN O O

Active NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Naproxen NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
only NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
dummy NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O I-OUT
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tendonitis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
shoulder NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2698934)

Chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertensives NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
exerts NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O I-OUT
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
single-drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1-month NN O O
washout NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
period NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
combined NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
doses NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
changing NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Taken NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
exert NN O O
any NN O O
additive NN O I-OUT
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dihydropyridine NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
thiazide NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
is NN O O
probably NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
particular NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2699786)

[ NN O I-INT
Cannulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
internal NN O I-INT
jugular NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
ultrasonic NN O I-INT
technics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
comparative NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
internal NN O O
jugular NN O O
vein NN O O
( NN O O
IJV NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
access NN O O
route NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Anatomical NN O O
landmarks NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
normally NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
localization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
other NN O O
methods NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
ultrasonic NN O O
waves NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
carotid NN O O
artery NN O O
( NN O O
CA NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
atypical NN O O
positions NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
employed NN O O
an NN O I-INT
ultrasound NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
real-time NN O I-INT
ultrasonograph NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
placed NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
right NN O I-INT
IJV NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Seldinger NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
IJV NN O I-OUT
could NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
located NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
IJV NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
only NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
reason NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
was NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
typical NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
intergroup NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
punctures NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
value NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.83 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
locate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
direction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
puncture NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
technical NN O O
sophistication NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
because NN O O
puncture NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
faster NN O O
when NN O O
aided NN O O
by NN O O
sonography NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
four NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
puncture NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
successful NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
could NN O O
subsequently NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
ultrasonographic NN O O
aid NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
displayed NN O O
a NN O O
hematoma NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
inadvertent NN O O
puncture NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
distinguished NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
was NN O O
overlying NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
echocamera NN O O
provided NN O O
improved NN O O
localization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IJV NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CA NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Doppler NN O O
ultrasound 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- (27025129)

[ NN O O
PLACE NN O O
REMAXOL NN O I-INT
AS NN O O
A NN O O
HEPATOPROTECTOR NN O O
IN NN O O
INTENSIVE NN O O
THERAPY NN O O
OF NN O O
PERVASIVE NN O I-PAR
PERITONITIS NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
PERPOSE NN O O
OF NN O O
RESEARCH NN O O
: NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
Remaxol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
peritonitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Remaxol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
agedfrom NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
devided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
envelopes NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
differential NN O O
therapy NN O O
: NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
received NN O O
Remaxol NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
the NN O O
comporative NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
indicators NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
hemodinamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
transport NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
asid NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
radical NN O I-OUT
oxydation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
background NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
Remaxol NN O I-INT
have NN O O
experiensed NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
endotoxemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Noted NN O O
earlier NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
rudicators NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
transport NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
has NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vasopressor NN O I-OUT
suppot NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
early NN O O
start NN O O
ofparenteral NN O O
intreduction NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
the NN O O
power 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
this NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
relief NN O O
Remaxol NN O I-INT
hepatic NN O O
dysfunction NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
liver NN O O
toxicity NN O O
in NN O O
conditions NN O O
ofperitonitis NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
dynamics NN O O
and NN O O
stabilization NN O O
ofparameters NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
, NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
abolition NN O O
of NN O O
vasopressor NN O O
support NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
contributes NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
providing NN O O
antioxidant NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2709180)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
heat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
perineum NN O O
after NN O O
episiotomy/laceration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Redness NN O I-OUT
Edema NN O I-OUT
Ecchymosis NN O I-OUT
Discharge NN O I-OUT
Approximation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
REEDA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
tool NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
devised NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
postpartum NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
perineum NN O O
following NN O O
an NN O O
episiotomy/laceration NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
heat NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cold NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
perineum NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
applying NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
warm NN O I-INT
perineal NN O I-INT
pack NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
applying NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
cold NN O I-INT
perineal NN O I-INT
pack NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
warm NN O I-INT
sitz NN O I-INT
bath NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
REEDA NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Pearson NN O O
r NN O O
correlation NN O O
indicated NN O O
the NN O O
REEDA NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
laceration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
assumptions NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
trends NN O O
for NN O O
future NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2711711)

[ NN O O
Dose-reduced NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
in NN O O
complex NN O O
nonmedicamentous NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
non-medicamentous NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CNT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
medicaments NN O O
and NN O O
coronary NN O O
risk NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
73 NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
medicamentously NN O I-PAR
stabilized NN O I-PAR
CNT-group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
medicamentously NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
behaviour NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension-associated NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
an NN O O
exactly NN O O
controlled NN O O
6-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
additionally NN O O
recommended NN O O
far-reaching NN O O
CNT NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
economization NN O O
of NN O O
medicaments NN O O
by NN O O
scarcely NN O O
the NN O O
half NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
suitable NN O O
control NN O O
methods NN O O
a NN O O
causal NN O O
non-medicamentously NN O I-INT
conditioned NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
different NN O O
need NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
was NN O O
simulated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
exacter NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
medicaments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
index-patients NN O O
. NN O O

Notwithstanding NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
have NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
atherogenic NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
examinations NN O O
indicate NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
the NN O O
difficulty NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
judgement NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
non-medicamentous NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
measures NN O O
in NN O O
connection NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rational NN O O
dose-reduced NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2741888)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postprandial NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fatty NN O O
foods NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
identified NN O O
as NN O O
precipitating NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
GER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
fat NN O O
meal NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
lower NN O O
esophageal NN O I-OUT
sphincter NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LESP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
the NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
24-h NN O O
pH NN O O
monitor NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
esophageal NN O O
acid NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
GER NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
eaten NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
positions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
meals NN O O
had NN O O
nearly NN O O
identical NN O O
protein NN O O
content NN O O
, NN O O
volumes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
calories NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
successive NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
ingested NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
meals NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
upright NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
h NN O O
recumbent NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acid NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
a NN O O
3-h NN O O
postprandial NN O O
( NN O O
PP NN O O
) NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O O
time NN O O
pH NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
4.0 NN O O
. NN O O

Increased NN O O
upright NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
normals NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
fat NN O O
( NN O O
6.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
fat NN O O
meal NN O O
( NN O O
1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 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

GER NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
greater 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
acid NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
normals NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
fat NN O O
meals NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
study NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
fat NN O O
meals NN O O
induce NN O O
upright NN O I-OUT
GER NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normals NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
abnormal NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
GER NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
progressive NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
acid NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
postprandial NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
GER NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
recumbent NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
prior NN O O
data NN O O
showing NN O O
decreased NN O O
LESP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
fat NN O O
meal NN O O
in NN O O
normals NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (27532829)

A NN O O
Placebo-Controlled NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
Obeticholic NN O I-INT
Acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
Biliary NN O I-PAR
Cholangitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cholangitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
formerly NN O I-PAR
called NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
progress NN O O
to NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
despite NN O O
ursodiol NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Alkaline NN O O
phosphatase NN O O
and NN O O
bilirubin NN O O
levels NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
transplantation NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

Obeticholic NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
farnesoid NN O O
X NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
potential NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
12-month NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
217 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ursodiol NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ursodiol NN O I-INT
unacceptable NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
obeticholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
10-mg NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
obeticholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adjustment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
applicable NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
5-10-mg NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1.67 NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
total NN O O
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
216 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
obeticholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
received NN O O
ursodiol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
background NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
least-squares NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
-113 NN O O
and NN O O
-130 NN O O
U NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
-14 NN O O
U NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-0.02 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.05 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
deciliter NN O O
[ NN O O
-0.3 NN O O
and NN O O
-0.9 NN O O
?mol NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.12 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
deciliter NN O O
[ NN O O
2.0 NN O O
?mol NN O O
per NN O O
liter NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
comparisons NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
noninvasive NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
fibrosis NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pruritus NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
obeticholic NN O O
acid NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
16 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
10-mg NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Obeticholic NN O O
acid NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O I-INT
ursodiol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cholangitis NN O I-PAR
resulted NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
decreases NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
serious NN O O
adverse NN O O
events NN O O
with NN O I-INT
obeticholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Funded NN O O
by NN O O
Intercept NN O O
Pharmaceuticals NN O O
; NN O O
POISE NN O O
ClinicalTrials.gov NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
NCT01473524 NN O O
; NN O O
Current NN O O
Controlled NN O O
Trials NN O O
number NN O O
, NN O O
ISRCTN89514817 NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2755692)

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
sealing NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
hydroxide NN O I-INT
sealers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Solid NN O O
core NN O O
filling NN O O
material NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
gutta-percha NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
fill NN O O
the NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
sealer NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
apical NN O O
leakage NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
apical NN O I-INT
seal NN O I-INT
of NN O O
five NN O O
different NN O O
root NN O I-INT
canal NN O I-INT
sealers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixty NN O I-PAR
roots NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
maxillary NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
incisors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
cleansed NN O O
and NN O O
shaped NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
roots NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
root NN O O
canals NN O O
were NN O O
obturated NN O O
with NN O O
gutta-percha NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sealers NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
lateral-vertical NN O O
condensation NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

Groups NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
V NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
roots NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
canal NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
filled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gutta-percha NN O I-INT
along NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
Roth NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
AH26 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Sealapex NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CRCS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Nogenol NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
VI NN O O
was NN O O
filled NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
gutta-percha NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
sealer NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
serve NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
access NN O O
opening NN O O
was NN O O
filled NN O O
with NN O O
amalgam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O I-PAR
tooth NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
then NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
capped NN O O
vial NN O O
containing NN O O
2 NN O O
X NN O O
2 NN O O
inch NN O O
gauze NN O O
pads NN O O
saturated NN O O
with NN O O
distilled NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sealer NN O O
was NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
set NN O O
at NN O O
37 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
humidor NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
roots NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
coated NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
layers NN O O
of NN O O
nail NN O O
polish NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
roots NN O O
were NN O O
stained NN O O
with NN O O
india NN O O
ink NN O O
, NN O O
decalcified NN O O
, NN O O
dehydrated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
methylsalicylate NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
them NN O O
transparent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
leakage NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
filar NN O O
micrometer NN O O
eyepiece NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
dissecting NN O O
microscope NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
apical NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
six NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
I NN O O
= NN O O
0.45 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
= NN O O
0.277 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
III NN O O
= NN O O
0.343 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
IV NN O O
= NN O O
0.263 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
V NN O O
= NN O O
0.336 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
VI NN O O
= NN O O
2.310 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
seal NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
gutta-percha NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
root NN O O
canal NN O O
sealers 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- (2761917)

Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
systemic NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
with NN O O
diathermocoagulation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
widespread NN O I-PAR
anogenital NN O I-PAR
condyloma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
18-45 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
widespread NN O I-PAR
anogenital NN O I-PAR
condyloma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2b NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
diathermocoagulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
51 NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IM NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
U NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
MU NN O O
) NN O O
/m2 NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
63 NN O O
MU/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
received NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
thrice-weekly NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
MU/m2 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
36 NN O O
MU/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
51 NN O O
underwent NN O O
diathermocoagulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
57 NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IM NN O O
and NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diathermocoagulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
from NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
interferon NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
diathermocoagulation NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
complete NN O O
responders NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cauterization NN O O
and NN O O
interferon NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
experienced NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
complained NN O O
of NN O O
flu-like NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
declined NN O O
progressively NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lasting NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
prevalent NN O O
chronic NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
systemic NN O O
recombinant NN O O
interferon NN O O
alpha-2b NN O O
is NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
primary NN O O
condyloma NN O O
lesions NN O O
and NN O O
does NN O O
so NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
cauterization 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- (2764265)

[ NN O O
Preventive NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Pentaglobin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Basing NN O O
on NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
posttraumatic NN O I-PAR
intensive-care NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medium NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ISS NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intravenously NN O O
applicable NN O O
IgM NN O O
preparation NN O O
( NN O I-INT
Pentaglobin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
against NN O O
nosocomial NN O O
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
3rd NN O O
, NN O O
4th NN O O
and NN O O
5th NN O O
day NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
g NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
12.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
albumin NN O I-INT
each 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
between NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
definitive NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
group NN O O
clearly NN O O
showed NN O O
fewer NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
pointers NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
magnitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
temperatures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
and NN O O
8th NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
particularly NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
e.g NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
reintervention NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haemorrhage NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
extensive NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
interventions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2780120)

Milk NN O I-OUT
intolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
sleeplessness NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
July NN O O
1986 NN O O
to NN O O
July NN O O
1988 NN O O
, NN O O
146 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
continual NN O I-PAR
waking NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
crying NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
58.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sleeplessness NN O O
was NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
sleep NN O O
habits NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
11.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
explanation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
sleep NN O O
difficulties NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
extensive NN O O
workup NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
13.5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Their NN O O
persistent NN O O
sleeplessness NN O O
was NN O O
tentatively NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
undiagnosed NN O O
intolerance NN O O
to NN O O
cow NN O O
's NN O O
milk NN O O
. NN O O

Cow NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
excluded NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
15 NN O O
children NN O O
sleep NN O O
normalized NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
seen NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
logs NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
asleep NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
15 NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes 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
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
arousals NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
per NN O O
night NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
5.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
8.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
13.0 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
14.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Sleep NN O I-OUT
normalized NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
who NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
no NN O O
cow NN O O
's NN O O
milk NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
hydrolyzed NN O O
hypoallergenic NN O O
diet NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
every NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
challenge NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
cow NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
cow NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
challenge NN O O
induced NN O O
the NN O O
reappearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insomnia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
agitated NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
except NN O O
one NN O O
child NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
child NN O O
's NN O O
initial NN O O
sleep NN O O
difficulties NN O O
were NN O O
retrospectively NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
inappropriate NN O O
sleep NN O O
habits 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- (2808984)

Rate-modulated NN O O
cardiac NN O O
pacing NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
transthoracic NN O O
impedance NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
: NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O O
gas NN O O
exchange NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relation NN O O
of NN O O
pacing NN O O
rate NN O O
to NN O O
physiologic NN O O
variables NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O O
demand NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
minute NN O I-PAR
ventilation-sensing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
rate-modulating NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
pacemaker NN O I-PAR
implanted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
paroxysmal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
catheter NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
atrioventricular NN O I-INT
junction NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treadmill NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
with NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
expired NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
exchange NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
ablation NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
implantation NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
programmed NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
fixed-rate NN O O
VVI NN O O
and NN O O
rate-modulating NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
VVIR NN O O
pacing NN O O
modes NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
expired NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate-modulating NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
pacing NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

Pacing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
VO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.84 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
8.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fixed NN O O
rate NN O O
pacing NN O O
mode NN O O
to NN O O
10.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate-modulating NN O O
, NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
mode NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
13.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
to NN O O
16.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.1 NN O O
cc/kg NN O O
per NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximal NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
pacing NN O O
mode NN O O
was NN O O
136 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.7 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
cardiac NN O O
rhythm NN O O
before NN O O
ablation NN O O
( NN O O
134.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
30.1 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (2831788)

Combined NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
or NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amiloride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
59 NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
then NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
diuretics NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10-20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10-20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
lowered NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3/16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3/14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
enalapril NN O O
and NN O O
timolol NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
elevated NN O O
by NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
after NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diuretic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
hyperkalaemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
other NN O O
routine NN O O
laboratory NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drug NN O O
combinations NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
efficient NN O O
, NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2834996)

Intranasal NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
naturally NN O I-OUT
occurring NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
colds NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
naturally NN O I-PAR
occurring NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
colds NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
nasal NN O O
sprays NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
at NN O O
10 NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
MU/day NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
four NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
10-MU NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20-MU NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
comparable NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
documented NN O O
rhinovirus NN O O
colds NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
to NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pretreatment NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26 NN O O
to NN O O
27 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
colds NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
20-MU NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
10-MU NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
proven NN O O
rhinovirus NN O O
colds NN O O
treated NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
20-MU NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
days NN O O
) 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
6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
favoring NN O O
interferon NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
days NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
washings NN O I-INT
from NN O O
compliant NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
proven NN O O
rhinovirus NN O O
colds NN O O
yielded NN O O
rhinoviruses NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
new NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
occurrence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
household NN O O
contacts NN O O
. NN O O

Interferon NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
mucus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Antibiotics NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
presumed NN O O
secondary NN O O
infections NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
20-MU NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
) 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
0 NN O O
% 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
. NN O O

Nasal NN O O
sprays NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
colds NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (2860373)

Primary NN O I-OUT
hypothyroidism NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2865615)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
phlebitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
extravasation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Self-adhesive NN O O
patches NN O O
which NN O O
release NN O O
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
continuous NN O O
rate NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patches NN O I-INT
were NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
distal NN O O
to NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patches NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
magnitude NN O O
whether NN O O
failure NN O O
was NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
extravasation NN O O
or NN O O
phlebitis NN O O
. NN O O

Headaches NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
patches NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
were NN O O
relieved NN O O
by NN O O
simple NN O O
analgesics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2868645)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
short-acting NN O O
beta NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
supraventricular NN O I-PAR
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Esmolol NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
Placebo NN O I-INT
Multicenter NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
short-acting NN O O
intravenous NN O O
beta-adrenergic-blocking NN O O
agent 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
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
supraventricular NN O I-PAR
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
bpm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
partial-crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
36 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
35 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Therapeutic NN O O
failures NN O O
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
bpm NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
when NN O O
esmolol NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O O
esmolol NN O O
dosage NN O O
producing NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
97.5 NN O O
micrograms/kg/min NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
converted NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
esmolol NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lost NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
following NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
finding NN O O
indicative NN O O
of NN O O
rapid NN O O
reversal NN O O
of NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
prevalent NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hypotension NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
esmolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
elimination NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
9.2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2871744)

Propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
MILIS NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
limb NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Limitation NN O O
of NN O O
Infarct NN O O
Size NN O O
are NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
269 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
electrocardiographic NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
suggesting NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
134 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
135 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligibility NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
readily NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Therapy NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
8.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
full NN O O
induction NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
being NN O O
continued NN O O
in NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
hospital NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
continued NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
tenth NN O O
hospital NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
propranolol- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
CK-MB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
planimetry NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infarct NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
technetium NN O I-OUT
pyrophosphate NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
scintigrams NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
R-wave NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
transmural NN O O
anterior NN O O
and NN O O
inferior NN O O
infarcts 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
mortality NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
safely NN O O
to 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
who NN O O
are NN O O
selected NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
simple NN O O
clinical NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
infarct NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
beta NN O O
blockade NN O O
is NN O O
begun NN O O
8.5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2871945)

Protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HD-MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentric NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

MPA-Hematology NN O O
Italian NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
comparing NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
227 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
forms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conventionally NN O O
employed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
involved NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
MPA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
117 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MPA NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
as NN O O
tablets NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
, NN O O
briefly NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
MPA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
and NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tumors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
solid NN O I-OUT
forms NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
disease NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
23/46 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
13/47 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MPA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
CT NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
antithrombin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antithrombin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Ag NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mg/dl NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alpha-2 NN O I-OUT
macroglobulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIII NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VIII NN O I-OUT
R NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
Ag NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
IX NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
interesting NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
anti-thrombin NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
MPA NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
even NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
some NN O O
extent NN O O
, NN O O
impede NN O O
tumor-induced NN O O
thrombophilia 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- (2881132)

Antibiotic NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
group-B NN O O
streptococci NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
in NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
group-B NN O O
streptococci NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
preterm NN O O
labour NN O O
. NN O O

Urine NN O O
samples NN O O
from NN O O
4122 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
27-31 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
bacteria NN O O
. NN O O

Group-B NN O O
streptococci NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
of NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
either NN O O
penicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
IU NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
37 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
32 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
rupture NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
membranes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
preterm NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
penicillin 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

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
recolonisation NN O O
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
group-B NN O I-PAR
streptococci NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preterm NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (288173)

Bronchial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
II NN O O
. NN O O

Quantitative NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
inoperable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
clinicoanatomical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
groups NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4.7 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
4.7 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1.7 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitagram NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
28.1 NN O O
for NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20.7 NN O O
for NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
6.8 NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
calculated NN O O
per NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitagram NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.9 NN O O
for NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5.7 NN O O
for NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4.8 NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Statistically NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
give NN O O
no NN O O
reason NN O O
to NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
that NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
longer NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
for NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
are NN O O
to NN O O
uncertain NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
conclusion NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2882234)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
peripheral NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Is NN O O
the NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
route NN O O
reliable NN O O
? NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
accident NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
asystolic NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrest NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endotracheal NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Femoral-artery NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
assay NN O O
of NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
noradrenaline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
intravenous NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
adrenaline NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
measurable NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
adrenaline NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
reliable NN O O
in NN O O
out-of-hospital NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (288486)

Lithium NN O I-INT
and NN O O
granulocytopenia NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
reinduction NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myelogenous NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
t.i.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respect NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
granulocyte NN O I-PAR
counts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
granulocyte NN O I-OUT
nadirs NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
100/cu NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
actuarial NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1000/cu NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
16.0 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
24.6 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-lithium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulocytes NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
500/cu NN O O
mm NN O O
also NN O O
favored NN O O
the NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
approached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
: NN O O
14.0 NN O O
days NN O O
versus NN O O
20.5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.054 NN O O
. NN O O

Lithium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
0.5 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1.0 NN O I-OUT
meq/liter NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
easily NN O O
maintained NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
directly NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
shortened NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
remission NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2885607)

Methotrexate/nitrous-oxide NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2885887)

Noradrenergic NN O I-PAR
mechanisms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
akathisia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2891940)

Mexiletine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
painful NN O O
diabetic NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
assess NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
mexiletine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
bodyweight NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
symptoms NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
signs NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chronic NN O I-INT
painful NN O I-INT
diabetic NN O I-INT
neuropathy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
30-64 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Assessment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
five-item NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
mexiletine NN O O
phase NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Mexiletine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
tendon NN O I-OUT
reflexes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vibration NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beat-to-beat NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postural NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mild NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sixteen NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
mexiletine NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2915887)

5-Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
94 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
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
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FEC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
cycles NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
FAC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
FEC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
FAC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
equivalence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
toxicity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epirubicin NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2928074)

Motion NN O O
aftereffects NN O O
with NN O O
horizontally NN O O
moving NN O O
sound NN O O
sources NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
free NN O O
field NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
horizontally NN O I-INT
moving NN O I-INT
sound NN O I-INT
was NN O O
presented NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
observer NN O I-PAR
seated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
anechoic NN O I-PAR
chamber NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
sound NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
500-Hz NN O I-INT
low-pass NN O I-INT
noise NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
6300-Hz NN O I-INT
high-pass NN O I-INT
noise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
traversed NN O O
a NN O O
semicircular NN O O
arc NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
front NN O I-PAR
hemifield NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
ear NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
distance NN O O
: NN O O
1.5 NN O O
m NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
10-sec NN O O
intervals NN O O
this NN O O
adaptor NN O O
was NN O O
interrupted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
750-msec NN O O
moving NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
( NN O O
a NN O O
500-Hz NN O O
low-pass NN O O
noise NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
horizontal NN O O
arc NN O O
1.6 NN O O
m NN O O
in NN O O
front NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
a NN O O
run NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
adaptor NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
velocity NN O O
( NN O O
-200 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
+200 NN O O
degrees/sec NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
probes NN O O
with NN O O
velocities NN O O
varying NN O O
from NN O O
-10 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
+10 NN O O
degrees/sec NN O O
were NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Observers NN O I-PAR
judged NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
direction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
motion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
probe NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
stimuli NN O O
presented NN O O
over NN O O
headphones NN O O
( NN O O
Grantham NN O O
& NN O O
Wightman NN O O
, NN O O
1979 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
auditory NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
aftereffect NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
: NN O O
subjects NN O O
responded NN O O
left NN O O
to NN O O
probes NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
adaptor NN O O
moved NN O O
right NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
moved NN O O
left NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
adaptor NN O O
and NN O O
probe NN O O
were NN O O
spectrally NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
MAE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
from NN O O
different NN O O
spectral NN O O
regions NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
adaptor NN O O
speed NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
subject-dependent NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
two NN O O
components NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
auditory NN O O
MAE NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
generalized NN O O
bias NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
that NN O O
probes NN O O
move NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
direction NN O O
opposite NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adaptor NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
spectra NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
velocity NN O O
of NN O O
moving NN O O
sounds NN O O
after NN O O
prolonged NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
moving NN O O
sounds NN O O
having NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
spectral NN O O
content NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2932908)

Chemotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
hydroxyurea NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
methyl-CCNU NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oncovin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
streptozotocin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MOF-Strep NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
Eastern NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
bowel NN O I-OUT
carcinoma 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
6/32 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
FU NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
HU NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5/32 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
MOF-Strep NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
43 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
MOF-Strep NN O O
experienced NN O O
substantially NN O O
greater NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
FU NN O O
+ NN O O
HU NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2936772)

Comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
vulgaris NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-OUT
base NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E-Mycin NN O I-OUT
tablets NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
333 NN O I-OUT
mg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tetracycline NN O I-OUT
hydrochloride NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Panmycin NN O O
tablets NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
gm NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
base NN O I-INT
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
333 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
1 NN O O
gm NN O O
of NN O O
tetracycline NN O I-INT
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
500 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
reduced NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

Pustules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
papules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
open NN O I-OUT
comedo NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
12-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-seven NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erythromycin-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
89 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tetracycline-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
stated NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
acne NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
improved NN O O
or NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
week NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
erythromycin NN O O
were NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
the NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tetracycline NN O O
were NN O O
Candida NN O I-OUT
vaginitis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
pseudotumor NN O I-OUT
cerebri NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2939214)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
ketanserin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ketanserin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
ketanserin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
supine NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
for NN O O
diastolic NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2943781)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
periinfarct NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
emergency NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
emergency NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intracoronary NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
exercise-induced NN O O
periinfarct NN O O
ischemia NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
intracoronary NN O I-INT
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recatheterization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
submaximal NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
thallium-201 NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

Periinfarct NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reversible NN O O
thallium NN O O
defect NN O O
adjacent NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
defect NN O O
assessed NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
. NN O O

Successful NN O I-OUT
reperfusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
emergency NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
and NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Residual NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infarct-related NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
shown NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
predischarge NN O I-OUT
angiography NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
43.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
31.4 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
75.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
streptokinase 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

Of NN O O
the NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
developed NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
periinfarct NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
streptokinase 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

Thus NN O O
, 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
treated NN O O
with NN O O
emergency NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
periinfarct NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intracoronary NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
further NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2949396)

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
B-thromboglobulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
transient NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
B-thromboglobulin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B-TG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PF4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADP-induced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
transient NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TIA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

B-TG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PF4 NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ADP-induced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
seven NN O O
and NN O O
fourteen NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
starting NN O O
with NN O O
ASA NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Basal NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
B-TG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PF4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
amplitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ADP-induced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
abnormally NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
TIA NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

ASA NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
B-TG NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
TIA NN O O
patients NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
7th NN O O
and NN O O
14th NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
treatment 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
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
ASA 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
ASA NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
conventionally NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
alpha-granule NN O O
proteins NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2956874)

Placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
enoximone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
with NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
final NN O I-OUT
intravenous NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
intravenous NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
enoximone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
2-part NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
first NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
enoximone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
again NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
enoximone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
enoximone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
format NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
enoximone NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hemodynamic NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
2.76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.63 NN O O
to NN O O
3.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.72 NN O O
liters/min/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
wedge NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
19.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.8 NN O O
to NN O O
14.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
101 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.8 NN O O
to NN O O
85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1,880 NN O O
+/- NN O O
573 NN O O
to NN O O
1,254 NN O O
+/- NN O O
383 NN O O
dynes NN O O
s NN O O
cm-5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
slightly NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
to NN O O
86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
maximal NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
infusion NN O O
and NN O O
lasted NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
values NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
had NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
CHF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
comparison NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
biased NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
overall NN O O
assessment NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ejection NN O O
fraction NN O O
improved NN O O
from NN O O
30.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.8 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
33.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoximone NN O O
group NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
23.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
23.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (2959901)

Bronchodilator NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
fenoterol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
wheezing NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
use NN O O
of NN O O
MDI NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
spacer NN O O
device NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Exequiel NN O I-PAR
Gonz?lez NN O I-PAR
Cortes NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
wheezing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AW NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Fenoterol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FNT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ipratropium NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
respectively NN O O
to NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
metered NN O O
dose NN O O
inhalers NN O O
( NN O O
MDI NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
spacers NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
puffs NN O O
every NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
bronchial NN O O
obstruction NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
scored NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
single-blind NN O O
method NN O O
every NN O O
hour NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
criterion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
bronchodilator NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
bronchial NN O O
obstruction NN O O
at NN O O
subsequent NN O O
scorings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
matched NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
same NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
samples NN O O
for NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
FNT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
scores NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O I-INT
FNT NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

FNT NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AW NN O I-PAR
when NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O I-INT
FNT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
IB NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
MDI NN O O
and NN O O
spacers NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O I-INT
FNT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (2968595)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
apoproteins NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
A1 NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

24 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
primary NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MK NN O I-INT
733 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
competitive NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
HMG NN O I-INT
CoA NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
bile NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
sequestrant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cholestyramine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
and NN O O
apoproteins NN O O
A1 NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
alone NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
31 NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
percent NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
cholestyramine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
41 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
total NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
value NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
cholestyramine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
percent NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
simvastatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
32 NN O O
percent NN O O
total NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
value NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
43 NN O O
percent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O O
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
High NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
safety NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
simvastatin-cholestyramine NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prove NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
heterozygous NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (2973215)

Clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
and NN O O
prognostic NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
in NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
( NN O O
LV NN O O
) NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
cardiac NN O O
death NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
its NN O O
significance NN O O
in NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
previously NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
diltiazem-placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
creatine NN O I-PAR
kinase-MB NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CK-MB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
126 NN O O
of NN O O
544 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
exhibited NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O O
voltage NN O O
criteria NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
older NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
vs NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
smaller NN O O
peak NN O O
adjusted NN O O
CK NN O O
levels NN O O
( NN O O
490 NN O O
+/- NN O O
376 NN O O
vs NN O O
666 NN O O
+/- NN O O
726 NN O O
IU/liter 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
than NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
Q NN O I-OUT
waves NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
CK-MB NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transient NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O O
AMI NN O O
and NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
2-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24 NN O O
vs NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
vs NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.044 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
AMI NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
1.7 NN O O
and NN O O
2.1 NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
and NN O O
non-Q-wave NN O O
AMI NN O O
have NN O O
smaller NN O O
enzymatic NN O O
infarcts NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
short-term NN O O
prognosis NN O O
as NN O O
do NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
LV NN O O
hypertrophy NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
reinfarction NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
rates NN O O
are NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up 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- (2975949)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
on NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
outcome NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
balloon NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
110 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
restenosis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
56 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
54 NN O O
) NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different 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
previous NN O O
coronary NN O O
bypass NN O O
surgery NN O O
or NN O O
coronary NN O O
balloon NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
, NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
multivessel NN O O
disease NN O O
or NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
coronary NN O O
occlusions NN O O
. NN O O

Warfarin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
started NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
thromboplastin NN O O
international NN O O
normalised NN O O
ratio NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
2.5 NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
other NN O I-INT
antianginal NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
prescribed NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
dextran NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
1-20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
follow NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
angiography NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
angina NN O O
class NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
remained NN O O
positive NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
lesion NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
angina NN O O
class NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
symptom NN O O
free NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
positive NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
lesion NN O O
and NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
angiographic NN O O
restenosis NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
lower NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
and NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
verapamil NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
symptom NN O O
recurrence NN O O
or NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
restenosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
coronary NN O O
angioplasty NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (2975995)

Arginine NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
dissociates NN O O
the NN O O
diuresis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
natriuresis NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
atrial NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
possible NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
atrial NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
ANF NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
urinary NN O O
sodium NN O O
and NN O O
water NN O O
excretion NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
maximal NN O I-PAR
water NN O I-PAR
diuresis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
on NN O O
four NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

Atrial NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
pmol NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
min-1 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
administered NN O O
against NN O O
a NN O O
background NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
AVP NN O I-INT
0.003 NN O I-INT
pmol NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
min-1 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
thus NN O O
the NN O O
combinations NN O O
P NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
AVP NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ANF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
AVP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ANF NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Atrial NN O I-INT
natriuretic NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UNaV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
+56 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
V NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
+17 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CH2O NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
+23 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Ccr NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

Arginine NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CH2O NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-68 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
UNaV NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Ccr NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
AVP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ANF NN O I-INT
study NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
UNaV NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
+64 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
ANF NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
V NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CH2O NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-52 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
below NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
; NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
showed NN O O
this NN O O
antidiuresis NN O O
reflected NN O O
the NN O O
prevalent NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
AVP NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
any NN O O
specific NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
AVP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
dissociate NN O O
the NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diuretic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ANF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3001523)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
varicella-zoster NN O O
virus NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
severely NN O I-PAR
immunocompromised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vidarabine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
acyclovir NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vidarabine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
varicella-zoster NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
immunocompromised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
onset NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cutaneous NN O I-OUT
dissemination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
vidarabine NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O O
dermatomal NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
vidarabine NN O O
, NN O O
acyclovir NN O O
treatment NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
four NN O O
vs. NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
new NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
formed NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
vs. NN O O
six NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Acyclovir NN O I-INT
also NN O O
shortened NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
interval NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pustulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
crusting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
17 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
vs. NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
two NN O O
vs. NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
acyclovir NN O I-INT
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
vidarabine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
varicella-zoster NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
immunocompromised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3010510)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
hyperimmune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
against NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
interstitial NN O O
pneumonitis NN O O
after NN O O
allogenic NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
lethal NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
interstitial NN O I-OUT
pneumonitis NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
allogenic NN O I-INT
bone NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
CMV-hyperimmune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
anticytomegalovirus NN O I-INT
titer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
6 NN O O
times NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
starting NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
before NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
CMV NN O I-INT
hyperimmune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
pretransplant NN O O
anti-CMV NN O O
titer NN O O
, NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
graft-versus-host NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
transfusions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
histologically NN O I-OUT
proven NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
interstitial NN O I-OUT
pneumonitis NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
110 NN O O
days NN O O
post NN O O
BMT NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
versus NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CMV NN O I-INT
hyperimmune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
interstitial NN O I-OUT
pneumonitis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
idiopathic NN O I-OUT
pneumonitis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3030386)

Antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bendrofluazide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
then NN O O
current NN O O
recommendations NN O O
for NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diuretic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enalapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bendrofluazide NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
( NN O O
35/20 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
supine NN O O
, NN O O
38/20 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
standing NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
occurred NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
tablet NN O O
ingestion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Three NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
incapacitating NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
precluded NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diuretics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
undertaken NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
optimal NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
confirmed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (305873)

[ NN O I-INT
Whole NN O I-INT
gut NN O I-INT
irrigation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
mannitol NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study 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



-DOCSTART- (3063541)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
endocrine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
151 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T3-4 NN O I-PAR
M0 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
representing NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
404 NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Finnish NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
: NN O O
orchiectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
the NN O O
4-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
scan NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
13/50 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
bowel NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
orchiectomy NN O O
has NN O O
few NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
any NN O O
, NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
estrogens NN O O
and NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
consideration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3065176)

[ NN O I-PAR
Vulvovaginal NN O I-PAR
Candida NN O I-PAR
mycoses NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
clotrimazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
6-day NN O O
therapy NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3073441)

[ NN O O
Controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
quinidine-amiodarone NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reversal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
auricular NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3075724)

Plasma NN O O
3,4-dihydroxyphenylethyleneglycol NN O O
and NN O O
3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylethyleneglycol NN O O
as NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O O
noradrenergic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Animal NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
interspecies NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
brain NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
( NN O O
NE NN O O
) NN O O
metabolism NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
3,4-dihydroxyphenylethyleneglycol NN O O
( NN O O
DOPEG NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylethyleneglycol NN O O
( NN O O
MOPEG NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
question NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
glycol NN O O
metabolites NN O O
as NN O O
peripheral NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
noradrenergic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
DOPEG NN O O
and NN O O
MOPEG NN O O
( NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC NN O O
) NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
depression NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
categories NN O O
( NN O O
DSM-III NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
depressed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
submitted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
metapramine NN O I-INT
450 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
influencing NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
DOPEG NN O O
and NN O O
MOPEG NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
way NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
DOPEG NN O O
and NN O O
MOPEG NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DOPEG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MOPEG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
idea NN O O
that NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
biological NN O O
indices NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
noradrenergic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3076138)

Comparative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
pinacidil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3081148)

Combined NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
vasopressin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
hypothalamic NN O I-INT
releasing NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O O
pituitary NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pituitary NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O O
pituitary NN O O
function NN O O
using NN O O
four NN O O
hypothalamic NN O O
releasing NN O O
factors NN O O
and NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rapid NN O O
sequential NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O I-INT
corticotrophin NN O I-INT
releasing NN O O
factor NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
releasing NN O O
factor NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
luteinising NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
100 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thyrotrophin NN O I-INT
releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Arginine NN O I-INT
vasopressin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
pressor NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
or NN O O
serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
for NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
growth NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
luteinising NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
follicle NN O O
stimulating NN O O
hormone NN O O
, NN O O
prolactin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thyroid NN O O
stimulating NN O O
hormone NN O O
at NN O O
multiple NN O O
times NN O O
for NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
troublesome NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
releasing NN O O
factor NN O O
combined NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
arginine NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
combined NN O O
test NN O O
using NN O O
insulin NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
thyrotrophin NN O O
releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
and NN O O
luteinising NN O O
hormone NN O O
releasing NN O O
hormone NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
luteinising NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
follicle NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thyroid NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
releasing NN O O
factors NN O O
with NN O O
arginine NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
insulin NN O O
induced NN O O
hypoglycaemia NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
releasing NN O O
factors NN O O
without NN O O
arginine NN O O
vasopressin NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
pituitary NN O I-OUT
hypo-function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similarly NN O O
recognised NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
hormone NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
peak NN O O
usually NN O O
by NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
most NN O O
people NN O O
adequate NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
hormone NN O O
reserves NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
using NN O O
basal NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minute NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
minute NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
new NN O O
combined NN O O
releasing NN O O
factor NN O O
test NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
rapid NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
useful NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O O
pituitary NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3085131)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
ratings NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
subjective NN O O
effect NN O O
and NN O O
physiological NN O O
effect NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
90-min NN O O
test NN O O
sessions NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
sessions NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
block NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
several NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cigarettes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
puffs NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
cigarette NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expired NN O I-OUT
air NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
monoxide NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
also NN O O
produced NN O O
modest NN O O
, NN O O
dose-related NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
standing NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
standing NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
characteristic NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
psychoactive NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
increased NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
by NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3089263)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
amiodarone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
disopyramide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paroxysmal NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
interim NN O O
report NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3098341)

Dose NN O O
dependent NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
pituitary NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
to NN O O
transdermal NN O O
oestrogen NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
concentration NN O O
on NN O O
climacteric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gonadotrophin NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
0.025 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0.05 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
transdermal NN O I-INT
oestradiol NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
follicle NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hydroxyproline NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
relation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
oestradiol NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
variable NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
large NN O O
reduction NN O O
and NN O O
little NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
oestradiol NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
above NN O O
150 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
pg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hormone NN O O
replacement NN O O
therapy NN O O
producing NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
higher NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
concentrations NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
conferring NN O O
any NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3098997)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
resistive NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
skeletal NN O O
muscle NN O O
in NN O O
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Skeletal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
during NN O O
marrow NN O O
transplantation NN O O
despite NN O O
total NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
atrophy NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
minimized NN O O
with NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
no NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
thrice NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PT3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PT5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
through NN O O
35 NN O O
days NN O O
posttransplant NN O O
. NN O O

Muscle NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
weekly NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-methylhistidine NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
favored NN O O
a NN O O
muscle NN O O
protein-sparing NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
controls NN O O
only NN O O
suggested NN O O
muscle NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
inactivity NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
energy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
protein NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Large NN O O
individual NN O O
variation NN O O
, NN O O
inadequate NN O O
nutritional NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
admission NN O O
arm NN O O
muscle NN O O
area NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
clouded NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3103932)

Chemotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
BCNU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
( NN O I-INT
FAM NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
BCNU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
identify NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
balanced NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
known NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
measurable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirteen NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
microscopic NN O I-PAR
residual NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
margins NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
13.2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
measurable NN O O
disease NN O O
reached NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
progressive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
responders NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
yet NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
SD NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
14.7 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
PD NN O O
9.5 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
responders NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
CR NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
PR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
SD NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
PD NN O O
, NN O O
versus NN O O
O NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
SD NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
PD NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-FU NN O O
plus NN O O
BCNU NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15.7 NN O O
months NN O O
versus NN O O
9.9 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
survival NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
FAM NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
reached NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
BCNU NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
unmeasurable NN O O
disease NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
15.9 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3108794)

Antibiotic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
one-day NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
five-day NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
contaminated NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
perioperative NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
would NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multi-institutional NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
pedicled NN O I-PAR
flap NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
candidates NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Later NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
cefoperazone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
for NN O O
either NN O O
24 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
120 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
beginning NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prescribed NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
18.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
from NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
for NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
undergo NN O O
myocutaneous NN O O
flap NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3114351)

Transdermal NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
antianginal NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
h/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
intermittent NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
h/day NN O O
) NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
beta-adrenergic NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
application NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
day NN O O
interval NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
application NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
and NN O O
intermittent NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
increases NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
intermittent NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
nitrate-free NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
antianginal NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
occurs NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3116609)

[ NN O I-INT
Bupivacaine-CO2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bupivacaine-HCl NN O I-INT
at NN O O
various NN O O
injection NN O O
temperatures NN O O
in NN O O
peridural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
shock NN O O
wave NN O O
lithotripsy NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

INTRODUCTION NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
injection NN O O
temperatures NN O O
on NN O O
carbonated NN O I-INT
anesthetics NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
controversial NN O O
since NN O O
1965 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine-CO2 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine-HCl NN O I-INT
at NN O O
various NN O O
injection NN O O
temperatures NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
urologic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
extracorporeal NN O I-INT
shock NN O I-INT
wave NN O I-INT
lithotripsy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine-CO2 NN O I-INT
or NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine-HCl NN O I-INT
at NN O O
temperatures NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
degrees NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
36 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
The NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

Epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
L2-3 NN O O
interspace NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
18-gauge NN O I-INT
Tuohy NN O I-INT
needle NN O O
using NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
advanced NN O O
4 NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
space NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
ml NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
adrenaline NN O I-INT
1:200,000 NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
4 NN O O
min NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
injected NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
supine NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
pinprick NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
Bromage NN O O
method NN O O
at NN O O
2-min NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
5-min NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
every NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
240 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Spread NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine-CO2 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
-HCl NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
temperature NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C 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
Figs NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
Table NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3117477)

Metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
ventilatory NN O O
responses NN O O
during NN O O
very NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
level NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
supine NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
workloads NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
W NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
pedalling NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-PAR
varied NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
cycles/min NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
workload NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
of NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
fR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VT/TI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
canopy-computer-spirometer NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
males NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
VE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
duty NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TI/TTOT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
fR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
females NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
workload NN O O
, NN O O
VO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VT/TI NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
linearly NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
pedalling NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
workload NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
VO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
little NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
cycles/min NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
females NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
performing NN O O
supine NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pedalling NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
workload NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
W NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
diminished NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
workload NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
W NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
pedalling NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
efficiency NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
low NN O O
workloads NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sexes NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
generally NN O O
include NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
b NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
mechanical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
equivalents NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE/VO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VE/VCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
workload NN O O
in NN O O
females NN O O
than NN O O
males NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3119086)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3123115)

Serum NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
insulin NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
fasting NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
glucagon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
after NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
successive NN O I-INT
periods NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
hypoglycaemics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metformin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Glycaemic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
on NN O O
glibenclamide NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
glibenclamide NN O I-INT
stimulates NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
insulin NN O O
production NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3124456)

Prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
androgen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
on NN O O
iron NN O O
kinetics NN O O
. NN O O

Ferrokinetic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
determinations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
in NN O O
iron-replete NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
nandrolone NN O I-INT
decanoate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
androgen-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Erythron NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
RBC NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
responder NN O O
studied NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
fifth NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
restudied NN O O
until NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
androgen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass 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
erythron NN O O
iron NN O O
turnover NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
androgen-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
studied NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
erythron NN O O
iron NN O O
turnovers NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
and NN O O
dialysis-associated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
losses NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
decrease NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
two NN O O
androgen-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
ever NN O O
increasing NN O O
their NN O O
erythron NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
erythron NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
turnovers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
dialysis-associated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
losses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
consistently NN O O
paralleled NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
Hb NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
nandrolone NN O O
decanoate NN O O
therapy NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
: NN O O
increased NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O O
( NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
erythron NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
indirectly NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
erythron NN O I-OUT
iron NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
RBC NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
determinations NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
dialysis-associated NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
losses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
studying NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
androgens NN O O
on NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3131904)

[ NN O O
Supplementary NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Esberitox NN O I-INT
of NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
following NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
supposed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
prevention NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
by NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Esberitox NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
question NN O O
arose NN O O
when NN O O
performing NN O O
an NN O O
investigation NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Esberitox NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
chemo-radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
induces NN O O
above NN O O
all NN O O
a NN O O
systemic NN O O
damage NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
hemopoietic NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
regional NN O O
noxa NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
submitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
curative NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
following NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
mammary NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
way NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
irradiations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
regional NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
built NN O O
by NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Esberitox NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
protective NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
Esberitox NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
parameters NN O O
investigated NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
leucocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
granulocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
diverging NN O O
from NN O O
literature NN O O
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
probably NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
injury NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
hematotoxic NN O O
noxa NN O O
and NN O O
furthermore NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
regeneration NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
this NN O O
ability NN O O
is NN O O
exhausted NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Esberitox NN O O
can NN O O
act NN O O
no NN O O
longer NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
the NN O O
essential NN O O
factor NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
noxa NN O O
. NN O O

Esberitox NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
prolonged NN O O
toxicity NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
continuity NN O O
( NN O O
noxa NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
broken NN O O
up NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
regeneration NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
studied NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
longterm NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3132778)

[ NN O O
Total NN O O
parenteral NN O I-OUT
nutrition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
colon NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3134815)

The NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aggressive NN O O
tocolysis NN O O
for NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
rupture NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
membranes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
bed NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
tocolysis NN O I-INT
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tocolysis NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
membrane NN O I-PAR
rupture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
26-month NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
membrane NN O I-OUT
rupture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
infectious NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
necrotizing NN O I-OUT
enterocolitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
intrauterine NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
uterine NN O O
contractions NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
receiving NN O O
tocolysis NN O I-INT
( NN O O
105.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
157 NN O O
hours NN O O
versus NN O O
62.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
77 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prolongation NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
surviving NN O O
infant NN O O
( NN O O
tocolysis NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
38,593 NN O O
+/- NN O O
$ NN O O
40,887 NN O O
versus NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
$ NN O O
43,158 NN O O
+/- NN O O
$ NN O O
37,116 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.445 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
artifactual NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
very NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
born NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
unequal NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tocolysis NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
skewed NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
tocolysis NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intrauterine NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
identifiable NN O O
perinatal NN O O
benefit NN O O
garnered NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
additional NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks 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
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
intrauterine NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
regular NN O I-OUT
contractions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
surviving NN O O
infant NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
tocolysis NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
perinatal NN O O
outcome NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
itself NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O O
maternal NN O O
morbidity NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
after NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
tocolysis NN O I-INT
may NN O O
greatly NN O O
increase NN O O
intrauterine NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prolongation NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3139179)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
mastectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treating NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
operable NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
by NN O O
wedge NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
median NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
months NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1-63 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
catchment NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
135 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
tumours NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
68 NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
67 NN O O
to NN O O
mastectomy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Histological NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
by NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
incorrect NN O O
randomisations NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
team NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Mastectomy NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
wedge NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
symptomatic NN O I-INT
axillary NN O I-INT
lymph NN O I-INT
nodes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tamoxifen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
wedge NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
there NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O O
in NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
further NN O O
excision NN O O
or NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
locoregional NN O O
recurrence NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
local NN O O
treatments NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
exhausted NN O O
or NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
END NN O O
POINT NN O O
Treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Mortality NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
metastatic NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
7 NN O O
( NN O O
10.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
mastectomy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
15.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
group NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
remained NN O O
alive NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
remained NN O O
alive NN O O
and NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
group NN O O
locoregional NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
group NN O O
locoregional NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
As NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
eventually NN O O
required NN O O
surgery NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
include NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Optimum NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
include NN O O
both NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
and NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3146231)

[ NN O I-PAR
Complaints NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
anesthetics NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sexes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
inhalation NN O O
anesthetics NN O I-INT
halothane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
balanced NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
enflurane/alfentanil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
after NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
or NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
and NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
highest NN O O
after NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
after NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
always NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
among NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
balanced NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
without NN O O
alfentanil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
premedication NN O O
with NN O O
flunitrazepam NN O O
and NN O O
atropine NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
N2O/30 NN O O
% NN O O
O2 NN O O
, NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
favorable NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
agent NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Balanced NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
enflurane/alfentanil NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
advantages NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
under NN O O
the NN O O
given NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3156347)

[ NN O O
Trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
in NN O O
dysmenorrhea NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3166942)

Psoriasis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
scalp NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
rays NN O I-INT
or NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Grenz NN O I-INT
rays NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
comparative NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
ray NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
rays NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
betamethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
psoriasis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scalp NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Grenz NN O I-INT
rays NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
on NN O O
six NN O O
occasions NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
ray NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
Grenz NN O O
ray NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
followed-up NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
16 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
ray NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
healed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
healed NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
ray NN O I-INT
only NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
remained NN O I-OUT
healed NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
Grenz NN O I-INT
ray NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
modality NN O O
for NN O O
scalp NN O I-OUT
psoriasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
topical NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
has NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3168620)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
infants NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O O
infants NN O O
' NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
objects NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
with NN O O
10-month-old NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
attention NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
conditions NN O O
( NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no-intervention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Level NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
controlled NN O O
by NN O O
systematically NN O I-INT
varying NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
objects NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
extent NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
experimenter NN O I-INT
talked NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
infant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
proximity NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Infant NN O O
attention NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
examining NN O I-OUT
objects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
medium NN O O
intervention NN O O
when 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

Baseline NN O O
attention NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
attenders NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O O
attending NN O O
infants NN O O
attended NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
in NN O O
medium NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
intervention NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
high NN O O
attending NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
interacts NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
tendency NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
focus NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3174738)

Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
some NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nicotine NN O I-PAR
chewing NN O I-PAR
gum NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Spontaneous NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
abstinent NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
tobacco NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
hr NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
capsule NN O O
containing NN O O
either NN O O
centrally NN O I-INT
acting NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
60-min NN O O
intervals NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
capsule NN O O
was NN O O
ingested NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
chewed NN O O
two NN O O
pieces NN O O
of NN O O
gum NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
. NN O O

Nicotine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
combinations NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
across NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
three-minute NN O O
periods NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
capsule NN O O
and NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
gum NN O O
chewing NN O O
from NN O O
bipolar NN O O
electrode NN O O
montages NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
positions NN O O
: NN O O
Cz-T5 NN O O
, NN O O
Cz-T6 NN O O
, NN O O
Cz-F7 NN O O
and NN O O
Cz-F8 NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
one NN O O
period NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
relaxed NN O O
with NN O O
eyes NN O O
closed NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
period NN O O
they NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
math NN O O
task NN O O
with NN O O
eyes NN O O
open NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
individually NN O O
, NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
beta NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nicotine NN O O
gum NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
alpha NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mecamylamine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
prevented NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
alpha NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
gum NN O O
dose NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Alpha NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
mg NN O O
gum NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
mecamylamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Self-reported NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
gum NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
diminished NN O O
by NN O O
mecamylamine NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
earlier NN O O
studies NN O O
which NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
are NN O O
mediated NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O O
actions NN O O
of NN O O
nicotine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3180669)

Ventilatory NN O O
function NN O O
during NN O O
urography NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
respiratory NN O O
function NN O O
during NN O O
intravenous NN O O
urography NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ionic NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
non-ionic NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
iopamidol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

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
s NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
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
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
non-atopic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
urography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC 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

The NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
iopamidol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
iopamidol NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O O
iothalamate NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
ionic NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
non-ionic NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
measurable NN O O
but NN O O
asymptomatic NN O O
and NN O O
biologically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
static NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bronchospasm NN O I-OUT
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
contrast-induced NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
non-atopic NN O O
individuals NN O O
. NN O O

Iopamidol NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
ventilatory NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
non-atopic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
urography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3183852)

Heparin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
hemolytic-uremic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
1976 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hemolytic-uremic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
either NN O O
with NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
data NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
illness NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anuria NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Renal NN O O
biopsy NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
long-term NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
survivors NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dipyridamole NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
typical NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
hemolytic-uremic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3189201)

Educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
altering NN O O
water-sanitation NN O O
behavior NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
urban NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
impact NN O O
on NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
that NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
improved NN O O
childhood NN O I-OUT
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
1 NN O O
y NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
wk NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
5.89 NN O O
episodes NN O O
whereas NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonintervention NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
7.55 NN O O
episodes NN O O
( NN O O
protective NN O O
efficacy NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
comparable NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
y NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NCHS NN O O
standard 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
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
that NN O O
reduces NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
not NN O O
necessarily NN O O
also NN O O
improve NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3207656)

Surgery NN O O
of NN O O
aphakic NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aphakic NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-INT
scleral NN O I-INT
buckling NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
encirclement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
reattachment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
retina NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
technique NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Simplicity NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
procedure NN O O
merit NN O O
its NN O O
application NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
repairing NN O O
aphakic NN O O
detachments NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3220672)

Argon NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
black NN O I-PAR
Jamaican NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Argon NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ALT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
48 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
Jamaican NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
intra-ocular NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
despite NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
controlling NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
eyes NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
average NN O O
drop NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
ALT NN O I-INT
was NN O O
6.6 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

Argon NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
trabeculoplasty NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
adjunct NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
black NN O O
Jamaican NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3260083)

[ NN O I-INT
Propofol NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
by NN O O
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
has NN O O
attracted NN O O
much NN O O
attention NN O O
recently NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
necessary NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
short NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
without NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
evident NN O O
advantages NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
substance NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
unpremedicated NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-59 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Anesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
induced NN O O
with NN O O
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
and NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
0.10 NN O O
, NN O O
0.15 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
0.20 NN O O
mg NN O O
propofol/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O O
minute NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
breathing NN O O
N2O/O2 NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
FIO2 NN O I-INT
33 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
bolus NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
moved NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg NN O O
propofol/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O O
minute NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
additional NN O O
bolus NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
with NN O O
0.10 NN O O
mg NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
0.20 NN O O
mg NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
required NN O O
bolus NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
minute NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
approximate NN O O
ED50 NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
propofol NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
infusion NN O O
+ NN O O
bolus NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
0.102 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.028 NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
0.202 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.006 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
minute NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
5.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.4 NN O O
to NN O O
9.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.6 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
propofol NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
systolic/diastolic NN O O
20/10-15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
control NN O O
value NN O O
during NN O O
operation NN O O
; NN O O
it NN O O
remained NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
postinduction NN O O
value NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
infusion NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Side-effects NN O O
: NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
salivation NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
instances NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
coughing NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
reported NN O O
pain NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
reported NN O O
dreams NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pleasant NN O O
nature 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- (3277760)

Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
umbilical NN O I-INT
cord NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparing NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
attachment NN O O
, NN O O
microbial NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
methods NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treating NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
umbilical NN O I-PAR
cord NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Antimicrobial NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
equal NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
dye NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
least NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
staff NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
longest NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Povidone-iodine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
shortest NN O O
attachment NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
liked NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
special NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
nosocomial NN O I-OUT
outbreak NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
staff NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parents NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
help NN O O
clinicians NN O O
decide NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
cord NN O O
care NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3278754)

Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
13-cis NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
v NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
myelodysplastic NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
13-cis NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with 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
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MDS NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
13-cis NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
13-CRA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
possible NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Determination NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
repeat NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
biopsies NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
aspirates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
differential NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reticulocyte NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
specified NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.66 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
13-CRA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
6 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
a NN O O
minor NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Approximately NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
nearly NN O O
identical NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
13-CRA NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
reversible NN O O
with NN O O
decreasing NN O O
or NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
that NN O O
13-CRA NN O I-INT
exerts NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MDS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3278798)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
JCCLSG-S811 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Leukemia NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
1981 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
131 NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
standard-risk NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
protocol NN O O
JCCLSG-S811 NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
119 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
115 NN O O
( NN O O
96.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
attained NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PRD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vindesine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VDS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
preventive NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
CNS NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
including NN O O
18 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapies NN O O
, NN O O
Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
Regimen NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
intermittent NN O O
regimen NN O O
) NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
PRD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
6-mercaptopurine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6MP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
175 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
VCR NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.0 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenously NN O O
) NN O O
alternating NN O I-INT
biweekly NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
225 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
intravenously NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regimen NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
continuous NN O O
regimen NN O O
) NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
6MP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m2/week NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pulses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PRD NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
VCR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dosages NN O O
as NN O O
Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
intensification NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
LIT NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2000 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
per NN O O
dose NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
intravenously NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
leucovorin NN O O
rescue NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
continuous NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
CCR NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CCR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
75.1 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
49.7 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.3 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
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
72.1 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
49.7 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.3 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
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Regimen NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
CNS NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
CCR NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
Regimen NN O O
B NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
Regimen NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
LIT NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
important NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intermittent NN O O
cyclic NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
6MP NN O O
and NN O O
MTX NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
continuous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3279698)

BCG NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RIVM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
intravesical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
First NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
two-arm NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
bacillus NN O I-INT
Calmette-Gu?rin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
RIVM NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Dutch NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
preparation NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MMC NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
situ NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CIS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Therapeutic NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
after NN O O
complete NN O O
transurethral NN O O
resection NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
visible NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
RIVM NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
bacilli NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
mL NN O O
saline NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
instilled NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
mL NN O O
saline NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
( NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
thereafter NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
month NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Reported NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
165 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
308 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug-induced NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chemical NN O I-OUT
cystitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
( NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
78 NN O O
BCG-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
13.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
87 NN O O
MMC-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
groups NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
cystitis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O O
( NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
BCG-treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
148 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
44 NN O O
( NN O O
29.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MMC-treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
160 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
( NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-INT
BCG-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
was NN O O
0.33 NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
rate NN O O
for NN O I-INT
MMC-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
was NN O O
0.29 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.560 NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3284632)

Dysthymia NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
marital NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
antidepressants NN O O
. NN O O

Preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
marital NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dysthymic NN O I-PAR
married NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
doxepin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
marital NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
enhance NN O I-INT
intimacy NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
facilitating NN O I-INT
self-disclosure NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
spouses NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
more NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dysthymic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
show NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
intimacy NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
trend NN O O
is NN O O
developing NN O O
for NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
depressive NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
self-disclosure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
evidence NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
husband NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
supportive NN O O
figure NN O O
may NN O O
of NN O O
itself NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
manoeuvre NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
dysthymic NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3286673)

Pulsatile NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
than NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
modulating NN O O
islet NN O O
cell NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
respective NN O O
modulating NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pancreatic NN O O
islet NN O O
cell NN O O
function NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mU NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
pulsatile NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
mU NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
switching NN O O
on/off NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
2/11 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
human NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
close NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
basal NN O O
value NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
glucose NN O O
clamp NN O O
technique NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
were NN O O
infused NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
different NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O I-INT
amount NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
delivered NN O I-INT
continuously NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mU NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pulsatile NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.97 NN O O
mU NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
11 NN O O
min NN O O
during NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
insulin NN O O
was NN O O
infused NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
g NN O O
arginine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
iv NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
islet NN O O
cell NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
administration NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clear-cut NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
arginine-induced NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
when NN O O
insulin NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pulsatile NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
infused NN O O
continuously NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
arginine-stimulated NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
intermittently NN O O
, NN O O
arginine-induced NN O I-OUT
glucagon NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
concept NN O O
that NN O O
insulin NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
modulator NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
islet NN O I-OUT
A- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
B-cell NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
are NN O O
reinforced NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
hormone NN O O
is NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intermittent NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
reproduce NN O O
the NN O O
pulsatile NN O I-OUT
physiological NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3287907)

Analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Study NN O O
1 NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
149 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
rated 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
at NN O O
one NN O O
half NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
global NN O O
assessment NN O O
made NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
all NN O O
analgesic NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TOTAL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
remedication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Codeine NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
some NN O O
hourly NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
hourly NN O O
measures NN O O
including NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
remedication NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
2 NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
648 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
rated NN O O
their NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
hourly NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
from NN O O
Hours NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
for NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TOTAL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Aspirin NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
from NN O O
Hours NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
for NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Hours NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
for NN O O
PID NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
SPID NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TOTAL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Piroxicam NN O I-INT
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
648 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
SPID NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TOTAL NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hourly NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
beginning NN O O
with NN O O
Hour NN O O
6 NN O O
through NN O O
Hour NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
hourly NN O O
measures NN O O
: NN O O
Hours NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
9 NN O O
for NN O O
relief NN O O
and NN O O
Hour NN O O
7 NN O O
for NN O O
PID NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
aspirin NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
remedication NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
in NN O O
support NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
piroxicam NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3287999)

Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
after NN O O
thoracotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
papaveretum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
papaveretum NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
relief NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Total NN O I-OUT
intramuscular NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
satisfactory NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperatively NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
requirements NN O O
for NN O O
analgesia NN O O
although NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
nerve NN O O
stimulation NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3292597)

Antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cetamolol NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
dose-titrated NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cetamolol NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
108 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
lead-in NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
cetamolol NN O I-INT
5-10-15 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
( NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cetamolol NN O I-INT
15-25-50 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
( NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
began NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
two NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
each NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
dispensed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
82.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
81.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
93.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
last NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
cetamolol NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
supine NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
-18.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3/-9.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
[ NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
-17.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3/-8.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
[ NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
-9.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5/-3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
stabilized NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
supine NN O O
measurements NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
cetamolol NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
or NN O O
measuring NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3296982)

Need NN O O
for NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O I-PAR
identify NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O I-PAR
most NN O I-PAR
beneficial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
we NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
insulin-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
withdrawn NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Over NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
developing NN O O
hyperglycemic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
acetonemia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
counted NN O O
as NN O O
study NN O O
failures NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O I-OUT
criteria NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
insulin-withdrawal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Elevated NN O I-OUT
stimulated NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
insulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O O
in NN O O
insulin-withdrawal NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
study NN O O
failure NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
insulin NN O O
deficient NN O O
as NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
peptide NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
0.43 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prompt NN O O
metabolic NN O O
decompensation NN O O
precipitated NN O O
by NN O O
insulin NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
insulin-deficient NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
insulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
need NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3299950)

[ NN O I-INT
Domperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
irritable NN O I-OUT
colon NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3300426)

Nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vomiting NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
isoflurane NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
110 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
hysterectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
anesthetized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
either NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fentanyl NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hr NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
62 NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
air-O2 NN O O
and NN O O
N2O-O2 NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
had NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
previous NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
had NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
gynecologic NN O O
laparotomies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3300436)

Outpatient NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
regular NN O O
nebulized NN O O
beta NN O O
agonists NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
bitolterol NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoproterenol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nebulized NN O I-INT
bitolterol NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoproterenol NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
regular NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
; NN O O
130 NN O I-PAR
nonsteroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
regular NN O O
asthma NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
office NN O O
or NN O O
laboratory NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
with NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
eight NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
medications NN O O
induced NN O O
rapid NN O I-OUT
bronchodilation NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
bitolterol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tremor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
medications NN O O
. NN O O

Tachycardia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
palpitations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
following NN O O
isoproterenol NN O O
. NN O O

Bitolterol NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
for NN O O
regular NN O O
nebulizer NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3303886)

Prognostic NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
non-Q-wave NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Diltiazem NN O O
Reinfarction NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
576 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-Q-wave NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diltiazem NN O I-PAR
Reinfarction NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
246 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
effort NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
10.5 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
diltiazem NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Reinfarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
12.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
randomization NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
postinfarction NN O O
angina NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
without NN O O
angina NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
serial NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
115 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
246 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
angina NN O O
had NN O O
transient NN O O
ST-T NN O I-OUT
changes NN O O
and NN O O
131 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
14-day NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
115 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
electrocardiographic NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
extensive NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
MB-creatine NN O I-OUT
kinase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
91 NN O O
+/- NN O O
76 NN O O
vs NN O O
37 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19 NN O O
IU/liter NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.059 NN O O
[ NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
rank NN O O
sum NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
1.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Angina NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
transient NN O I-OUT
ST-T NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
289 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
45 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
287 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diltiazem NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
life-table NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0103 NN O O
[ NN O O
2-tail NN O O
, NN O O
log NN O O
rank NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
9.3 NN O O
to NN O O
53.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
postinfarction NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
identified NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
subset NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
subset NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
viable NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
jeopardized NN O I-OUT
myocardium NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
benefited NN O O
from NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3304622)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cortisol NN O O
excretion NN O O
in NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
are NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
brain NN O O
edema NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
head NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
usefulness NN O O
remains NN O O
uncertain NN O O
and NN O O
contradictory NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
cortisol NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endogenous NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
free NN O O
cortisol NN O O
was NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
20-fold NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
under NN O O
basal NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
maximum NN O O
values NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1-3 NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
rate NN O O
closely NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
barbiturates NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
endogenous NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
steroids NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
head NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

Exogenous NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
are NN O O
thus NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
than NN O O
endogenous NN O O
cortisol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3305203)

Therapeutic NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myelocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
status NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
CALGB NN O O
. NN O O

Cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Leukemia NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3306431)

Alpha NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
design NN O O
considerations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
alpha-2 NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
MS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
interferon NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
MS NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3307623)

Oral NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
influenza NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
ribavirin NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
influenza NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antiviral NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
significant NN O O
laboratory NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
influenza NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
with NN O O
ribavirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3307842)

Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Long-term NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
generally NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
infectious NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
sent NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
519 NN O I-PAR
disease-free NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
where NN O O
pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
versus NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
irradiated NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
mainly NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
symptoms NN O O
usually NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
infection 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

Although NN O O
statistically NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
the NN O O
preoperatively NN O I-INT
irradiated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
postoperatively NN O I-INT
irradiated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
only NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
integral NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
absorbed NN O O
energy NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pre- NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
group 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
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
morbidity NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
irradiated NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
tissue NN O O
, NN O O
encompassed NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
full-dose NN O O
target NN O O
volume NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
crucial NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
volume NN O O
was NN O O
considerable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
preoperatively NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
but NN O O
kept NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3313023)

[ NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
flunarizine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
attacks/month NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
classical NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
since NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
clinical NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
headache NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
were NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
migraine NN O O
diary NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
Calcium NN O O
entry NN O O
blocker NN O I-INT
Flunarizine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Sibelium NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
Thromboxane NN O O
A NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
Acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Medication NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
one NN O O
dosage NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
: NN O O
2-5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
KG NN O O
ASS NN O I-INT
or NN O O
5-10 NN O O
mg NN O O
Flunarizine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Documented NN O O
attack NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
controlled NN O O
at NN O O
monthly NN O O
physical NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

Final NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
both NN O O
different NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
principals NN O O
. NN O O

72.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
ASS NN O O
73.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
Flunarizine NN O I-INT
71.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
attack-free NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Migraine NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
initially NN O O
7-8 NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
1-2 NN O O
attacks/month NN O O
. NN O O

Duration NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
constant NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
1-3 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
slight NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
interrupted NN O O
therefore NN O O
. NN O O

Longtime NN O O
prognosis NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
possible NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
observation NN O O
is NN O O
too NN O O
short NN O O
so NN O O
far NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Both NN O O
substances NN O O
are NN O O
definitely NN O O
useful NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
few NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
If NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
is NN O O
insufficient NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
substance NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
tried NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3314516)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
maternal NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fetal NN O O
acid-base NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
maternal NN O O
and NN O O
fetal NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
intravenous NN O O
fluids NN O O
administered NN O O
before NN O O
regional NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
gravid NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
L NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
gm NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
lactate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
before NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acute NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hyperinsulinemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cord NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
key NN O I-OUT
finding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
lowering NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
umbilical NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7.31 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
0.04 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7.21 NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
0.06 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
glucose-infused NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
non-glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
0.05 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Confounding NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
influence NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
acid-base NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
can NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
acidosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
hypoglycemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O I-OUT
findings NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
particular NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
importance NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
perinatal NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Under NN O I-OUT
these NN O I-OUT
circumstances NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
contribute NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
acidosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3314599)

Continuous NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
thoracotomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3315991)

Intravenous NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
& NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
cystoscopy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3318754)

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
family NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bulimia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
family NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
individual NN O O
supportive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
anorexia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
and NN O O
bulimia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bulimia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specialized NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
restore NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
family NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

After NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
psychological NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
reassessed NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
menstrual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Morgan NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Russell NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Family NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
begun NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
more NN O O
tentative NN O O
finding NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
supportive NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
family NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
anorexia NN O O
nervosa NN O O
and NN O O
clarifies NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
indications NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3319640)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.d.s NN O O
. NN O O

and NN O O
19 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
t.d.s NN O O
. NN O O

as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
equally NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
; NN O O
systolic NN O O
pressure NN O O
22.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O O
pressure NN O O
15.5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24.4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
18.4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standing NN O O
position NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
23.7 NN O O
and NN O O
16.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
28.0 NN O O
and NN O O
19.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
rise NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
moderate NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
supine NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.3219 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
beats/min NN O O
standing NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0203 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
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
markedly NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
nicardipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
unexpected NN O O
findings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
lead NN O O
any NN O O
patient NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
suspected NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
pectoris NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
on NN O O
active NN O O
medication 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
blood NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
classes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
nicardipine NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
essential NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3324498)

Pouch NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
esophagojejunostomy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3333530)

Predictors NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
controlled NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
controlled NN O O
dietary NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
1981-1983 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Karelia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Finland NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
asses NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
fat NN O O
intake NN O O
modification NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
involved NN O O
middle-aged NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
semirural NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
return NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
period NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
polyunsaturated/saturated NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P/S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
ratio NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
0.2 NN O O
to NN O O
0.4-1.2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
energy NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
constant NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
report NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
pooled NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
stepwise NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
different NN O O
dietary NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
both NN O O
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
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
intake NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
strongest NN O O
dietary NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
significant NN O O
predictive NN O O
power NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
fat NN O O
intake NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3337028)

Iron NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
status NN O I-INT
of NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
iron-fortified NN O I-INT
beikost NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
meat NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
compared NN O O
iron NN O O
intake NN O O
and NN O O
iron NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
meat-containing NN O I-INT
baby NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
fortified NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ferrous NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
Fe/100 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
Fe-fortified NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
mg NN O O
Fe/100 NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nonfortified NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
nonfortified NN O O
formula NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
infants NN O O
received NN O O
Fe NN O I-INT
mainly NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
fortification NN O I-INT
Fe NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
beikost NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75-86 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
met NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg.kg-1.d-1 NN O O
; NN O O
whereas NN O O
80-85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
Fe-fortified NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
did NN O O
. NN O O

Hb NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Hct NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FEP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
lower NN O O
ferritin NN O O
values NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
365 NN O O
d 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
fed NN O O
the NN O O
nonfortified NN O O
formula NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
infant NN O O
had NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
g/L NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
regular NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
commercially NN O I-INT
prepared NN O I-INT
Fe-fortified NN O I-INT
beikost NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
meat NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
most NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
Fe NN O O
deficiency NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
Fe NN O O
intake NN O O
is NN O O
substantially NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3342655)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hypoxemia NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
establish NN O O
a NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curve NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
isocapnic NN O O
hypoxemia NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
tight-fitting NN O I-INT
face NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
isocapnic NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
rebreathing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
modified NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
machine NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
blended NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hypoxic NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
arterial NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
saturations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SaO2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
80 NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
percent NN O O
; NN O O
subjects NN O O
also NN O O
breathed NN O O
100 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
room NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Target NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
and NN O O
end-tidal NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
were NN O O
continuously NN O O
monitored NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
ear NN O O
oximeter NN O O
and NN O O
CO2 NN O O
gas NN O O
analyzer NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
experienced NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

CO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
noninvasively NN O O
at NN O O
approximately NN O O
two-minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
continuous-wave NN O O
Doppler NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
6.84 NN O O
L/min NN O O
at NN O O
FIo2 NN O O
1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
8.44 NN O O
L/min NN O O
at NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
80 NN O O
percent NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
entirely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
increases NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-response NN O O
manner NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
isocapnic NN O O
hypoxemia NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
persons NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3353525)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
thoracic NN O I-INT
peridural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
surgery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aorta NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

UNLABELLED NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
But NN O O
EA NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
little NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
reaction NN O O
to NN O O
major NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
out NN O O
whether NN O O
EA NN O O
is NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
diminish NN O O
the NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
transabdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aorta NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
subdivided NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
different NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
1. NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2. NN O O
neuroleptanalgesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NLA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
3. NN O O
thoracic NN O I-INT
EA NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Some NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
glucose NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
intubation NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
cortisol NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
cortisol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
the NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O O
carbohydrate-containing NN O O
infusion NN O O
fluids NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
stress NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
halothane NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
elevations NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
EA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NLA NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
hyperglycaemia NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
mild NN O O
elevations NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cortisol NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
period 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- (3382462)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
functions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
61-78 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minor NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Nimotop NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
with NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
medication-free NN O O
days NN O O
between NN O O
medications NN O O
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Consecutive NN O O
2-s NN O O
epochs NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
10-min NN O I-INT
EEG NN O I-INT
record NN O O
( NN O O
resting NN O O
conditions NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
F3/C3-F4/C4-P3/01-P4/02 NN O O
were NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
FFT NN O O
( NN O O
Fast NN O O
Fourier NN O O
Transform NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
given NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
leads NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
minute NN O O
of NN O O
recording NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
epochs NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
correspond NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
stage NN O O
A NN O O
or NN O O
non-A NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
subtle NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O O
vigilance NN O O
within NN O O
stage NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
anterior-posterior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
left-right NN O I-OUT
relations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
alpha-power NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
previous NN O O
findings NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
nimodipine NN O O
effect NN O O
can NN O O
only NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
when NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
baseline-EEG NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
considered NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
subdivided NN O O
in NN O O
equal NN O O
subgroups NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
non-A NN O O
epochs NN O O
under NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
finding NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
geriatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
two NN O O
electroencephalographically NN O O
distinguishable NN O O
forms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dissolution NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
both NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
non-A NN O I-OUT
epochs NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
poor NN O O
alpha-activity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
non-A NN O I-OUT
epochs NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
prevalence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
A-epochs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
abundant NN O I-OUT
alpha-activity NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
. NN O O

Opposite NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
subgroups NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
left-right NN O I-OUT
relations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alpha-power NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
the NN O O
anterior NN O O
regions NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O O
alpha-activity NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
with NN O O
abundant NN O O
alpha-activity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Under NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
both NN O O
subgroups NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
shift NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
confirm NN O O
findings NN O O
that NN O O
nimodipine NN O O
stabilizes NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
medium NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
they NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
dependence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
nimodipine NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
act NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
sedative NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3385217)

Actions NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-INT
activating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
homologues NN O I-INT
and NN O O
their NN O O
combinations NN O O
on NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-PAR
chemokinesis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cutaneous NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
responses NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
actions NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
C16:0 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
C18:0 NN O I-INT
platelet NN O I-INT
activating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
homologues NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
neutrophil NN O I-PAR
chemokinesis NN O I-PAR
assay NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
intradermal NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
chemokinesis NN O O
assay NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
moved NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
neutrophils NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
C18:0 NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
C16:0 NN O I-INT
compound NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
C16:0 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
C18:0 NN O I-INT
PAFs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
1:9 NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
3:1 NN O O
. NN O O

Intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
C16:0 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
C18:0 NN O I-INT
PAF NN O I-INT
homologues NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
weal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Combination NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
phospholipids NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
3:1 NN O O
or NN O O
1:9 NN O O
of NN O O
C16:0 NN O O
: NN O O
C18:0 NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
response NN O O
curves NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chain NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alkyl NN O O
substituent NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
PAF NN O I-INT
homologues NN O I-INT
and NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
homologues NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
ratios NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
or NN O O
formed NN O O
by NN O O
leukocytes NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
vitro NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
cutaneous NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PAF NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
C18:0 NN O I-INT
homologue NN O I-INT
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
human NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
chemoattractant NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (339662)

Levamisole NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
laryngopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
epidermoid NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
biopsy-proven NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
received NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
surgery NN O O
and/or NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
levamisole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
fortnight NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
randomized NN O O
method 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
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
control-group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
immunity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
disturbed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
laryngo-pharyngeal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
disturbance NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
immunological NN O O
measures NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
relevant NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
significantly NN O O
favourable NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
levamisole NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3410812)

Speech NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
sign NN O I-INT
language NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
language NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
training NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
pretreatment-elicited NN O O
verbal NN O O
imitation NN O O
ability NN O O
when NN O O
predicting NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
use NN O O
during NN O O
language NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
minimally NN O I-PAR
verbal NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
Speech NN O I-OUT
Alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Sign NN O I-OUT
Alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Simultaneous NN O I-OUT
Presentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Sign NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Alternating NN O I-OUT
Presentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Sign NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Speech NN O I-OUT
Alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Simultaneous NN O I-OUT
Presentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Alternating NN O I-OUT
Presentation NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
facilitated NN O O
more NN O O
child-initiated NN O O
speech NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
Sign NN O I-INT
Alone NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
verbal NN O O
imitation NN O O
ability NN O O
positively NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
child-initiated NN O I-OUT
spoken NN O I-OUT
vocabulary NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
during NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Exploratory NN O O
analyses NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
verbal NN O O
imitation NN O O
, NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
IQ NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
predict NN O O
spoken NN O O
language NN O O
developed NN O O
during NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (341733)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin-neomycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metronidazole-neomycin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
preoperative NN O O
bowel NN O O
preparation NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

Bacteriologic NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
feces NN O O
and NN O O
colon NN O O
content NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-OUT
bacteria 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
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
feces NN O O
and NN O O
colon NN O O
contents NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
. NN O O

Wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
erythromycin NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
organisms NN O O
recovered NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
were NN O O
fecal NN O O
in NN O O
nature NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
cases NN O O
the NN O O
organisms NN O O
recovered NN O O
were NN O O
staphylococci NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
presumed NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
origin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
bacteria NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
contributors NN O O
to NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
colon NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
specific NN O O
reduction NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (341946)

Placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mianserin NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3430295)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tinea NN O I-PAR
pedis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mycologically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
tinea NN O I-PAR
pedis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Mycological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ketoconazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
interdigital NN O O
tinea NN O O
pedis NN O O
is NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
considerably NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
topical NN O O
imidazole NN O O
preparations NN O O
where NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
over NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
are NN O O
generally NN O O
expected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3447334)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
filtration NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
does NN O O
no NN O I-INT
antimetabolite NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Morphology NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
blebs NN O I-PAR
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
increased NN O O
filtration NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Corneal NN O I-OUT
epithelial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
as NN O O
common NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (345802)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-INT
suppressant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fibrinolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (347921)

Nebulized NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
IPPB NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
croup NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
advocated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
croup NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
proved NN O O
it NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
saline NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
croup NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
inspiratory NN O I-PAR
stridor NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
nebulized NN O O
and NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
intermittent NN O O
positive NN O O
pressure NN O O
breathing NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
ten NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
saline NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
nebulized NN O O
racemic NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
croup NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3503390)

Hemolytic NN O I-INT
streptococcus NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
OK-432 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
beneficial NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
hemolytic NN O I-INT
streptococcus NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
stimulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
any NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
an NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
subdivided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Intradermal NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ID NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
42 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intradermal NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
OK-432 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Intramuscular NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IM NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
OK-432 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
39 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
regards NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
host NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
Groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ID NN O O
Group NN O O
showed NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accompanying NN O O
this NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ID NN O O
Group NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
white NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
dramatic NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
extracted NN O O
cell NN O O
wall NN O O
polysaccharide NN O O
of NN O O
hemolytic NN O O
streptococcus NN O O
Su-strain NN O O
( NN O O
Su-PS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ID NN O O
Group NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
52.4 NN O O
% NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
abscess NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
IM NN O O
Group NN O O
developed NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
abscess NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
absent NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
these NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
tested NN O O
, NN O O
intradermal NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (350565)

Tinidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hepatic NN O I-PAR
amoebiasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
amoebiasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unequivocal NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
radiological NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
amoebiasis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
; NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
aspiration NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
where NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
metronidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
tinidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
2g NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
extended NN O O
if NN O O
considered NN O O
clinically NN O O
advisable NN O O
. NN O O

12 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
given NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

15 NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
93.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
tinidazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-PAR
amoebiasis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Bangladesh NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
tinidazole NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
necessary NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
caused NN O O
fewer NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3516608)

Veterans NN O O
Administration NN O O
Cooperative NN O O
Study NN O O
on NN O O
antiplatelet NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
amputation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gangrene NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
on NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
major NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
231 NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
amputation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gangrene NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
gangrene NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
were NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
atherosclerotic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
opposite NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
gangrene NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
24 NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
21.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
19.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
20.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
29 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
24.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
opposite-side NN O I-OUT
amputations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Survival NN O O
curve NN O O
analyses NN O O
revealed NN O O
little NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
amputations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarctions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
most NN O O
noteworthy NN O O
group NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
strokes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
19.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
antiplatelet NN O O
agents NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
amputation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
opposite NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
on NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
of NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
strokes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transient NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
interpreted NN O O
with NN O O
caution NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
multiple NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3519095)

Hexetidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
'Oraldene NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
report NN O O
on NN O O
its NN O O
antibacterial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antifungal NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
flora NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
antibacterial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antifungal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hexetidine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
pre-dosing NN O O
oral NN O O
flora NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
from NN O O
saliva NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
cultured NN O O
for NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
Candida NN O I-OUT
albicans NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
then NN O O
rinsed NN O O
their NN O O
mouths NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
minute NN O O
3-times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
with NN O O
15 NN O O
ml NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
hexetidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
saliva NN O O
samples NN O O
being NN O O
collected NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Dosing NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
intervening NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Hexetidine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
aerobic NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
post-dosing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
up NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
post-dose NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-dose NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
for NN O O
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
maximum NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
again NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
post-dose NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
Candida NN O I-OUT
albicans NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
Day NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
post-dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
not NN O O
eradicating NN O I-OUT
completely NN O I-OUT
aerobic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
substantial NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
numbers NN O O
should NN O O
prove NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3519550)

Postoperative NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Oslo NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
mastectomy NN O I-INT
are NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
1115 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
deviants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
follow-up NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
11-20 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
part NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
roentgen NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
part NN O O
a NN O O
60Co NN O I-INT
unit NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
considerably NN O O
increased NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
altered NN O O
treatment NN O O
plan NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O O
techniques NN O O
lowered NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
loco-regional NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
60Co NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Stage NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
radiation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
subgroups NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
Stage NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
medially NN O O
located NN O O
tumors NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
benefit NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
60Co NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
than NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
lateral NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
Stage NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
having NN O O
60Co NN O O
radiation NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
radiation NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (352099)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
and NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
medical 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
deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
or NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
thromboses NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Streptokinase NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
250 NN O O
000 NN O O
IU NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
000 NN O O
IU/hour NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
000 NN O O
IU NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
maintenance NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
000-50 NN O O
000 NN O O
IU/day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
phlebography NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
thrombolysis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
71.4 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
streptokinase NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
heparin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
the NN O O
chi2-test NN O O
for NN O O
overall NN O O
association NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
requiring NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Minor NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
slight NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
encountered NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thrombus NN O I-PAR
beyond NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
calf NN O I-PAR
veins NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
offered NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
streptokinase NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3528402)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
with NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
oophorectomy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
randomized NN O O
122 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
oophorectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
oophorectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
oophorectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.056 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
58 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
tamoxifen NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
53 NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
oophorectomy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
undergoing NN O O
oophorectomy NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
both NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
those NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
whom NN O O
hormonal NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
indicated NN O O
, NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
suitable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
oophorectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3532353)

Treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
Southeastern NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1979 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
1979 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
member NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Southeastern NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SECSG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
studies NN O O
used NN O O
both NN O O
new NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
commercially NN O I-INT
available NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
1,087 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
from NN O O
18 NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
agent NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
under NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

Unfortunately NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
recommendations NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
drawn NN O O
from NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
alter NN O O
presently NN O O
accepted NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

Adenocarcinoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
remains NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
challenge NN O O
to NN O O
tumor NN O O
biologists NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
oncologists NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
generally NN O O
resistant NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
yet NN O O
common NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
vital NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
America NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3533340)

NSAID NN O O
ionisation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
soft-tissue NN O I-OUT
rheumatism NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
role NN O O
played NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
electrical NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
suggestion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Four NN O O
treatments NN O O
for NN O I-INT
soft-tissue NN O I-INT
rheumatism NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
ionisation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
ionisation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacological NN O I-INT
ionisation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pirprofen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two-dose NN O O
levels NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
between-patient NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
73 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
scapulo-humeral NN O I-PAR
periarthritis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
lasted NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
sessions NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Progress NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
assessment NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
assessment NN O O
on NN O O
functional NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
each NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
ionisation NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
sham NN O O
ionisation NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
ionisation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
ionisation NN O O
procedure NN O O
displays NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
more NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
biological NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
electricity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3535021)

An NN O O
international NN O O
multi-clinic NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
colloidal NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
subcitrate NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
with NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulceration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
multi-clinic NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
comparing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
new NN O I-PAR
colloidal NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
subcitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
over NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulceration NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
from NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Belgium NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ireland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
Kingdom NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
94 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CBS NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CBS NN O I-INT
chewing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Healing NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
and NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
chewing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
, NN O O
so NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-OUT
highly NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discolouration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
parts NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
cavity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
chewing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O I-OUT
staining NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tongue NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
bismuth NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
33 NN O O
micrograms/l NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
new NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
form NN O O
has NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
chewing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3538985)

Transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
following NN O I-PAR
appendicectomy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
opiate NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
following NN O I-PAR
appendicectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-INT
appendicectomy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
into NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
sham NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
active NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
required NN O O
slightly NN O O
less NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
postappendicectomy NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
'placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
situation NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3541596)

Monotherapy NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
first-line NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
105 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
titration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
active NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
declines NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sitting NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
-19 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
-13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
active NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
had NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
90 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
treatment NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sitting NN O O
position NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
capsule NN O O
form NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
entry NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
required NN O O
for NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3543069)

Untoward NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Several NN O O
recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
large NN O O
surveys NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
untoward NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
systematically NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Medication NN O O
was NN O O
administered 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
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Parents NN O O
were NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
monitoring NN O O
untoward NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
were NN O O
compiled NN O O
in NN O O
detailed NN O O
daily NN O O
notes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
describing NN O I-PAR
unusual NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
found NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
are NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
listlessness NN O O
, NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
refusal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stomach NN O I-OUT
upset NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
frequently NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
different NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
untoward NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Irritability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
agitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
along NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
continued NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
refusal NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
lost NN O O
2.1 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
rebound NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
thorough NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
side NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
so NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
differentiate NN O O
them NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
multiple NN O O
symptoms NN O O
inherent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
syndrome NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3544187)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
antacid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Maalox NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
280 NN O O
mmol/day NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
H2-receptor NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
cimetidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tagamet NN O I-INT
, NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
14 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
171 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endoscopically NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients 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
groups NN O O
with NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
Mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Al NN O I-INT
hydroxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
X NN O O
70 NN O O
mmol/day NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
86 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
85 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
drinking NN O O
and NN O O
smoking NN O O
habits NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopic NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
ulcer NN O O
was NN O O
still NN O O
present NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopically NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ulcer NN O O
had NN O O
healed NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
38.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
34.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
80.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
M NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
74.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Complaints NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
as NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
with NN O O
upper NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
abandoned NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
receiving NN O O
antacid NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
diarrhoea NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
receiving NN O O
cimetidine NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3545842)

The NN O O
UKEP NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
multicentre NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
local NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
urokinase NN O I-INT
in NN O O
massive NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
embolism NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
UKEP NN O O
Study NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-INT
multicentre NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
centres NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
urokinase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
embolism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
2000 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
h-1 NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
2000 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
conjunction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
4400 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
h-1 NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UK NN O I-INT
4400 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PE NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
angiograms NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
a NN O O
vascular NN O O
obstruction NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
Miller NN O O
's NN O O
index NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
angiograms NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
analysed NN O O
blindly NN O O
by NN O O
four NN O O
independent NN O O
vascular NN O O
radiologists NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

133 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
died NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
retrospectively NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
leaving NN O I-PAR
129 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
67 NN O O
: NN O O
UK NN O O
2000 NN O O
+ NN O O
heparin NN O O
; NN O O
62 NN O O
: NN O O
UK NN O O
4400 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
angiographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
Miller NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
severity NN O O
averaged NN O O
22.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
2000 NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
22.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UK NN O O
4400 NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
filling NN O O
defect NN O O
of NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
angiograms NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resolution NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Minor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
equal NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
bleeding NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
severe NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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- (3548346)

Hepatorenal NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
pressure NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
well-documented NN O I-PAR
hepatorenal NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
substrate NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
given NN O O
750 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
stored NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
750 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fresh NN O I-INT
frozen NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
on NN O O
successive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fresh NN O I-INT
frozen NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
function NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
did NN O O
stored NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
returned NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
filtration NN O O
fraction NN O O
toward NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

Angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
filtration NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
decreased NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
sharply NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
1,000 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fresh NN O I-INT
frozen NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
for NN O O
seven NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
days NN O O
to NN O O
expand NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
to NN O O
supranormal NN O O
levels NN O O
as NN O O
assayed NN O O
by NN O O
serial NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
returned NN O O
toward NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
then NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vena NN O I-OUT
cava NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
wedged NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
paracentesis NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O O
pressure NN O O
from NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
to NN O O
17 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
. NN O O

Venous NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
moved NN O O
parallel NN O O
to NN O O
ascitic NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
improved NN O O
sharply NN O O
; NN O O
then NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
ascitic NN O O
fluid NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
form NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
decreased NN O O
slowly NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
then NN O O
underwent NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
LeVeen NN O O
shunt NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dramatic NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
postoperative NN O O
observation NN O O
of NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
progressive NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3548803)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
fetal NN O O
abdominal NN O O
diameter NN O O
and NN O O
fetal NN O O
weight NN O O
estimation NN O O
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
light-for-gestation NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
low-risk NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
2771 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
fetal NN O I-PAR
biparietal NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
22nd NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
re-examined NN O O
by NN O O
ultrasound NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
32nd NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
37th NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
which NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
fetal NN O O
BPD NN O O
and NN O O
abdominal NN O O
diameter NN O O
( NN O O
AD NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
additional NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
34 NN O O
weeks NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
fetal NN O O
weight NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
32nd NN O O
week NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
mean NN O O
weight NN O O
. NN O O

Light-for-gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LGA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
suspected NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
estimated NN O O
birth-weight NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
mean NN O O
birthweight NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
186 NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
there NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
suspicion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-OUT
intrauterine NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
AD NN O O
and NN O O
estimated NN O O
weight NN O O
reported NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
AD NN O O
and NN O O
estimated NN O O
weight NN O O
withheld NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labour NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
) 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
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
instrumental NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
caesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
of NN O O
marginal NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3549874)

Cognitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
effects NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
antidepressants NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
old NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3550340)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
delay NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
tumors NN O O
will NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
induction NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
separate NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trials NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
6 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
43/chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
40/control NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
27/chemotherapy NN O O
; NN O O
33/control NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
III/IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
oral NN O O
cavity NN O O
, NN O O
oropharynx NN O O
, NN O O
nasopharynx NN O O
, NN O O
hypopharynx NN O O
, NN O O
larynx NN O O
, NN O O
paranasal NN O O
sinuses NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
utilized NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cytoxan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
cycle NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
some NN O I-INT
instances NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
utilized NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
An NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
tumor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
( NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
19 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
days NN O O
vs. NN O O
66 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
combining NN O O
the NN O O
P-values NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
studies NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O O
persistent NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
2.9 NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
withdrew NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
comply NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
exceptional NN O O
promise NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
be NN O O
designed NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
given NN O O
concurrent NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3553277)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
231 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
reversible NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
airway NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
immediately NN O O
by NN O O
active NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
active NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two NN O O
puffs NN O O
, NN O O
180 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
immediately NN O O
by NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
lactose NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
four NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
powder NN O I-INT
and NN O O
aerosol NN O I-INT
formulations NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
above NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
physicians NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
assessments NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
also 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
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
expressed NN O O
a NN O O
preference NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
systems NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
half NN O I-PAR
preferred NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
powder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
of NN O O
albuterol NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
180 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
of NN O O
albuterol NN O I-INT
aerosol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3557014)

Sucralfate NN O I-INT
overcomes NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
on NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prolongs NN O O
subsequent NN O O
remission NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
unicenter NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
283 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
compare NN O I-PAR
possible NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
may NN O I-PAR
affect NN O I-PAR
healing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
potent NN O I-PAR
antisecretory NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cimetidine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
site-protective NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cytoprotective NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
sucralfate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
were NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cross-over NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
failures NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
healing NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
healing NN O O
with NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
differences NN O O
being NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

Unlike NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
healing NN O O
by NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
reluctance NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
up NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
habitual NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
maximal NN O O
acid NN O O
output NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
large NN O O
ulcer NN O O
diameter NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
smokers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
smokers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Duodenal NN O O
bulb NN O O
deformity NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
healing NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
offsetting NN O O
factor NN O O
identifiable NN O O
for NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
out NN O O
of NN O O
46 NN O O
factors NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
healed NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
238 NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
24-mo NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
interviews NN O O
at NN O O
2-mo NN O O
intervals NN O O
and NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
at NN O O
4-mo NN O O
intervals NN O O
or NN O O
whenever NN O O
symptoms NN O O
recurred NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
healed NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
relapse NN O O
occurring NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smokers NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
smokers NN O O
and NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
relapsed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
smokers NN O O
and NN O O
nonsmokers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
cimetidine- NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
sucralfate-healed NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
, NN O O
early NN O O
ulcer NN O O
relapse NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
short NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
spell NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reluctance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
give NN O I-OUT
up NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
smoking NN O O
adversely NN O O
affects NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
healing NN O O
by NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hastens NN O O
subsequent NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
sucralfate NN O I-INT
overcomes NN O O
the NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
on NN O O
healing NN O O
as NN O O
encountered NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
remission NN O O
period NN O O
double NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3563413)

Fasting NN O O
and NN O O
meal-stimulated NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
neurotensin NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
jejunoileal NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
3:1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
1:3 NN O I-PAR
jejunoileal NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
functional NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
jejunum NN O O
and NN O O
ileum NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
peripheral NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
intact NN O O
neurotensin NN O O
and NN O O
NH2-terminal NN O O
immunoreactivity NN O O
of NN O O
neurotensin NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
jejunoileal NN O O
bypass NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
jejunoileal NN O O
bypass NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
different NN O O
jejunoileal NN O O
ratios NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
end-to-side NN O I-INT
jejunoileal NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
cm NN O I-INT
intestine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
continuity NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
3:1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
1:3 NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
length NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
jejunal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ileal NN O I-PAR
segments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fasting NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
neurotensin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
by NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
NH2-terminal NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
bypass NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
ileal NN O O
segment NN O O
( NN O O
37.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
unoperated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
ileal NN O O
segment NN O O
( NN O O
12.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Meal-stimulated NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
neurotensin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
after NN O O
1:3 NN O O
than NN O O
3:1 NN O O
jejunoileal NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NH2-terminal NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
ileal NN O O
segment NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
ileal NN O O
segment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
postprandial NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
intact NN O I-OUT
neurotensin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
NH2-terminal NN O I-OUT
immunoreactivity NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
functioning NN O O
ileum NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
even NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
cm NN O O
is NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
neurotensin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3586567)

Antifibrinolytic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
gland NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thyroid NN O O
gland NN O O
equals NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antifibrinolytic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
tranexemic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O O
tranexemic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
76 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
came NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3594511)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clopamide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
clopamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pindolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
lipids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
WHO NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
twice NN O O
during NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
4-week NN O O
washout NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
1- NN O O
, NN O O
3- NN O O
and NN O O
6-month NN O O
active NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
drug NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
their NN O O
usual NN O O
dietary NN O O
habits NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
drug NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
adjusted NN O O
progressively NN O O
to NN O O
attain NN O O
optimal NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
clopamide NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly 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
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
while NN O O
for NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
pindolol NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol 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
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Combined NN O O
pindolol-clopamide NN O O
therapy NN O O
decreased NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
HDL NN O I-OUT
significantly 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
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
pindolol NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
negatively NN O O
influence NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
thiazide-type NN O O
diuretic NN O O
clopamide NN O O
does NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
together NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
can NN O O
probably NN O O
counterbalance NN O O
the NN O O
diuretic-induced NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accordingly NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
pindolol NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
drug NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
on NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3602307)

The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fenfluramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3608343)

Circadian NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-PAR
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Several NN O O
investigations NN O O
which NN O O
have NN O O
taken NN O O
treatment NN O O
time NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
even NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
products NN O O
may NN O O
vary NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
any NN O O
circadian NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
NSAID NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomised NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
100mg NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
27.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
at NN O O
07.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
13.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
or NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
was NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
acting NN O O
as NN O O
his NN O O
own NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
urine NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
taken NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
12-hour NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
twice NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
07.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
13.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
other NN O O
administration NN O O
times NN O O
( NN O O
13.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
: NN O O
6.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
: NN O O
7.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
; NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
: NN O O
6.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
much NN O O
longer NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.7 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
07.00 NN O O
( NN O O
73.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.1 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
13.00 NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.5 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
82.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.7 NN O O
min 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

The NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
at NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
13.00 NN O O
hours 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
absorption NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
constant NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
at NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
times NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bodyweight-corrected NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC0-12 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
07.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
13.00 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
or NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours 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
greater NN O O
after NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
13.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
elimination NN O I-OUT
half-life NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours 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
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lowest NN O O
at NN O O
07.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Cosinor NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
circadian NN O I-OUT
rhythms NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
described NN O O
above NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
eliminated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
urine NN O O
was NN O O
delayed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
01.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
than NN O O
07.00 NN O O
hours NN O O
or NN O O
19.00 NN O O
hours 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
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
absorption NN O O
, NN O O
diffusion NN O O
and/or NN O O
elimination NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3617996)

[ NN O I-INT
Intra-arterial NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
ovarian NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

Therapeutic NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
carcinomas NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
either NN O O
intra-arterially NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MTX NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
, NN O O
later NN O O
systemically NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
CMFV-combination NN O I-INT
( NN O O
therapy NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
only NN O I-INT
systemically NN O I-INT
( NN O O
therapy NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
achieved NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
an NN O O
obvious NN O O
dependence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
histological NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
differentiation NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
nearly NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
badly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
local NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
well NN O O
and NN O O
moderately NN O O
differentiated NN O O
malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
third NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
operable NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
extended NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
represents NN O O
an NN O O
expensive NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O O
ovarian NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3624669)

Disopyramide-pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
interaction NN O O
: NN O O
selective NN O O
reversal NN O O
of NN O O
anticholinergic NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
preservation NN O O
of NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
used 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
cholinesterase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
slow-release NN O I-INT
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
mg NN O O
orally NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
) NN O O
-- NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Quantitative NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
scores NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Disopyramide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
maximal NN O O
administered NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
corresponding NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
scores NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
an NN O O
index NN O O
or NN O O
estimate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
tolerable NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additional NN O O
evaluations NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
maximal NN O O
administered NN O O
dose NN O O
regimen NN O O
included NN O O
tear NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
quantitation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
electrocardiogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
programmed NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
stimulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O O
administered NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
active NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
: NN O O
295 NN O O
+/- NN O O
75 NN O O
versus NN O O
245 NN O O
+/- NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
calculated NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
tolerable NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
substantially NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
355 NN O O
+/- NN O O
90 NN O O
versus NN O O
260 NN O O
+/- NN O O
115 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
hours 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

Maximal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
reflected NN O O
decreased NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
101.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
versus NN O O
104.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O O
tear NN O O
and NN O O
saliva NN O O
production NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
disopyramide NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
restored NN O O
toward NN O O
normal NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
pyridostigmine 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- (3630589)

Gastric NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pH NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
premedication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
26-40 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
gastric NN O I-PAR
contents NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pH NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
100 NN O O
received NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
50 NN O O
received NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
100 NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
50 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
pH NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
less NN O O
than NN O O
2.5 NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
ml NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
100 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Group NN O O
50 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

We NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
premedication NN O I-INT
using NN O O
these NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
considering NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
aspiration NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
contents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3653128)

Deleterious NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
oestrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
status NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oestrogen NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
orchidectomy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
exercise NN O O
ECG-testing NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Oestrogen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
polyestradiol NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

per NN O O
month NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
150 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ethinylestradiol NN O I-INT
p.o NN O O
. NN O O

per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
inter-group NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
conventional NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
the NN O O
oestrogen NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
depression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ST-segment NN O O
during NN O O
maximal NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
leads NN O O
CH2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CH5 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
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oestrogen NN O O
group NN O O
suffered NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
complications NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
orchidectomy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oestrogen NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
suffered NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
depressions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
lead NN O O
CH2 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
CH5 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
orchidectomy NN O O
group NN O O
twelve NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
exogenous NN O I-INT
oestrogens NN O I-INT
at NN O O
low NN O O
dosage NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oestrogen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
coronary NN O O
status NN O O
argues NN O O
against NN O O
oestrogen NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
oestrogen NN O I-INT
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
than NN O O
orchidectomy NN O O
against NN O O
prostatic NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3675403)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
drainage NN O O
systems NN O O
following NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
passive NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
using NN O O
linear NN O O
analogue NN O O
scales NN O O
and NN O O
spirometry NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
pre-operative NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
low NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
removed NN O O
an NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
gentamicin NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
passive NN O I-INT
drain NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
nor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
passive NN O O
drain NN O O
group NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
suction NN O O
drain NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
pressure NN O O
drainage NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
pressure NN O O
suction NN O O
drain NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
preference NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
pressure NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3690941)

The NN O O
additive NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
dental NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
trial NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
codeine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
X NN O O
2 NN O O
factorial NN O O
experiment NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
result NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
rated NN O O
their 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
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
codeine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
factorial NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
codeine NN O I-INT
made NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
contribution NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
sum NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
largest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
largest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
remedication NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
differ NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3704665)

Therapeutic NN O O
recommendations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
polycythemia NN O O
vera NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
Polycythemia NN O O
Vera NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PVSG NN O O
was NN O O
organized NN O O
in NN O O
1967 NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
effective NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
polycythemia NN O O
vera NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
polycythemia NN O I-PAR
vera NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
myeloproliferative NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
relatively NN O O
uncommon NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
PVSG NN O O
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O I-PAR
accumulate NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
1,000 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
them NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
different NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

PVSG-01 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
phlebotomy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
myelosuppressive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
32P NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chlorambucil NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
phlebotomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
continues NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
surviving NN O O
patients NN O O
18 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
its NN O O
lifetime NN O O
, NN O O
PVSG NN O O
has NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
widely NN O O
accepted NN O O
and NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
specific NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
polycythemia NN O O
vera NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
useful NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O O
thrombocythemia NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
gathered NN O O
an NN O O
enormous NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
myeloproliferative NN O O
diseases NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prevalent NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
thrombotic NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
hematologic NN O O
and NN O O
nonhematologic NN O O
malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
question NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
polycythemia NN O O
vera NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
apparent NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
expectation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
optimal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
that NN O O
would NN O O
apply NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
all NN O O
ages NN O O
and NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
naive NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
considerable NN O O
progress NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
has NN O O
defined NN O O
more NN O O
precisely NN O O
than NN O O
ever NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
nature NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
specific NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
thus NN O O
has NN O O
made NN O O
it NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
pose NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
questions NN O O
that NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
addressed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
disorder NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
sophistication NN O O
than NN O O
was NN O O
previously NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3710012)

Acute NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incipient NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
kidney NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
incipient NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
microalbuminuria NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
single NN O O
bolus NN O O
51Cr-EDTA NN O O
technique NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
radioimmunoassay NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
twice NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O O
either NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
225 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
( NN O O
154 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
125/79 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13/8 NN O O
to NN O O
104/68 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9/7 NN O O
mmHg 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
urinary NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
68 NN O O
( NN O O
31-369 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
46 NN O O
( NN O O
6-200 NN O O
) NN O O
micrograms/min NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
and NN O O
range 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
, NN O O
and NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
29 NN O O
% 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
. NN O O

Glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
110 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
106 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
ml/min/1.73 NN O O
m2 NN O O
after NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
after NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
extent NN O O
pressure-dependent NN O O
, NN O O
probably NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
glomerular NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
autoregulation 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
normal NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incipient NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3732715)

[ NN O O
Opposing NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
arteries NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
epicardial NN O I-PAR
spasm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
i.e NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
to NN O O
haven NN O O
inadequate NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
functional NN O O
disorder NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
coronary NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
medical NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
syndrome NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
160 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
( NN O O
360 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Upright NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
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
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diltiazem NN O I-INT
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
prolonged NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
x NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
: NN O O
365 NN O O
+/- NN O O
86 NN O O
vs NN O O
303 NN O O
+/- NN O O
89 NN O O
sec NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
358 NN O O
+/- NN O O
88 NN O O
vs NN O O
276 NN O O
+/- NN O O
90 NN O O
sec NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Angina NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
vs NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
26.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
24.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
propranolol NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
and NN O O
angina NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
24.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-3 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
explanations NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
: NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
counteracts NN O O
beta NN O O
2-adrenergic NN O O
receptors NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
further NN O O
reducing NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
reserve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
may NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
anginal NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
Diltiazem NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
smooth NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
small NN O O
coronary NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
reserve NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3739807)

Abstinence NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
drinking NN O I-INT
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
: NN O O
indications NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
assessment NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
research NN O O
has NN O O
suggested NN O O
two NN O O
leading NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
concerning NN O O
which NN O O
excessive NN O I-PAR
drinkers NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
re-establish NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
dependence NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
client NN O O
's NN O O
personal NN O O
persuasion NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
initial NN O O
assessment NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
46 NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
psychology NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
problems NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
an NN O O
attempt NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
operationalize NN O O
the NN O O
concepts NN O O
of NN O O
dependence NN O I-INT
and NN O O
personal NN O I-INT
persuasion NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
SADQ NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Rand NN O I-OUT
definite NN O I-OUT
alcoholism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
agreement NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
borderline NN O O
instances NN O O
and NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
disagreement NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neither NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
good NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
problem NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
with NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
recent NN O O
or NN O O
earlier NN O O
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
abstinence NN O I-INT
or NN O O
control NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Indicators NN O O
of NN O O
personal NN O I-OUT
persuasion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
consistent NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dependence NN O I-INT
indicators NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
abstinence NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
prefer NN O O
abstinence NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
goal NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
many NN O O
departures NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
pattern NN O O
particularly NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
it NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
cut NN O O
recommendation NN O O
about NN O O
treatment NN O O
goal NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
assessment NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3745846)

Domperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
give NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gastroesophageal NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
gastric NN O I-INT
prokinetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
dual-isotope NN O O
mixed-meal NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
( NN O O
GE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
normal NN O O
GE NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
delayed NN O O
GE NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
had NN O O
three NN O O
1-month NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
using NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
domperidone NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
q.i.d. NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
reassessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

Taken NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
delayed NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
GE NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Eleven NN O O
patients NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O O
stopped NN O O
therapy NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
1-month NN O O
course NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
described NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
with NN O O
domperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
including NN O O
one NN O O
woman NN O O
with NN O O
galactorrhea NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
36 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
also NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
important NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
gastroesophageal NN O O
reflux NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
domperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (375690)

Zinc NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
zinc NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
g NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
biopsy-proven NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
decompensated NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

Parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dark NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
zinc-treated NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
mean NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
13.3 NN O O
to NN O O
17.4 NN O O
mumol/l NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
practically NN O O
unaltered NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1.89 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
1.83 NN O O
mumol/l 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

Plasma NN O I-OUT
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
zinc NN O O
group NN O O
increased NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
carotene NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dark NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
taste NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
during NN O O
zinc NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
zinc NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
alleviation NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
of NN O O
cirrhotics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
deserves NN O O
further NN O O
attention NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3812946)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
below NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
intravenous NN O O
regional NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
extremity NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
knee NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Limited NN O O
sensory NN O O
blockade NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
30-minute NN O O
test NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
anaesthetised NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dosages NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
12-13 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
two NN O O
subjects NN O O
given NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
flexion NN O I-OUT
remaining NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
great NN O I-OUT
toe NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
control NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
40 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Full NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
8-9 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
volunteers NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
400-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
experienced NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
cuff NN O O
was NN O O
released NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prilocaine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
was NN O O
1.22 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
, NN O O
maximum NN O O
2.12 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
radiological NN O O
examination NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
leak NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
medium NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
tourniquet NN O I-OUT
cuff NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
300 NN O I-OUT
mmHg NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
fastest NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
makes NN O O
that NN O O
dosage NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
suitable NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3816105)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-INT
dosage-prediction NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-INT
dosage-prediction NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
for NN O O
initial NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
stabilization NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Adult NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
warfarin NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
receiving NN O O
their NN O O
third NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
their NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
dosages NN O O
adjusted NN O O
using NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
dosage-prediction NN O O
methods NN O O
: NN O O
by NN O O
analog NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
linear NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
empiric NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
physician NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
patient NN O O
PT NN O O
divided NN O O
by NN O O
control NN O O
PT NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
1.3 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
PT NN O O
ratio NN O O
between NN O O
1.3 NN O O
and NN O O
2.5 NN O O
that NN O O
varied NN O O
by NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
change NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
discharge NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
warfarin NN O O
dose NN O O
to NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
warfarin NN O O
dosage NN O O
that NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
dosage NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
hospital NN O O
discharge NN O O
( NN O O
analog NN O O
computer NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
; NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
; NN O O
empiric NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
6.8 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analog-computer NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
7.3 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
linear-regression NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8.4 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
empiric-dosing NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
times NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
20 NN O O
stabilized NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analog-computer NN O O
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
PT NN O O
ratio NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
dosage NN O O
prediction 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- (3818024)

Beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
blockade NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O O
pressor NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
immersed NN O O
a NN O O
hand NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
warm NN O O
water NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
cold NN O O
water NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
taking NN O O
orally NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cold NN O O
stress NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
blockade NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
pressor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cold NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O O
stress NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
propranolol NN O O
experiments NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
highest NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
cold NN O O
pressor NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
about NN O O
109 NN O O
units NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
below NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
value NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
200 NN O O
found NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
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 I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
reverted NN O O
to NN O O
pre-immersion NN O O
values NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
inspite NN O O
of NN O O
continued NN O O
low NN O O
hand NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3825543)

Parietal NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
short-term NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cimetidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endoscopically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
350 NN O I-INT
mmol NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
extended NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
morphological NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
taken NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
gastroscope NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
corpus NN O O
mucosa NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parietal NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
days NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
H-2 NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
antacids NN O I-INT
alter NN O O
mucosal NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
parietal NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
gastritic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3830804)

[ NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cooperative NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
digestive NN O I-PAR
localizations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
digestive NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1977 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
lymphomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
staging NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ID NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IID NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
whole NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIID NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-six NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
lymphomas NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
association NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intermediate NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
56 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
lymphomas NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
was NN O O
63 NN O O
p. NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
46 NN O O
p. NN O O
100 NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
extension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
formulation NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
lymph-node NN O I-OUT
lymphomas NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
initial NN O I-OUT
localization NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
gastric NN O O
lymphomas NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
survival NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
primary NN O O
digestive NN O O
lymphomas NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
lymphomas NN O O
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3839157)

The NN O O
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
experience NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in 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
Data NN O O
on NN O O
162 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
90 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
two NN O O
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ECOG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
protocols NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O O
percent NN O O
had NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
; NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
partial NN O O
remission NN O O
; NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
receptors NN O O
were NN O O
known NN O O
, NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
estrogen NN O O
( NN O O
ER NN O O
) NN O O
-receptor NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
ER-negative NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
11.4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
CAF NN O O
was NN O O
20.2 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
superior NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
premenopausal NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
ceased NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
logistic NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Factors NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
TTF NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
longer NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
organs NN O O
with NN O O
metastases NN O O
( NN O O
TTF NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
dominant NN O O
site NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
soft NN O O
tissue NN O O
( NN O O
TTF NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
survival 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
an NN O O
initial NN O O
good NN O O
performance NN O O
status NN O O
( NN O O
TTF NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
; NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
ER-positive NN O O
disease NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (384024)

Butorphanol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
meperidine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ureteral NN O I-PAR
colic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pain NN O O
relief NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
ureteral NN O I-PAR
colic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
calculus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intramuscular NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
mg. NN O I-PAR
butorphanol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-PAR
mg. NN O I-PAR
meperidine NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
half NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
hourly NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
2 NN O O
mg. NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
butorphanol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
analgesically NN O O
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
80 NN O O
mg. NN O O
meperidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
4 NN O O
mg. NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
butorphanol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
80 NN O O
mg. NN O O
meperidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
mg. NN O O
butorphanol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
received NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
2 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
analgesic NN O O
medication NN O O
when NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
hallucinations NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
mg. NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
butorphanol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
antagonistic NN O O
activity NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
narcotic NN O O
experience NN O O
given NN O O
previously NN O O
at NN O O
another NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
butorphanol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ureteral NN O O
colic NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
place NN O O
of NN O O
narcotics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (384574)

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Central NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
hepatic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
61 NN O O
acceptable NN O O
patients 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
terms NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Though NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
infusion NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
infusion NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
addition NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
femoral-arterial NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
not NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
twice NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
nonresponders NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
77 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
occasionally NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3859359)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
first NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
nervous NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-seven NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-PAR
nervous NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CNS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ITC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
ITC NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
ITC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
craniospinal NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CSpRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
ITC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ITC NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
weekly NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
arabinosylcytosine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
intensification NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

CRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
ITC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
CRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2400 NN O O
rad NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
fractions NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
ITC NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
bimonthly NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Craniospinal NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CRT NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
1400 NN O O
rad NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O O
fractions NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
spine NN O O
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
whether NN O O
CNS NN O O
leukemia NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
lymphocytic NN O O
leukemia NN O O
( NN O O
ALL NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
Stratum NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
first NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
( NN O O
BM NN O O
) NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
Stratum NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
with NN O O
first NN O O
BM NN O O
relapse NN O O
( NN O O
Stratum NN O O
III NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
second NN O O
BM NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
Stratum NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
remain NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
is NN O O
15 NN O O
+ NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
on NN O O
CRT NN O O
+ NN O O
ITC NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
on NN O O
CSpRT NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
presumed NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
encephalopathy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
Stratum NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
CRT NN O O
+ NN O O
ITC NN O O
experienced NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
continuous NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CCR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
13 NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
CNS NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
CNS NN O O
+ NN O O
BM NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
BM NN O O
+ NN O O
testes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
testes NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
5 NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
CSpRT NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
CNS NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
CNS NN O O
+ NN O O
BM NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
BM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
testes NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
race NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
initial NN O O
ALL NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
ALL NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blasts NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
spinal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
conclusion NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
isolated NN O O
CNS NN O O
leukemia NN O O
can NN O O
achieve NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
aggressive NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
CSpRT NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
possibly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
is NN O O
CRT NN O O
+ NN O O
ITC NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
BM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
testicular NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
subsequent NN O O
CNS NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
possible NN O O
systemic NN O O
therapy NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
spinal NN O I-OUT
irradiation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
postulated NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CSpRT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3877292)

Intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
changes NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
'Diprivan NN O O
' NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
thiopentone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
non-barbiturate NN O O
intravenous NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IOP NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
thiopentone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
IOP NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
applanation NN O I-INT
tonometer NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
thiopentone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
66 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
agents NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
thiopentone NN O O
. NN O O

Apnoea NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
frequency NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
5 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3881176)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hormone-resistant NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
51 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
hormone-resistant NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lomustine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
DC NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
objectively NN O O
( NN O O
employing NN O O
National NN O O
Prostate NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Project NN O O
criteria NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subjectively NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
numerical NN O O
scoring NN O O
scheme NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
DC NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CF NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
stabilization NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
DC NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
poor NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
arms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reflecting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
similarity NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
DC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CF NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
stable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DC NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
superior NN O O
palliation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
an NN O O
essentially NN O I-PAR
geriatric NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (3882217)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
soft NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
sarcomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
trunk NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O I-PAR
1977 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
high-grade NN O I-PAR
sarcomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
neck NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
trunk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
retroperitoneal NN O I-PAR
sarcomas NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gross NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
6000-6300 NN O I-PAR
rads NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
7-8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventeen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
550 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5500 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
less NN O I-INT
than NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
equal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Three-year NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
was NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
49 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.075 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three-year NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survivals NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.38 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Considering NN O O
only NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
tumors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trunk NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
3-year NN O O
actuarial NN O O
disease-free NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Actuarial NN O O
3-year NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-chemotherapy NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.18 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
contraindications NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
, NN O O
refusal NN O O
to NN O O
enter NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
before NN O O
1977 NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Considering NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
follow-up NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
86 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
46 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
3-year NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survivals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
tendency NN O O
toward NN O O
improved NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
apparent NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 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
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sarcomas NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trunk NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
doxorubicin-induced NN O I-OUT
cardiomyopathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
clinically NN O O
apparent NN O O
congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
when NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
aggressive NN O O
local NN O O
measures NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
additional NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
improved NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3885290)

Neuroleptic-related NN O I-INT
dyskinesias NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3885865)

[ NN O O
Randomized NN O O
control NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
CDDP-induced NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
emesis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CDDP NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
randomized NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
above NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
significantly NN O O
suppressed NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
CDDP NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
CDDP NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
shortened NN O O
by NN O O
high-dose NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3890395)

Interference NN O O
on NN O O
metabolism NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
muzolimine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
high NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
which NN O O
makes NN O O
it NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
an NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
possible NN O O
metabolic NN O O
interference NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
diuretics NN O O
usually NN O O
worsen NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
equilibrium NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
According NN O O
to NN O O
recent NN O O
reports NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
diuretic NN O O
, NN O O
muzolimine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
acts NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
loop NN O O
of NN O O
Henle NN O O
, NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
present NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
metabolic NN O O
balance NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
assumption NN O O
was NN O O
correct NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
diabetics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
fairly NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
metabolic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
orthostatic NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
MZ NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
chlorthalidone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
According NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
MZ NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
CL NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PL NN O O
) NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-metabolic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
clinostatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
( NN O O
both NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
% 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
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
occurred 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
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
aldosterone NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
CL NN O O
( NN O O
20.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
micrograms/24 NN O O
hours NN O O
vs. NN O O
13.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.5 NN O O
after NN O O
PL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.2 NN O O
after NN O O
MZ NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
deviations NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (389265)

Immunotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
during NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
sole NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
Bacille NN O I-INT
Calmette-Gu?rin NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
C+I NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
consolidation NN O O
, NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
BCG NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
C+I NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
C+I NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
C+I NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
nor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
enter NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
trials NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
produces NN O O
longer NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O I-OUT
leukaemic NN O I-OUT
central-nervous-system NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSN NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
C+I NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CNS NN O O
relapse NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
from NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
AML NN O O
may NN O I-OUT
protect NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
leukaemic NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
serve NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
innocuous NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3896455)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O O
versus NN O O
alternating NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
cytostatic NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
medroxyprogesteron NN O O
acetate NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
155 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
vincristin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
V NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
maximum NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
intravenously NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
medroxyprogesteron NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
orally NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
intramuscularly NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
afterwards NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
chemoendocrine NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VAC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
alternating NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MPA NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
above-mentioned NN O I-PAR
dosage NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
alternating NN O I-PAR
chemoendocrine NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
site NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
complete NN O O
responses NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
long NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
( NN O O
combination NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
months NN O O
versus NN O O
alternating NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
definitely NN O O
prolonged NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
versus NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
subsets NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
chemoendocrine NN O O
approach NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
for NN O O
estrogen NN O I-PAR
receptor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ER NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-negative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
disease-free NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
parameters NN O I-PAR
probably NN O I-PAR
belong NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
combination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-dose NN O I-OUT
MPA NN O I-OUT
may NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ER-positive NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
is NN O O
urgently NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
ER-negative NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
alternating NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
deserves NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3900301)

Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
levamisole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
levamisole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
malignant NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

Between NN O O
1977 NN O O
and NN O O
1983 NN O O
the NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
( NN O O
SWOG NN O O
) NN O O
evaluated NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CHOP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
chemoimmunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CHOP-levamisole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
CHOP-levamisole-BCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
715 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ML NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
281 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O I-PAR
histologic NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ML NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
171 NN O O
( NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
388 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
histologic NN O I-PAR
types NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ML NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
194 NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Levamisole NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
adversely NN O O
affect NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nodular NN O O
mixed NN O O
and NN O O
nodular NN O O
large-cell NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
and NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
histology NN O O
ML NN O O
. NN O O

Chemoimmunotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
levamisole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
levamisole-BCG NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
levamisole NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
certain NN O O
subtypes NN O O
of NN O O
ML NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3903063)

Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescence NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy-radiotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
stages NN O O
IA-IIB NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
April NN O O
1972 NN O O
to NN O O
May NN O O
1980 NN O O
, NN O O
72 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
old NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IA-IIB NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IA NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
II2A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diaphragm NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
II3+A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
successive NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
H NN O O
72 NN O O
and NN O O
H NN O O
77 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
stages NN O O
IA NN O O
and NN O O
II2A NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
mechlorethamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Oncovin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MOPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supradiaphragmatic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
laparotomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
stages NN O O
II3+A NN O O
and NN O O
IIB NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
MOPP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
H NN O O
72 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
MOPP NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
CCNU NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
CVPP NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
H NN O O
77 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
subsequently NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
supradiaphragmatic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
lumboaortic NN O O
field NN O O
if NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
laparotomy NN O O
were NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mediastinal NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O O
of NN O O
72 NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
patients NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
marginal NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
nonirradiated NN O O
subdiaphragmatic NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
to NN O O
57 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
died NN O O
after NN O O
relapse NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
; NN O O
acute NN O O
nonlymphocytic NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
[ NN O O
ANLL NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
of NN O O
June NN O O
1984 NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
82 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O O
to NN O O
145 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
probabilities NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
being NN O O
91.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
87.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
15 NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
15 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cycles NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mediastinal NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Azoospermia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
rule NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
male NN O O
patients NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
young NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
young NN O O
women NN O O
retained NN O O
reproductive NN O O
integrity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3911965)

Double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
homeopathic NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
Galphimia NN O I-INT
potentiation NN O I-INT
D6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Galphimia NN O I-INT
dilution NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pollinosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
preparation NN O O
of NN O O
homeopathic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
potentiation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
potentiation NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
substance NN O O
is NN O O
specially NN O O
mixed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
carrier NN O O
( NN O O
typically NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
ethanol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
1:10 NN O O
. NN O O

Usually NN O O
this NN O O
potentiation NN O O
is NN O O
done NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
drug NN O O
is NN O O
labeled NN O O
, NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
D6 NN O I-INT
which NN O O
means NN O O
a NN O O
6 NN O O
times NN O O
decimal NN O O
potentiation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
randomized NN O O
strictly NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
164 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
homeopathically NN O O
prepared NN O O
Galphimia NN O I-INT
D6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
Galphimia NN O I-INT
dilution NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
pollinosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
about NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
remarkable NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
superiority NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Galphimia NN O I-OUT
D6 NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
the NN O O
Galphimia NN O I-OUT
dilution NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
about NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
itself NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
do NN O O
strictly NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
homeopathic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
and NN O O
with NN O O
medical NN O O
practitioners NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3926042)

Relief NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
after NN O O
operation NN O O
: NN O O
does NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
develop NN O O
? NN O O
To NN O O
see NN O O
whether NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
opiates NN O O
provides NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
injection NN O O
these NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
supplementary NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
boluses NN O O
as NN O O
requested NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Surprisingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O O
received NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
supplementary NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
appreciably NN O O
more NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
. NN O O

Nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
inferior NN O O
regimen NN O O
to NN O O
intermittent NN O O
bolus NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
morphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (3931144)

Drug NN O O
preference NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
experiments NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
amphetamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
normal NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
i NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
40-55-year-old NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AGE NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
morning NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ii NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21-35-year-old NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CTL NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
morning NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
iii NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21-35-year-olds NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
afternoon NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AFT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
subjects NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
separate NN O O
experiments NN O O
comparing NN O O
one NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
d NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
l-amphetamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
or NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
experiment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
sessions NN O O
: NN O O
On NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
four NN O O
sessions NN O O
subjects NN O O
sampled NN O O
two NN O O
color-coded NN O O
capsules NN O O
on NN O O
alternate NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
five NN O O
sessions NN O O
they NN O O
chose NN O O
and NN O O
ingested NN O O
the NN O O
capsule NN O O
they NN O O
preferred NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
States NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
POMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
shortened NN O I-OUT
version NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Addiction NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
Center NN O I-OUT
Inventory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ARCI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
chose NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
as NN O O
often NN O O
as NN O O
placebo NN O O
but NN O O
preferred NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
chose NN O O
amphetamine NN O I-INT
either NN O O
as NN O O
often NN O O
as NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e NN O O
. NN O O

sedation NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
across NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
amphetamine NN O O
the NN O O
AGE NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
greater NN O O
stimulant NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
AFT NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
fewer NN O O
positive NN O O
mood NN O O
effects NN O O
after NN O O
amphetamine NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
CTL NN O O
group 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- (393286)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
methyldopa NN O I-INT
and NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
1 NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
dose-tritrated NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
methyldopa NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
Average NN O I-OUT
lying NN O I-OUT
BPs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
28/15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
with NN O O
methyldopa NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
23/15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
with NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
Average NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
BPs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
29/14 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
with NN O O
methyldopa NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
29/15 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
with NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
Both NN O O
lying NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
standing NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
with NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
properties NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
methyldopa NN O I-INT
are NN O O
similar NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
larger NN O O
patient NN O O
populations NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
subjective NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3940160)

[ NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cephalosporins NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3950826)

Nutrient NN O O
retention NN O O
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
formulas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-INT
infant NN O I-INT
formulas NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Similac NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Similac NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Whey NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Iron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nitrogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
balances NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
feeds NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
met NN O O
estimated NN O O
fetal NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O O
absorbed NN O O
and NN O O
retained NN O O
( NN O O
milligrams NN O O
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
fed NN O O
Similac NN O I-INT
With NN O I-INT
Iron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
retention NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
formulas NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Similac NN O O
With NN O O
Whey NN O O
+ NN O O
Iron NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
inadequate NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
estimated NN O O
fetal NN O O
requirements NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rapidly NN O I-PAR
growing NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
is NN O O
already NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
rickets NN O O
and NN O O
zinc NN O O
deficiency NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
fed NN O O
either NN O O
formula NN O O
on NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
newborn NN O O
nursery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3954130)

Response NN O O
to NN O O
tubular NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
resistance NN O I-INT
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
must NN O O
often NN O O
breathe NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
that NN O O
acts NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
and NN O O
expiratory NN O O
tubular NN O O
airway NN O O
resistor NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
this NN O O
practice NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
breathing NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
breathing NN O O
patterns NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
2-4 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
breathing NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O I-INT
mouthpiece NN O I-INT
fitted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
diameter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
long NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
resistor NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
diameters NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
simulate NN O O
the NN O O
pressure-flow NN O O
relationships NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
tubes NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
mm NN O O
aperture NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
breathing NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
f NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
[ NN O O
SD NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
breaths/min 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
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
f NN O I-OUT
progressively NN O O
decreased NN O O
as NN O O
resistance NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
aperture NN O O
size NN O O
from NN O O
15 NN O O
to NN O O
16 NN O O
mm NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
VT NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
progressively NN O O
decreased NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O O
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
6 NN O O
mm NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
VT NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
f NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
subjects 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
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
and NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carbon NN O I-OUT
dioxide NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VCO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
, NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
VE NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ventilatory NN O O
equivalents NN O O
to NN O O
CO2 NN O O
and NN O O
O2 NN O O
( NN O O
VE/VCO2 NN O O
, NN O O
VE/VO2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3957541)

An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
use NN O O
the NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
competing NN O O
risks NN O O
to NN O O
analyse NN O O
deaths NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HIP NN O I-INT
breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
some NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
detected NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
realized NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Breast NN O I-INT
cancer NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
not NN O O
to NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Methodologically NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
analysing NN O O
mortality NN O O
separately NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
cases NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (3960619)

Zinc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
balances NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
copper NN O O
and NN O O
zinc NN O O
depletion NN O O
if NN O O
sufficient NN O O
quantities NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
nutrients NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
provided NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
bioavailable NN O O
form NN O O
in NN O O
postnatal NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
whey-predominant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
chain NN O I-INT
triglyceride NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
relatively NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
would NN O O
promote NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
utero NN O I-OUT
accretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
preterm NN O I-PAR
infant NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
preterm NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
fed NN O O
a NN O O
diet NN O O
containing NN O O
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg/L NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
zinc NN O I-INT
and NN O O
either NN O O
0.9 NN O I-INT
mg/L NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
2.1 NN O I-INT
mg/L NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
copper NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-two-hour NN O O
metabolic NN O O
balance NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
postconceptual NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
weight NN O O
of NN O O
1,549 NN O O
g. NN O O
All NN O O
infants NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
utero NN O I-OUT
accretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
34-week NN O O
gestation NN O O
fetus NN O O
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.432 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
infants NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
copper NN O O
formula NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
copper NN O O
formula NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Two NN O O
infants NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
achieved NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
utero NN O I-OUT
accretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
copper NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
a NN O O
34-week NN O O
gestation NN O O
fetus NN O O
( NN O O
0.088 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
formula NN O O
that NN O O
provides NN O O
12.5 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
of NN O O
zinc NN O O
permits NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
zinc NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
in NN O O
utero NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
formula NN O O
that NN O O
provides NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
as NN O O
2.1 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
of NN O O
copper NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
always NN O O
permit NN O O
positive NN O O
copper NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (3963358)

[ NN O I-INT
Aortofemoral NN O I-INT
bifurcation NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
procedure NN O O
( NN O I-INT
NLA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
thoracic NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
catheter NN O I-INT
peridural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
circulation NN O O
, NN O O
respiration NN O O
and NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

Homeostasis NN O O
and NN O O
oxygen NN O O
transport NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
infrarenal NN O I-INT
aortic NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
26 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
neuroleptanaesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NA NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
light NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
losses NN O O
were NN O O
replaced NN O O
with NN O O
5 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
human NN O O
albumin NN O O
, NN O O
red NN O O
cell NN O O
concentrates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
fresh NN O O
frozen NN O O
plasma NN O O
. NN O O

Ringer NN O I-INT
lactate NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
replace NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
extracellular NN O O
fluid NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
body NN O O
temperature NN O O
fell NN O O
( NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
36.7 NN O O
to NN O O
35.3 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
36.7 NN O O
to NN O O
34.9 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
better NN O O
surface NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose 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
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Stress NN O I-OUT
mediated NN O I-OUT
hypokalaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
degree NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
reference NN O O
range NN O O
( NN O O
3.5-3.7 NN O O
mmol NN O O
X NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
large NN O O
amounts NN O O
of NN O O
red NN O O
cell NN O O
concentrates NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
clamping NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aorta NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
compensated NN O I-OUT
acidosis NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Declamping NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
paCO2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
221 NN O O
to NN O O
163 NN O O
ml NN O O
X NN O O
min-1 NN O O
; NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
230 NN O O
to NN O O
189 NN O O
ml NN O O
X NN O O
min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
which NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
delayed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
lasting NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
eventration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gut NN O O
( NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
162 NN O O
ml NN O O
X NN O O
min-1 NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
184 NN O O
ml NN O O
X NN O O
min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Later NN O O
on NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
equal 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
further NN O O
changes NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
clamping NN O O
or NN O O
declamping NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aorta 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
, NN O O
when NN O O
nitrous NN O O
oxide NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
turned NN O O
of NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
considerably NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
continuing NN O O
artificial NN O O
ventilation NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
hypnotics NN O O
and NN O O
analgesics NN O O
having NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Eventration NN O O
and NN O O
exterioration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gut NN O O
caused NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
marked NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
haemodynamics NN O O
and NN O O
oxygen NN O O
transport NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
eventration NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
sudden NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
paO2 NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
99 NN O O
to NN O O
83 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
96 NN O O
to NN O O
84 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calculated NN O O
intrapulmonary NN O O
right-to-left-shunt NN O O
( NN O O
NA NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
7 NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
epidural NN O O
group NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (3976757)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O O
labor NN O O
by NN O O
17 NN O I-INT
alpha-hydroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
caproate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighty NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
giving NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
prematurely NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
17 NN O I-INT
alpha-hydroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
caproate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
intramuscular NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Imminent NN O O
premature NN O O
labor NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
29.0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
59.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group 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

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
deliveries NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) 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
37.82 NN O O
% 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
perinatal NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
malformations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
infants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
3111.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
905 NN O O
gm NN O O
versus NN O O
2680 NN O O
+/- NN O O
813.4 NN O O
gm NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
caproate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O O
labor NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4004503)

Therapist NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
determinants NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
relatively NN O O
unexplored NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapist NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
determining NN O O
outcomes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Nine NN O I-PAR
therapists NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
supportive-expressive NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Profound NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
discovered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapists NN O O
' NN O O
success NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
case NN O O
loads NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
potential NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
explored NN O O
: NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
therapist NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
patient-therapist NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
therapy NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
load NN O O
( NN O O
after NN O O
random NN O O
assignments NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
disclosed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
explained NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
success NN O O
; NN O O
therapist NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
personal NN O I-OUT
qualities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.32 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
an NN O O
early-in-treatment NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient-therapist NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Helping NN O I-OUT
Alliance NN O I-OUT
Questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
yielded NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.65 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
techniques NN O O
, NN O O
purity NN O I-OUT
provided NN O O
significant NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
outcomes NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.44 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
across NN O O
therapists NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
therapist NN O O
's NN O O
case NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
three NN O O
therapist-related NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
moderately NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4016785)

Prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
of NN O O
high-dose NN O O
versus NN O O
low-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
for NN O O
lymphoblastoid NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
from NN O O
preliminary NN O O
laboratory NN O O
studies NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
high- NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
low-dose NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
is NN O O
optimal NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
action NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
two-arm NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
lymphoblastoid NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
by NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
low-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
units/m2 NN O O
daily NN O O
X NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
then NN O O
daily NN O O
X NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
week NN O O
by NN O O
im NN O O
injection NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
high-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
units/m2 NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
iv NN O O
infusion NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
escalating NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
units/m2/day NN O O
as NN O O
tolerated NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
were NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Marked NN O O
interpatient NN O O
differences NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
arm NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
included NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
leukopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
evidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Minor NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
electrolytes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Coagulation NN O I-OUT
studies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose-limiting NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
high-dose NN O O
arm NN O O
was NN O O
myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Median NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
high-dose NN O O
strategy NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
18 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
units/m2 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
marked NN O O
interpatient NN O O
variation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
dose NN O O
schedules NN O O
were NN O O
relatively NN O I-OUT
well-tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Because NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
high-dose NN O O
treatment NN O O
should NN O O
include NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4025245)

Mass NN O O
inoculation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
, NN O O
situation-specific NN O O
, NN O O
group-administered NN O O
preparatory NN O O
intervention NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
nonclient NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-INT
inoculation NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
rubella NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-one NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
practice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
no-practice NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
no-practice NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
information NN O O
that NN O O
described NN O O
the NN O O
inoculation NN O O
procedure NN O O
and NN O O
how NN O O
to NN O O
cope NN O O
with NN O O
it NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
coping NN O O
skills NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
practice NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
encouraged NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
coping NN O O
techniques NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
no-practice NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
told NN O O
only NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
would NN O O
help NN O O
them NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
inoculation NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
no-practice NN O O
groups NN O O
reported NN O O
less NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
exhibited NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
cooperative NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
inoculation NN O O
than NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
guided NN O O
and NN O O
prompted NN O O
to NN O O
actively NN O O
practice NN O O
derived NN O O
greater NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4037540)

Differential NN O I-OUT
inhibition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bronchoconstriction NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
verapamil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
can NN O O
inhibit NN O O
experimentally NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
bronchoconstriction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
their NN O O
protective NN O O
action NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
intensity NN O O
and NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
blocker NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
reported NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
noncumulative NN O O
thermal NN O O
stimulus-response NN O O
curves NN O O
using NN O O
isocapnic NN O O
hyperventilation NN O O
of NN O O
cold NN O O
air NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
with NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
intravenously NN O O
administered NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
bolus NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
appropriate NN O O
placebos NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Verapamil NN O O
afforded NN O O
no NN O O
consistent NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
thermal NN O O
challenges NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
significantly NN O O
blunted NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoconstrictor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
middle NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
thermal NN O O
burden NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nifedipine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
bronchoconstriction NN O I-OUT
afforded NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
agent NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bronchoconstricting NN O O
stimulus NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
raise NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
transmembrane NN O O
calcium NN O O
ion NN O O
influx NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
may NN O O
vary NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
stimulus NN O O
intensity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (404962)

Comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
carbenicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ampicillin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
purulent NN O I-PAR
meningitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
carbenicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ampicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
purulent NN O O
meningitis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
86 NN O I-PAR
pediatric NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
Haemophilus NN O I-PAR
influenzae NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
Streptococcus NN O I-PAR
pneumoniae NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
Neisseria NN O I-PAR
meningitidis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
isolates NN O O
, NN O O
incuding NN O O
H. NN O O
influenzae NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
susceptible NN O O
to NN O O
CB NN O O
and NN O O
AMP NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O O
cerebrospinal NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.85 NN O O
and NN O O
1.60 NN O O
mug/ml NN O O
for NN O O
CB NN O O
and NN O O
AMP NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
0.65 NN O O
and NN O O
0.45 NN O O
mug/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Higher NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
4.5 NN O O
mug/ml NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CSF NN O O
protein NN O O
concentrations NN O O
> NN O O
/=75 NN O O
mg/100 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
equivalent NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
AMP NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
residua NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
3 NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
residua NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
none NN O I-OUT
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
influenzae NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
had NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
follow-up NN O O
lumbar NN O O
punctures NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
AMP NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
influenzae NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
delay NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
sterilization NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
CB-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
hemophilus NN O O
organisms NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

AMP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CB NN O I-INT
are NN O O
equivalent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bacterial NN O O
meningitis NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
susceptible NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4077545)

A NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Self-Care NN O I-INT
Rehabilitation NN O I-INT
Program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Self-Care NN O I-INT
Rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Asthma NN O O
( NN O O
SCRPA NN O O
) NN O O
project NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
acquire NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
knowledge NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
skills NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
self-management NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Utah NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
training NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
asthma NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
SCRPA NN O O
Curriculum NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2-5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-INT
1-hour NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
scheduled NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
last NN O O
classes NN O O
were NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
parents NN O I-PAR
only NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
middle NN O O
four NN O O
sessions NN O O
were NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
parent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
school-age NN O O
SCRPA NN O O
curriculum NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6-14 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O I-INT
90-minute NN O I-INT
classes NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
s NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
scheduled NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Private NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
school-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
school-age NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
served NN O O
as NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
episodes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
training NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
preschool NN O O
, NN O O
school NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
school NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
episodes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O O
record NN O O
keeping NN O O
required NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
worth NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
school-age NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
posttesting NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
SCRPA NN O I-INT
curriculum NN O O
increased NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4085165)

Chronic NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
humeral NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
electromagnetic NN O I-INT
field NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pulsed NN O I-INT
electromagnetic NN O I-INT
fields NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PEMF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rotator NN O O
cuff NN O O
tendinitis NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
lateral NN O I-PAR
humeral NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
tennis NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
chronic NN O O
tendon NN O O
lesion NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thermographic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tennis NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
inactive NN O I-INT
PEMF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4101734)

Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O O
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4127641)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
potassium- NN O I-OUT
retaining NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spironolactone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thiazide-induced NN O I-PAR
hypokalaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4154124)

Bites NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
saw-scaled NN O O
or NN O O
carpet NN O O
viper NN O O
( NN O O
Echis NN O O
carinatus NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
specific NN O O
antivenoms NN O O
. NN O O

Echis NN O O
carinatus NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
from NN O O
snake NN O O
bite NN O O
in NN O O
Nigeria NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
other NN O O
parts NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
world NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
poisoning NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
snake NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
echis NN O I-INT
antivenom NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
South NN O I-INT
African NN O I-INT
Institute NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
Medical NN O I-INT
Research NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
S.A.I.M.R NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
by NN O O
Behringwerke NN O O
( NN O I-INT
North NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
West NN O I-INT
African NN O I-INT
polyvalent NN O I-INT
antivenom NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

A NN O O
simple NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
coagulability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
neutralizing NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
antivenom NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
15.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
S.A.I.M.R NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
antivenom NN O I-INT
restored NN O O
normal NN O I-OUT
coagulability NN O I-OUT
permanently NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
37.9 NN O O
ml NN O O
Behringwerke NN O I-INT
antivenom NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-OUT
clotting NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
18 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
swelling NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Behringwerke NN O I-INT
antivenom NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
none NN O O
given NN O O
S.A.I.M.R NN O O
. NN O O

antivenom NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4157501)

Potassium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glucose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4165041)

Beta-cytotrophic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glucagon NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tolbutamide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (417361)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
on NN O O
regional NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
organic NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
piracetam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Nootropil NN O O
, NN O O
UCB6215 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
regional NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rCBF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presenile NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
dementia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
included NN O O
nine NN O O
measurement NN O O
occasions NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
involving NN O O
rCBF NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
133-Xe NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
, NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
, NN O O
personality NN O O
changes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
psychometric NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
investigations NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
investigation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
without NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Then NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
piracetam NN O I-INT
4.8 NN O O
g/day NN O O
or NN O O
9.6 NN O O
g/day NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
during NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
measurements NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weekks NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
without NN O O
medication NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Piracetam NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
mental NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rCBF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4187541)

Protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
1-adamantanamine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
influenza NN O I-PAR
A2 NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4198313)

A NN O O
multicenter NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
lorazepam NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
anxiety NN O I-OUT
neurosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4220015)

[ NN O I-INT
Prognostic NN O I-INT
experiences NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
differential NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
hepatitides NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (43164)

A NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pindolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
labetalol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pindolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Considerable NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
138 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
; NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
308 NN O O
+/- NN O O
34 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
; NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
234 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
24 NN O O
+/-2 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
were NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
similar NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
atenolol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
metoprolol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pindolol NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
slightly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
labetalol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-INT
Sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
dreaming NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
pindolol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
There NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
atenolol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metoprolol NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4346973)

Dipyrone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4353587)

A NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
cytostatic NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4448416)

Coagulation NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
haemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
diathesis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
fulminant NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
clotting NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
fulminant NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
concentrate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
concentrate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
all NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
receiving NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
instance NN O O
of NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
intravascular NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
concentrate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
progressed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
infusions NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
lesser NN O O
extent NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Additional NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
intravascular NN O O
coagulation NN O O
came NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
VIII NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
initially NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
fell NN O O
subsequently NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
concentrate NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
some NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prothrombin NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
complete NN O O
correction NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serial NN O O
assays NN O O
of NN O O
clotting NN O O
factors NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
factors NN O I-OUT
IX NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
X NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
little NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
concentrate NN O O
of NN O O
factor NN O I-OUT
IX NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
potentiating NN O O
intravascular NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
inadequate NN O O
as NN O O
replacement NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
clotting NN O O
factor NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4459905)

[ NN O I-INT
Carticaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapie NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
author NN O O
's NN O O
transl NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (447787)

On NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
incorporating NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
non-randomising NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4479815)

Comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cephacetrile NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cephaloridine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
pertussis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4615718)

[ NN O O
Psychoexperimental NN O O
studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
valepotriate NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
valtratum NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4619431)

[ NN O I-INT
Piribedil NN O I-INT
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
diseases NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4623522)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
polyglutamate NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
pteroyltriglutamate NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
anticonvulsant NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
phenytoin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
phenytoin NN O I-INT
has NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
folate NN O I-OUT
polyglutamate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reasons NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
disparity NN O O
between NN O O
this NN O O
result NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
literature NN O O
when NN O O
folate NN O O
polyglutamates NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
yeast NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4678681)

Joint NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
extracranial NN O O
arterial NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

VI NN O O
. NN O O

Racial NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4716523)

Truncal NN O I-OUT
vagotomy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
duodenal NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (4752239)

Mebendazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
enterobiasis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4772206)

The NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
intestinal NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
highly NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
vagotomy NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
drainage NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
vagotomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pyloroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (4818631)

[ NN O I-OUT
Folic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Switzerland NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (484261)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Out NN O O
of NN O O
383 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
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
252 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
judged NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
infarctions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
incapacity NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
detected NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
three-month NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
thus NN O O
support NN O O
previous NN O O
conclusions NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
after NN O O
uncomplicated NN O O
MI NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
greater NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
than NN O O
later NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (4908199)

A NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ergotamine NN O I-INT
tartrate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (500415)

New NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (50611)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
rapid NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
schedules NN O O
utilizing NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
reactions NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
rapid NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
schedules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
effectiveness NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relief NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
SCHEDULE NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
totalling NN O I-PAR
3,760 NN O I-PAR
rads NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
22-23 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
SCHEDULE NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
totalling NN O I-PAR
3,440 NN O I-PAR
rads NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
10-11 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
SCHEDULE NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
sessions NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
totalling NN O I-PAR
3,568 NN O I-PAR
rads NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
10-11 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
schedules NN O O
are NN O O
nearly NN O O
identical NN O O
but NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rapid NN O O
fractionation NN O O
schedules NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (507792)

Anaerobic NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clindamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
presumably NN O I-PAR
caused NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
anaerobic NN O I-PAR
pathogens NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
rates NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
clindamycine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
experience NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
( NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
clindamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
82 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
therapies NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Clindamycin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
cefoxitin NN O O
in NN O O
eradicating NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
offending NN O I-OUT
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Aerobic NN O O
pathogens NN O O
were NN O O
frequently NN O O
isolated NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
anaerobes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
infectious NN O O
sites NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
series NN O O
; NN O O
their NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
or NN O O
resistance NN O O
to NN O O
clindamycin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (526820)

A NN O O
tube NN O I-INT
spacer NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
inhalation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pressurised NN O O
aerosols NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (5322596)

Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
candida NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
in-patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (5378631)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-hyoscine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amylobarbitone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
on NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
post-rotational NN O I-PAR
turning NN O I-PAR
sensation NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nystagmus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (5410150)

The NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
prolonged NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
childhood NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (5431057)

Para-anaesthetic NN O I-INT
headache NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (543887)

Comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-cyanidanol-3 NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-specific NN O I-PAR
analytical NN O I-PAR
methods NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (555487)

Generalizability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
coronary-prone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Type NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
managers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
type NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
project NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
managers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
extended NN O O
to NN O O
data NN O O
available NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
for NN O O
participants NN O O
eliminated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
sample NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
manifestations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
measures NN O O
obtained NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
did NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
sample NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O O
showed NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
become NN O O
somewhat NN O O
sharper NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
special NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
faring NN O O
best NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
intermediate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
worst NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
logical NN O O
consistency NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
increases NN O O
our NN O O
confidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
permitting NN O O
cautious NN O O
optimism NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
effective NN O O
intervention NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
coronary-type NN O O
( NN O O
type NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (5556863)

The NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
premedication NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pentazocine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pethidine NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
respiration NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (5573167)

Response NN O I-OUT
latencies NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
engaged NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
self-stimulatory NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (5575706)

Triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bursitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
foot NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (5653418)

One-trial NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
item-difficulty NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (5980490)

Alcoholism NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
avoidance NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
emotional NN O I-OUT
responsiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (605912)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
breathing NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
ppm NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
compressed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
carboxyhemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.48 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
1.43 NN O O
to NN O O
4.08 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
after NN O O
breathing NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide 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
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
carboxyhemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.52 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
air NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
1.47 NN O O
to NN O O
1.34 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
after NN O O
purified NN O O
air 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
mean NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
until NN O I-OUT
marked NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
218.5 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
146.6 NN O O
seconds NN O O
after NN O O
breathing NN O O
carbon NN O O
monoxide 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
mean NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
219.9 NN O O
seconds NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
air NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
221.3 NN O O
seconds NN O O
after NN O O
purified NN O O
air NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Breathing NN O O
100 NN O O
ppm NN O O
of NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
monoxide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6111083)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
fixed NN O O
ratio NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
fixed NN O O
ratio NN O O
combination NN O O
tablets NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
clopamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-INT
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
combinations NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
pindolol/clopamide NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
but NN O O
proper NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
products NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
made NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
products NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
only NN O O
after NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
adequately NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6113821)

Schizophrenia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-eight NN O I-PAR
first-admission NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic 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
following NN O O
five NN O O
treatments NN O O
: NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
electroconvulsive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
milieu NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
there- NN O O
to NN O O
five-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examined NN O O
their NN O O
course NN O O
after NN O O
release NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
ECT NN O O
groups NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
worst NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
prior NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
began NN O O
to NN O O
dissipate NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
postadmission NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
treatment NN O O
successes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
advantage NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
disadvantage NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
apparent NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
far NN O O
from NN O O
reassuring NN O O
, NN O O
whatever NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
though NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
do NN O O
well NN O O
, NN O O
much NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
done NN O O
in NN O O
and NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6116246)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
bromperidol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
newly NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6119875)

Acute NN O O
intervention NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxprenolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
beta-blockade NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
placebo NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
388 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected 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
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
atenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
analysed NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
basis 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
three NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
respect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
either NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
'serious NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
coronary NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
473 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected 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
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oxprenolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Again NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
which NN O O
received NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dysrhythmic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
trend NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
achieve NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O I-INT
beta-blockers NN O I-INT
tested NN O O
nor NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
given NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
disopyramide NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
does NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
'serious NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
ventriicular NN O I-OUT
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6123343)

An NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-PAR
blockade NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
prizidilol NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
Prizidilol NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SK NN O O
& NN O O
F NN O O
92657 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
compound NN O O
which NN O O
causes NN O O
both NN O O
arteriolar NN O O
dilatation NN O O
and NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
responses NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
to NN O O
isoprenaline NN O O
infusion NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
Isoprenaline NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
dose-response NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
parallel NN O O
shifts NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
prizidilol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
antagonism NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
compound NN O O
at NN O O
beta-adrenoceptors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
Isoprenaline NN O O
dose-response NN O O
curves NN O O
for NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
shifts NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
prizidilol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
providing NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
antagonism NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
resistance NN O O
vessels NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
The NN O O
peak NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
prizidilol NN O I-INT
but NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
caused NN O O
persistent NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
7 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6123810)

Clobazam NN O I-INT
in NN O O
catamenial NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
model NN O O
for NN O O
evaluating NN O O
anticonvulsants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cyclical NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
of NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
( NN O O
catamenial NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
antiepileptic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clobazam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Doses NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
cases NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
over NN O O
predetermined NN O O
ten-day NN O O
periods NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
preference NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sequential NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
clobazam NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
no NN O O
preference NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

Clobazam NN O I-INT
completely NN O O
prevented NN O O
seizures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
toxic NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6124226)

Neuroleptics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6125181)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-INT
blockade NN O O
on NN O O
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
with NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
cardioselective NN O O
beta-adrenoceptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
lacking NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensives NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
incipient NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
M-Mode NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2D-echo-cardiography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
Both NN O O
pindolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
equipotent NN O O
doses NN O O
lowered NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
extent NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
geometry NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
In NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pindolol NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
less NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
reflecting NN O O
the NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6131800)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Naftidrofuryl NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ethanol-induced NN O O
liver NN O O
damage NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
Naftidrofuryl NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
alcoholic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
biochemical NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
histological NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hepatic NN O I-PAR
damage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventeen NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
ml NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
ml NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Naftidrofuryl NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
reflected NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
indocyanine NN O I-OUT
green NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
2.61 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
raised NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gamma NN O I-OUT
glutamyl NN O I-OUT
transpeptidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
injections NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
e.g NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
sense NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
clearly NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Naftidrofuryl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
ethanol-induced NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
damage NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
more NN O O
extensive NN O O
long-term NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
suggested 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 I-PAR
ALD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6134039)

Ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
ampicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chloramphenicol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
meningitis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bacterial NN O I-PAR
meningitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
as NN O O
single-drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
ampicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
chloramphenicol NN O I-INT
given NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
in NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
illness NN O O
before NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bacterial NN O O
colony NN O O
counts NN O O
in NN O O
cerebrospinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
CSF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pathogens NN O O
were NN O O
Haemophilus NN O O
influenzae NN O O
type NN O O
b NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
streptococci NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
meningococci NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
unknown NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
40 NN O O
CSF NN O O
specimens NN O O
obtained NN O O
4-12 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
cultures NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
others NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
bacterial NN O I-OUT
colony NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4.7 NN O O
and NN O O
5.0 NN O O
log10 NN O O
colony-forming NN O O
units/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
bactericidal NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
group 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
therapy 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
clinical NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
except NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other 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



-DOCSTART- (6134180)

Gradual NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
of NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
after NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

41 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
consumers NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
diazepam NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
dosage NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
gradually NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
stepwise NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
procedure NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
began NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
immediately NN O O
and NN O O
half NN O O
after NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
44.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
experienced NN O O
true NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
phenomena NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
reducing NN O O
their NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
8 NN O O
other NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
pseudo-withdrawal NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
a NN O O
time NN O O
when NN O O
their NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pseudo-withdrawal NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
true NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
included NN O O
perceptual NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychotic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Examination NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
phenomena NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
later NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
personality NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
passive-dependent NN O O
traits NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6143667)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
beta-blocking NN O O
drugs NN O O
on NN O O
beta-cell NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
beta-blocking NN O O
drugs NN O O
on NN O O
endogenous NN O O
insulin NN O O
secretion NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
2-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Endogenous NN O O
insulin NN O O
secretion NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
serum NN O O
insulin NN O O
and NN O O
C-peptide NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
iv NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
glucagon NN O O
; NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
insulin NN O O
binding NN O O
to NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
glucose NN O O
disappearance NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
KITT NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

insulin NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
free NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
( NN O O
S-FFA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
gastric NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
polypeptide NN O O
( NN O O
P-GIP NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
study NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
S-FFA NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
measurable NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
and NN O O
atenolol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
representative NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
beta-blockade NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucagon-stimulated NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
propranolol NN O O
therapy NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.030 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
atenolol NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
influence NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
binding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
erythrocytes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
clearly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
KITT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0036 NN O O
and NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
beta-blocking NN O O
drugs NN O O
can NN O O
influence NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
other NN O O
than NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6146112)

Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
camazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
temazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Computerized NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
recordings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
administration NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
camazepam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
temazepam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
adapted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
environment NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
nights NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adaptation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
separating NN O O
each NN O O
session NN O O
. NN O O

Spectral NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
all-night NN O O
records NN O O
( NN O O
1-min NN O O
epochs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
frequency NN O O
bands NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
sleep NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
temazepam NN O I-INT
induces NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
phase NN O O
shifts NN O O
; NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
awakenings NN O O
; NN O O
percent NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
sleep NN O O
stages NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
IV NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
percent NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Camazepam NN O I-OUT
shows NN O I-OUT
modification NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
same NN O I-OUT
trend NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
reaching NN O I-OUT
statistical NN O I-OUT
significance NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Concerning NN O O
spectral NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
temazepam NN O I-OUT
induces NN O O
a NN O O
light NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
power NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
slowest NN O O
frequencies NN O O
, NN O O
paralleled NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fast NN O O
bands NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
major NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
characteristic NN O O
periodicity NN O O
of NN O O
delta NN O O
activities NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
appear NN O O
disrupted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
effects NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
evident NN O O
with NN O O
camazepam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
distort NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
sleep NN O O
pattern NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6148163)

Thyroid NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
antibodies NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
aid NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Graves NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
In NN O O
1976 NN O O
we NN O O
initiated NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
specify NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
thyroid NN O I-INT
stimulating NN O I-INT
antibody NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TSAb NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
determinations NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
post-antithyroid NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
Graves NN O O
' NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
two-year NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
TSAb NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
whole NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
determinations NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
reproducible NN O O
microassay NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
cAMP NN O O
accumulation NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
thyroid NN O O
cell NN O O
cultures NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
TSAb NN O I-OUT
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
170 NN O O
to NN O O
1529 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
28/29 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
significantly NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
whatever NN O O
its NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

TSAb NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
undetectable NN O O
in NN O O
24/55 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

8/16 NN O O
'short-treated NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
18/39 NN O O
'long-treated NN O O
' NN O O
patients NN O O
remained NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
As NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
TSAb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
no NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

End-treatment NN O I-OUT
TSAb NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
when NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
350 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
negative NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
later NN O O
evolution NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
39 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
13/16 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
end-treatment NN O I-OUT
TSAb NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
350 NN O O
% NN O O
relapsed NN O O
. NN O O

Relapses NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
occur NN O O
earlier NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
TSAb NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
TSAb NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-PAR
again NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
negative NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
8/10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whatever NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
end-treatment NN O O
TSAb NN O O
levels NN O O
are NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
relapse 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- (6148879)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nadolol NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
thyrotoxicosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
For NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nadolol NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
thyrotoxicosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
as NN O O
sole NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
nadolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
each NN O O
morning NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
repeated NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
euthyroid NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amelioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thyrotoxicosis NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
trough NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
nadolol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
6 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trough NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
propranolol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
thyrotoxic NN O O
state NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
euthyroid NN O O
state NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nadolol NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
appreciably NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
thyrotoxicosis NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
thyrotoxicosis NN O O
, NN O O
trough NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
propranolol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nadolol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
derived NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
thyrotoxicosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
nadolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
nonmetabolized NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
, NN O O
has NN O O
certain NN O O
advantages NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
preferred NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
convenient NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
aids NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6150716)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
somatostatin NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
utilisation NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
in NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
this NN O O
possibility NN O O
we NN O O
adapted NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
somatostatin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
relative NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Broca NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
cross-over NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
X NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/die NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
( NN O O
VC NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
measured NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
continuously NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
was NN O O
between NN O O
90 NN O O
and NN O O
130 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
beginning NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
VC NN O O
8.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
nearly NN O O
constant NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
; NN O O
38 NN O O
) NN O O
microU/ml NN O O
) NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
by NN O O
about NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
89 NN O O
( NN O O
134 NN O O
; NN O O
45 NN O O
) NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
130 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
beginning NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
it NN O O
became NN O O
evident NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
lactate NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.687 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pyruvate NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.843 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
proven NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
somatostatin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
fitted NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
a NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
a NN O O
changed NN O O
utilisation NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
specific NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6151482)

Statistical NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
termination NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
beta-blocker NN O O
heart NN O O
attack NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Beta-Blocker NN O O
Heart NN O O
Attack NN O O
Trial NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
3837 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
on NN O O
recommendation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Policy NN O O
and NN O O
Data NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
Board NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
scheduled NN O O
closing NN O O
date NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
lower NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
z NN O O
= NN O O
2.82 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
issues NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
decision NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
results NN O O
; NN O O
consistency NN O O
of NN O O
results NN O O
across NN O O
subgroups NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
centers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
completeness NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
basic NN O O
statistical NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
declaring NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
method NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
taking NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
the NN O O
issue NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
significance NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
method NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
trend NN O O
was NN O O
so NN O O
impressive NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
conclusion NN O O
was NN O O
unlikely NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
should NN O O
continue NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
scheduled NN O O
end NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
two NN O O
methods NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
other NN O O
considerations NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
recommendation NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6182816)

Anti-IgG NN O O
antibodies NN O O
during NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
purified NN O O
grass NN O O
pollen NN O O
extracts NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hyposensitization NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
partially NN O I-INT
purified NN O I-INT
timothy NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
timothy NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
allergens NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
typical NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
hay NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
birch NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
anti-IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
after NN O O
dithiothreitol NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
hyposensitization NN O O
, NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
anti-IgG NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
hyposensitization NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
anti-IgG NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
initial NN O O
increase NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
below NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
increase NN O O
nor NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Reactions NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
rabbit NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
F NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ab NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
hyposensitization NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
anti-IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
no NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
allergen-specific NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
a NN O O
previous NN O O
study NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
multiallergy NN O O
hyposensitized NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
allergen NN O O
extracts NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
anti-IgG NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
appear NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
patients NN O O
allergic NN O O
only NN O O
to NN O O
pollen NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
purified NN O O
allergen NN O O
extracts NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
multiallergic NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
and/or NN O O
purification NN O O
of NN O O
allergen NN O O
extracts NN O O
administered NN O O
during NN O O
hyposensitization NN O O
may NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
IgG NN O I-OUT
anti- NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6189335)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
betamethasone NN O I-INT
valerate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-OUT
facial NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
allocated NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Betamethasone NN O I-INT
valerate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
cream NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
face NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treated NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
scrub-wash NN O O
method NN O O
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
began NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
microorganisms NN O O
were NN O O
enumerated NN O O
and NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O

Application NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
cream NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O I-OUT
slight NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.5 NN O O
log NN O O
cycle NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
flora NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
occurring NN O O
between NN O O
volunteers NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
steroid NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
theories NN O O
of NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
perioral NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6206796)

[ NN O O
Local NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
anti-cancer NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pericardial NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Pleural NN O O
effusion NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
complication NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
neoplasm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
Adriamycin NN O I-INT
Nocardia NN O I-INT
rubra NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
wall NN O I-INT
skeleton NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N-CWS NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
tube NN O I-INT
thoracostomy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pleural NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
73.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
N-CWS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
46.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
N-CWS NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
instillation NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
anti-cancer NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
immunopotentiator NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
malignant NN O O
pleurisy NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O O
tamponade NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
complication NN O O
requiring NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
pericardial NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
intrapericardial NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
anti-cancer NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
Carbazilquinone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Mitomycin-C NN O I-INT
or NN O O
ACNU NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
pericardial NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
anti-cancer NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
was NN O O
3-365 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
average NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
only NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
reaccumulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pericardial NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recognized NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
that NN O O
local NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
anti-cancer NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
with NN O O
pericardial NN O I-INT
drainage NN O I-INT
was NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
malignant NN O O
pericarditis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6227244)

Effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
IQ NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
certain NN O O
other NN O O
variables NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
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
Down NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
living NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
megadose NN O I-INT
multi-vitamin/mineral NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
matched NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
identical NN O I-PAR
form NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual-motor NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
tested NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
checks NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
monitor NN O O
behavioral NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
any NN O O
measures NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6261782)

Metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
circulatory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Metabolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
chemical NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
juvenile NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
None NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
beta-sympathomimetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
earlier NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
cyclic NN O I-OUT
AMP 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
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glycerol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
non-esterified NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NEFA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-hydroxybutyrate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3-HB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
every NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
women NN O O
underwent NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
effects NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Salbutamol NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
glycogenolysis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipolysis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
juvenile NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
the NN O O
non-diabetic NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
chemical NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
observation NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
inability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
juvenile NN O O
diabetics NN O O
to NN O O
secrete NN O O
insulin NN O O
, NN O O
shown NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
non-measureable NN O O
plasma NN O O
C-peptide NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chemical NN O O
diabetics NN O O
were NN O O
intermediate NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
non-diabetic NN O O
and NN O O
juvenile NN O O
diabetic NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
diabetes NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
beta-receptors NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
regulation NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
are NN O O
enhanced NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
juvenile NN O O
diabetics NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
beta-sympathomimetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
blood NN O O
glucose NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6307704)

Bronchoscopic NN O I-OUT
findings NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
regression NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
bronchogenic NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fibre-optic NN O I-INT
bronchoscopy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
bronchogenic NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
radiographic NN O I-PAR
regression NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
3-4 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifteen NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
tumour NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
nodular NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
narrowing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bronchi NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
fibrous NN O I-OUT
strands NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
membranes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Microscopic NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
residual NN O O
cancer NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
3 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
bronchoscopy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
disappearance NN O O
of NN O O
nodules NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
later NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

Persistent NN O I-OUT
bronchial NN O I-OUT
narrowing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
became NN O O
disease-free NN O O
2-yr NN O O
survivors NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
tumour NN O O
regression NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
scar NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
complicate NN O O
the NN O O
interpretation NN O O
of NN O O
post-treatment NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
further NN O O
regression NN O O
of NN O O
intrabronchial NN O O
lesions NN O O
may NN O O
occur NN O O
beyond NN O O
3-4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (631030)

[ NN O O
Long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
author NN O O
's NN O O
transl NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
over NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cerebro-vascular NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
psychometric NN O I-PAR
testing NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
Hydergine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
an NN O O
ergot NN O O
alkaloid NN O O
preparation NN O O
: NN O O
4.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
compensated NN O O
the NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
dementia NN O O
, NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
actually NN O O
brought NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mental NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Similar NN O O
compensatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
demonstrable NN O O
in NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
progressive NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
expression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
with NN O O
Hydergine NN O I-INT
cerebral NN O O
circulation NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
shortened NN O O
and NN O O
stabilized NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
EEGs NN O O
, NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
psychometric NN O O
and NN O O
circulation NN O O
time NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
8-10 NN O I-OUT
Hz NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
corresponds NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
physiological NN O O
alpha NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
diminished NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
frequency NN O O
bands NN O O
with NN O O
Hydergine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
tendency NN O O
being NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6324934)

[ NN O I-OUT
Metastatic NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
sequential NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
disseminated NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
additive NN O I-PAR
hormonal NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
june NN O I-PAR
1981 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
december NN O I-PAR
1982 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
continually NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
2nd NN O O
group NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
TAM NN O I-INT
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
for NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
of NN O O
350 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hormonal NN O O
receptor NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
48 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
X2 NN O O
= NN O O
1,05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0,01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6337497)

A NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
levobunolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
, NN O O
dose-response NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
beta-adrenergic NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
levobunolol NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
levobunolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
at NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
0.03 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
concentrations NN O O
decreased NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
concentrations NN O O
decreased NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
objective NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
substantial NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pupil NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
justify NN O O
long-term NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
levobunolol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6341410)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
hypnotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
systematic NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cigarette NN O O
habituation NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
methodological NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
research NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
impossible NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
any NN O O
valid NN O O
conclusions NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
itself 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
cigarette NN O O
habituation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
wanted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
quit NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smoking NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O I-INT
hypnosis NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
waiting NN O I-INT
list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ss NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
four NN O O
weekly NN O O
50-minute NN O O
, NN O O
individual NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
Ss NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
hypnotic NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ss NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypnosis NN O I-INT
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
hypnotic NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
reduced NN O O
their NN O O
cigarette NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
substantially NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
Ss NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relaxation NN O O
group NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
two-thirds NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
hypnotic NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
hypnotic NN O O
state NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
for NN O O
individuals NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
can NN O O
enter NN O O
medium NN O O
or NN O O
deep NN O O
states NN O O
of NN O O
hypnosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6342928)

Caries NN O I-OUT
preventive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
toothpastes NN O O
containing NN O O
monofluorophosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
trimetaphosphate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
3-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
caries-preventive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
two NN O O
toothpastes NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
3-year NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
1319 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
11-13 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
test NN O O
toothpastes NN O O
were NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
abrasion NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
monofluorophosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MFP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
trimetaphosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TMP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
control NN O O
toothpaste NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
moderately NN O I-INT
abrasive NN O I-INT
paste NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
monofluorophosphate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
radiologically NN O O
each NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Toothpaste NN O O
was NN O O
supplied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
homes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
use NN O O
was NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
. NN O O

Caries NN O I-OUT
increments NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
DMF NN O O
teeth NN O O
and NN O O
DMF NN O O
surfaces NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
MFP NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
444 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MFP NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
450 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TMP NN O I-INT
test NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
425 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
caries NN O I-OUT
increments NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
MFP NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
some NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
hygiene NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6343259)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
once NN O O
and NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
symptom-limited NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
angina NN O O
diaries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
doses NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
randomised NN O O
within NN O O
patients NN O O
following NN O O
run-in NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
40-74 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
before NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
61-94 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
. NN O O

Maximal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
further NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
than NN O O
by NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
extra NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
derived NN O O
by NN O O
giving NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
largest NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

Atenolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
anti-anginal NN O O
agent NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
major NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6344196)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MA-sensitive NN O O
leukocyte NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Polymorphonuclear NN O O
leukocyte NN O O
( NN O O
PMN NN O O
) NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O

PMN NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
microtubule NN O O
antagonists NN O O
( NN O O
MAs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

colchicine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antimycotic NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
inhibits NN O O
the NN O O
MA-sensitive NN O O
PMN NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
in NN O O
concentrations NN O O
far NN O O
below NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
during NN O O
antimycotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MA-sensitive NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
could NN O O
thus NN O O
be NN O O
elucidated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Griseofulvin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
m NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
one NN O O
year 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
of NN O I-PAR
mild-moderate NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
griseofulvin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
more NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
griseofulvin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
MA-sensitive NN O O
chemotaxis NN O O
plays NN O O
a NN O O
reparative NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
lesions NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6345111)

Double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
antacid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
esophagitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
antacids NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
the NN O O
mainstay NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacologic NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
reflux NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
antacid NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
reflux NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heartburn NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Entry NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
gastroesophageal NN O I-PAR
reflux NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
acid NN O I-PAR
perfusion NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Bernstein NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
intraesophageal NN O I-PAR
pH NN O I-PAR
probe NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mEq NN O O
) NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Maalox NN O I-INT
Therapeutic NN O I-INT
Concentration NN O I-INT
, NN O O
William NN O O
H. NN O O
Rorer NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
taken NN O O
7 NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
hr NN O O
after NN O O
meals NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement 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
in NN O O
both NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reproduce NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
timed NN O O
Bernstein NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
active NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
402 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
sec NN O O
to NN O O
169 NN O O
+/- NN O O
66 NN O O
sec NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
286 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
+/- NN O O
57 NN O O
sec NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
endoscopically NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
asked NN O O
: NN O O
does NN O O
regular NN O O
antacid NN O O
therapy NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
ie NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
therapy NN O O
heal NN O O
or NN O O
otherwise NN O O
change NN O O
esophagitis NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
painful NN O O
episodes NN O O
are NN O O
either NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
severe NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
? NN O O
We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
reflux NN O I-OUT
esophagitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
( NN O O
short-term NN O O
) NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6350097)

Recurrent NN O O
ulcer NN O O
after NN O O
successful NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
healing NN O O
and NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
antacid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endoscopically NN O I-PAR
documented NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1200 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
Mylanta NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
, NN O O
7 NN O O
oz NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
ulcer NN O O
healing NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
percent NN O O
healed NN O O
on NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
114 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
healed NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
no NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
underwent NN O O
additional NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
recurrences NN O O
when NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
or NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
mo 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
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
percentages NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Some NN O O
patient NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
included NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
frequency NN O O
, NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
disease NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acid NN O O
secretion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6352035)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
netilmicin-cefoxitin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
gentamicin-cefoxitin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
gentamicin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
netilmicin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
toxicity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
cultured NN O O
organisms NN O O
were NN O O
Escherichia NN O O
coli NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Klebsiella NN O O
sp NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Proteus NN O O
sp NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Bacteroides NN O O
sp NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
gentamicin-cefoxitin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
G-C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
favorable NN O O
in NN O O
20/21 NN O O
( NN O O
95.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
evaluable NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
elimination NN O O
or NN O O
marked NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
33/34 NN O O
( NN O O
97.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
organisms NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
netilmicin-cefoxitin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
N-C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
favorable NN O O
in NN O O
13/13 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
evaluable NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
19/20 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
organisms NN O O
were NN O O
eliminated NN O O
or NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
rise NN O O
of NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/100 NN O O
ml NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
value NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mg/100 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
2/27 NN O O
( NN O O
7.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
G-C NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
3/19 NN O O
( NN O O
15.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
N-C. NN O O
Ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
20 NN O O
dB NN O O
loss NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
5/27 NN O O
( NN O O
18.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
G-C NN O O
and NN O O
2/19 NN O O
( NN O O
10.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
N-C NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
and NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
are NN O O
both NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
cefoxitin NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6354030)

Fat NN O O
embolism NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated 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
of NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-bone NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
objective NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
saw 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
the NN O O
syndrome NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
corticosteroid- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
complications NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
routine NN O O
laboratory NN O O
or NN O O
physical NN O O
findings NN O O
reliably NN O O
predicted NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
petechial NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
the NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Complement NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
studied NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
meet NN O O
our NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
multifactorial NN O O
cause NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
treatment 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
the NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
if NN O O
several NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
predictors NN O O
are NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6360688)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
unstable NN O O
angina NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
diltiazem NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Coronary NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
appearance NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
aggravation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pains NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ST-T NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
chest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ST NN O I-PAR
elevation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
repolarization NN O I-PAR
abnormalities NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
Treatment NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
successful NN O O
only NN O O
if NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
chest NN O I-OUT
pains NN O I-OUT
disappeared NN O O
completely NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
D NN O I-INT
( NN O O
282 NN O O
+/- NN O O
102 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O I-INT
( NN O O
158 NN O O
+/- NN O O
81 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
considered NN O O
individually NN O O
, NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
D NN O I-INT
and NN O O
P NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-OUT
exclusively NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
nine NN O O
successes NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
failures NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
D. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
P NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
D NN O I-INT
and NN O O
unchanged NN O O
by NN O O
P NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
eight NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
11 NN O O
failures NN O O
with NN O O
P NN O I-INT
were NN O O
immediate NN O O
successes NN O O
when NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
replaced NN O O
with NN O O
D. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
D NN O I-INT
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
P NN O I-INT
for NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6360773)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
cicloxilic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bile NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gallstones NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

24 NN O I-PAR
gallstone NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cicloxilic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
endowed NN O O
with NN O O
choleretic NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
240 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

24 NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
acted NN O O
as NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Bile NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
saturation NN O O
index NN O O
calculated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
samples NN O O
collected NN O O
by NN O O
duodenal NN O O
siphonage NN O O
after NN O O
caerulein NN O O
stimulation NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
cicloxilic NN O O
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
little NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
bile NN O I-OUT
salts NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
phospholipids NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
biliary NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
consequently NN O O
the NN O O
lithogenic NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
lowered NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
1.5 NN O O
to NN O O
1.2 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

Cicloxilic NN O O
acid NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
place NN O O
in NN O O
gallstone NN O O
disease NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
litholytic NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
gallstone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
high-risk NN O O
populations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6363798)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
uremic NN O I-OUT
pericarditis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
uremic NN O O
pericarditis NN O O
we NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endstage NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pericarditis NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
indomethacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
3-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
concurrently NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
an NN O O
immediate NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
days NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
5.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
pericardial NN O I-OUT
friction NN O I-OUT
rub NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
placebo NN O O
10.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.7 NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
16.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
pericardial NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
diminish NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tamponade NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
placebo NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
decreased NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Death NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
not NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pericarditis NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
our NN O O
patients NN O O
pericarditis NN O O
encompassed NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
spectrum NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
several NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
a NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
debilitating NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
lasting NN O I-OUT
weeks NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
requiring NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
intervention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
population NN O O
prohibits NN O O
definitive NN O O
conclusions NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
appear NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
fever NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
manifestations NN O O
and NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
illness NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6364880)

Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
immediate NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
anti-IgE-induced NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
topically NN O O
applied NN O O
alcohol/onion NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
alcohol/onion NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
injected NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
rabbit NN O I-INT
anti-human-IgE NN O I-INT
intradermally NN O I-INT
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
atopics NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
non-atopics NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Diameters NN O O
of NN O O
wheals NN O O
and NN O O
flares NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
sites NN O O
challenged NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
IU NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
IU NN O O
anti-IgE NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
skin NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
treated NN O O
epidermally NN O O
with NN O O
45 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
alcohol/onion NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
and NN O O
45 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ethanol NN O I-INT
under NN O O
occlusion NN O O
. NN O O

Diameters NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
hourly NN O O
. NN O O

Oedema NN O O
formation NN O O
was NN O O
clinically NN O O
estimated NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
arbitrary NN O O
scale NN O O
and NN O O
skin NN O O
thickness NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
calliper NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
onion-treated NN O I-INT
skin NN O O
sites NN O O
the NN O O
wheal NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
IU NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
108 NN O O
+/- NN O O
53 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
; NN O O
onion NN O O
69 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42 NN O O
mm2 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
200 NN O O
IU NN O O
anti-IgE NN O O
: NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
152 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
, NN O O
onion NN O O
: NN O O
138 NN O O
+/- NN O O
26 NN O O
mm2 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
oedema NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
phase NN O O
skin NN O O
reaction NN O O
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
depressed NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.01 NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Obviously NN O O
, NN O O
onions NN O I-INT
contain NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
active NN O O
substances NN O O
with NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
and/or NN O O
allergic NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6365881)

Netilmicin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
tobramycin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
two NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
West NN O I-PAR
Germany NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
netilmicin-ticarcillin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
tobramycin-ticarcillin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
essentially NN O O
identical NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
bacteriological NN O O
results NN O O
they NN O O
produced NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
netilmicin-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
collaborative NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
involving NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
254 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
excellent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
and NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
incidences NN O O
of NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
netilmicin NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6366124)

Histologic NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1971 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1978 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
150 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
favorable NN O I-PAR
subtypes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
nodular NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NLPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nodular NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
diffuse NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
differentiated NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Stanford NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatments NN O O
included NN O O
involved NN O O
field NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
lymphoid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
alkylating NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C-MOPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
various NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
initial NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
later NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
78 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
either NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
later NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Histologic NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
initially NN O O
favorable NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
subtype NN O O
of NN O O
non-Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
documented NN O O
in NN O O
22/78 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
actually NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
yr NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
documentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
51 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
type NN O O
of NN O O
histologic NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
from NN O O
NLPD NN O O
to NN O O
diffuse NN O O
histiocytic NN O I-OUT
lymphoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Documented NN O O
histologic NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
aggressive NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
1 NN O O
yr NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
conversion NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
75 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
yr NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
specific NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
histologic NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
identified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6366148)

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
localized NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Investigators NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
entered NN O O
73 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
four-drug NN O O
program NN O O
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
COMP NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
10-drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LSA2-L2 NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
program NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
central NN O I-INT
nervous NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
intrathecal NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
most NN O O
received NN O O
local NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
three-year NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
73 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
for NN O O
COMP NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
LSA2-L2 NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
31 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
suffered NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
eight NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
four NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Histopathology NN O O
was NN O O
reviewed NN O O
centrally NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
32 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
nonlymphoblastic NN O O
disease NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
COMP NN O I-INT
only NN O O
one NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
26 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LSA2-L2 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
four NN O O
relapsed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O I-OUT
lymphoblastic NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
uncommon NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LSA2-L2 NN O I-INT
relapsed NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
COMP NN O O
. NN O O

COMP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O O
disease NN O O
of NN O O
nonlymphoblastic NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
localized NN O O
lymphoblastic NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6367857)

Adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
experience NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Southwest NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
CMFVP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
L-phenylalanine NN O I-INT
mustard NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
L-PAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
histologically NN O I-PAR
positive NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
fully NN O O
and NN O O
partially NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
68-month NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
have NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
172 NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
CMFVP NN O I-INT
and NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
186 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
L-PAM NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
receiving NN O O
CMFVP NN O I-INT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
subsets NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
menopausal NN O O
status NN O O
except NN O O
among NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
had NN O O
1-3 NN O O
positive NN O O
nodes NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
using NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
estrogen-receptor NN O O
( NN O O
ER NN O O
) NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
tumor NN O O
and NN O O
axillary NN O O
nodal NN O O
status NN O O
to NN O O
select NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6377221)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
diuretics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
mechanics NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
bronchopulmonary NN O I-PAR
dysplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O I-PAR
crossover NN O I-PAR
sequential NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
sequential NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
diuretics NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
mechanics NN O O
in NN O O
ten NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchopulmonary NN O I-PAR
dysplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BPD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pulmonary NN O O
mechanics 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
a NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
diuretics NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
chlorothiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/dose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spironolactone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg/dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
35.3 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O/L/s NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
conductance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
0.095 NN O O
1/L/s/cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
dynamic NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
1.74 NN O O
mL/cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
diuretics NN O O
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
three NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
diuretic NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
thereafter NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fluid NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
diuretics NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
But NN O O
, NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
diuretics NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
osmolal NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
phosphorus NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
infants NN O O
also NN O O
retained NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
excreted NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
infants NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O O
diuretics NN O I-INT
improve NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
bronchopulmonary NN O O
dysplasia NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
potassium NN O O
and NN O O
phosphorus NN O O
depletion NN O O
are NN O O
potential NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6384285)

Double-blind NN O O
efficacy NN O O
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
selenium NN O I-INT
sulfide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
tinea NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Selenium NN O I-INT
sulfide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
lotion NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vehicle NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
tinea NN O I-PAR
versicolor NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Mild NN O I-OUT
transitory NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
dermatitis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
irritant NN O O
type NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
apparently NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
detergent NN O O
base NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6391269)

Fentanyl NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
to NN O O
inhalation NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
surface NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
thiopentone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
anaesthetic NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
micrograms/kg/hour NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thiopentone NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
caused NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fentanyl NN O I-INT
made NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
recovery NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6397729)

[ NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
developmental NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
L-5-HTP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
10.38 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
L-5-HTP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
as NN O O
per NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
design NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
L-5-HTP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
L-5-HTP NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Migraine NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
supplying NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
i.e NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
directly NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
L-5-HTP NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Wilcoxon NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
L-5-HTP NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
0.01 NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
CGI NN O O
on NN O O
percentage NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6403021)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
tocainide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-PAR
arrhythmias NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tocainide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
substance NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
German NN O I-PAR
speaking NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
arrhythmias NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
serial NN O O
Holter NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
dose-effect NN O O
relationship NN O O
. NN O O

Applying NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
VA NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Lown NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
pts NN O O
. NN O O

under NN O O
tocainide NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
under NN O O
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
were NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
few NN O O
and NN O O
under NN O O
tocainide NN O O
only NN O O
2 NN O O
pts NN O O
. NN O O

had NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
findings NN O O
tocainide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
prajmalium NN O I-INT
bitartrate NN O I-INT
have NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
efficient NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6409006)

[ NN O O
Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cancerous NN O I-OUT
pleurisy NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
streptococcus NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cancerous NN O I-PAR
pleurisy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
accessed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
OK-432 NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Intrapleural NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MFC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O O
0.08 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
5-FU NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
ara-C NN O I-INT
0.8 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
iv NN O O
, NN O O
weekly NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
group NN O O
intrapleural NN O O
instillation NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
daily NN O O
until NN O O
disappearance NN O O
of NN O O
pleural NN O O
effusion NN O O
; NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
intradermally NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
group NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than 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
significance NN O O
between NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stage NN O O
IV NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
PPD NN O O
negative NN O O
skin NN O O
reaction NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
group NN O O
survived NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 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
significance NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
PPD NN O O
positive NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
( NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
OK-432 NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
fever NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6410450)

Absence NN O O
of NN O O
central NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O O
Ro NN O I-INT
15-1788 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O O
are NN O O
typified NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
which NN O O
includes NN O O
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ataxia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incoordination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ro NN O I-INT
15-1788 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
imidazodiazepine NN O O
derivative NN O O
, NN O O
exhibits NN O O
marked NN O O
antagonism NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
biochemical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
devoid NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
behavioural NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
except NN O O
at NN O O
very NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
rising NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
Ro NN O I-INT
15-1788 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
battery NN O O
of NN O O
psychometric NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
designed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
sedative NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
Ro NN O O
15-1788 NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
classical NN O O
behavioural NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6416184)

[ NN O O
Randomized NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
ftorafur NN O I-INT
and NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stomach NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
second NN O O
report NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Surgical NN O I-PAR
Adjuvant NN O I-PAR
Chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Gastric NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
adopted NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
cooperative NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
MMC NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Futraful NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Futraful NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
Futraful NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
marked NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
Futraful NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
MMC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Futraful NN O I-INT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
for NN O O
resectable NN O O
advanced NN O O
gastric NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6418295)

Blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
control NN O O
during NN O O
weight NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
separate NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
and NN O O
energy NN O O
restriction NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
separate NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
energy NN O O
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
on NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
basal NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
restriction NN O I-INT
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
taking NN O O
an NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
MJ NN O O
; NN O O
1230 NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hence NN O I-INT
unchanged NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
ErSn NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
period NN O O
preceded NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
restricted NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
MJ NN O O
; NN O O
1220 NN O O
kcal NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
ErSr NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
ErSn NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
4.9-11.7 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
period NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
ErSr NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
81.4 NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
17.8 NN O O
) NN O O
mmol NN O O
( NN O O
mEq NN O O
) NN O O
/24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
8.2 NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
0.7 NN O O
) NN O O
kg NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
significantly NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
weight NN O O
reducing NN O O
diet NN O O
decreases NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
normotensive NN O O
range NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
restriction NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6423162)

Endotracheal NN O I-PAR
cuff NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
mucosal NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
cuffs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Large NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
cuffs NN O I-INT
are NN O O
claimed NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
less NN O O
deleterious NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
tracheal NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
high NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
volume NN O O
cuffs NN O O
. NN O O

Low NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
cuffs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
easily NN O O
be NN O O
overinflated NN O O
to NN O O
yield NN O O
pressures NN O O
that NN O O
will NN O O
exceed NN O O
capillary NN O O
perfusion NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

Various NN O O
large NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
cuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
Portex NN O I-INT
Profile NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Searle NN O I-INT
Sensiv NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Mallinkrodt NN O I-INT
Hi-Lo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
Lanz NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Tracheal NN O O
mucosal NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
photographic NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
varying NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cuff NN O I-INT
inflation NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
cuffs NN O O
when NN O O
overpressurised NN O O
impaired NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
tracheal NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
tracheal NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
intubation NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
cuff NN O I-OUT
inflation NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
30 NN O O
cm NN O O
H2O NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
exceeded NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6425480)

Short-term NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Indices NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
muscle NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
diffusing NN O O
capacity NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
malnourished NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
10 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
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
improvement NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nutritional NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
supplemental NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrients NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
During NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
received NN O O
120 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
estimated NN O O
energy NN O O
requirements NN O O
( NN O O
either NN O O
3.75 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
22.5 NN O O
% NN O O
as NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amino NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
gm/120 NN O O
kcal NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheter NN O O
, NN O O
plus NN O O
as NN O O
much NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
usual NN O O
diet NN O O
as NN O O
desired NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
nutritional NN O I-OUT
supplementation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
triceps NN O I-OUT
skinfold NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mid-arm NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
circumference NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Maximum NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
29 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
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
. NN O O

Pulmonary NN O I-OUT
diffusing NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
during NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
supplied NN O O
by NN O O
lipid NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
93.5 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
91.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
month NN O O
following NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
skinfold NN O O
thickness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mid-arm NN O O
muscle NN O O
circumference NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
MIP NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
oxygen NN O O
saturation NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
value 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



-DOCSTART- (6428372)

Cognitive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment-resistant NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognition NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
treatment-resistant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
school-aged NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
all NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
DSM-III NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
conduct NN O O
disorder NN O O
-- NN O O
undersocialized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
profile NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
highly NN O I-PAR
explosive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
aggressive NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
two-week NN O I-PAR
placebo-baseline NN O I-INT
period NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
again NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cognition NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

Haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
2.95 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
Porteus NN O I-OUT
Maze NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
quotient NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
slowing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
RT NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
1,166 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
adversely NN O O
affected NN O O
qualitative NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Porteus NN O I-OUT
Maze NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Matching NN O I-OUT
Familiar NN O I-OUT
Figures NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
short-term NN O I-OUT
recognition NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concept NN O I-OUT
attainment NN O I-OUT
tasks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Stroop NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6436868)

Ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
on NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
g NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
from NN O O
0.5-5.5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Diazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
impaired NN O O
digit NN O I-OUT
symbol NN O I-OUT
substitution NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visuomotor NN O I-OUT
coordination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6448998)

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
co-trimoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tetracycline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6455048)

Relief NN O O
of NN O O
osteoporotic NN O I-OUT
backache NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
fluoride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calciferol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
comprising NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
backache NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
halisteretic NN O I-PAR
spine NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
crush NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
s NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
12-week NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calciferol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
10 NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement 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
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
four-stage NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
pains NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
infirmity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
actively NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6482920)

Risk NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
after NN O O
penetrating NN O O
abdominal NN O O
trauma NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
identify NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
septic NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
perforation NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacies NN O O
of NN O O
single-drug NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dual-drug NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
145 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intestinal NN O I-PAR
perforation NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1979 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1982 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Logistic-regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
infection 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
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
injury NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
colon NN O O
necessitating NN O O
colostomy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
units NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
or NN O O
blood NN O O
products NN O O
administered NN O O
at NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
injured NN O O
organs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
shock NN O O
on NN O O
arrival NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
this NN O O
factor NN O O
was NN O O
analyzed NN O O
individually NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
add NN O O
predictive NN O O
power NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
infection NN O O
( NN O O
13.8 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.7 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clindamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
together NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
resulted NN O I-INT
in NN O O
similar NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6496450)

Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
plasma-derived NN O I-INT
heat-inactivated NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
in NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
plasma-derived NN O I-INT
heat-inactivated NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
471 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
occupations NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
lives NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
minimal NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
202 NN O O
individuals NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O I-INT
3-micrograms NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heat-inactivated NN O I-INT
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBsAg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
one-month NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
( NN O O
trial NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
, NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
five NN O O
months NN O O
had NN O O
become NN O O
anti-HBs NN O O
( NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
surface NN O O
antigen NN O O
) NN O O
positive NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
trial NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
five NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
dosages NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
269 NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
HBsAg NN O O
was NN O O
diminished NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
to NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.25 NN O O
microgram NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
diminished NN O O
to NN O O
0.1 NN O O
microgram NN O O
of NN O O
HBsAg NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
dropped NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
recipients NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
vaccine NN O O
dosages NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
conversion NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
the NN O O
eight-month NN O O
observation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
became NN O O
HBsAg NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
anti-HBc NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hepatitis NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
developed NN O O
antibodies NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
autoimmune NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6516935)

Rational-emotive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
junior NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
junior NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
volunteered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
interpersonal NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
REI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
relationship-oriented NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ROC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
waiting-list NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WLC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Groups NN O O
met NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
50-minute NN O O
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
three-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
, NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three-week NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sociometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
postassessment NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
RET NN O O
and NN O O
REI NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
on NN O O
sociometric NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
interpersonally NN O I-OUT
anxious NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
WLC NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
favored NN O O
the NN O O
RET NN O O
and NN O O
REI NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
ROC NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
REI NN O O
group NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
significant NN O O
pre- NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
the NN O O
RET NN O O
and NN O O
REI NN O O
groups NN O O
yielded NN O O
greater NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
irrational NN O I-OUT
thinking NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
ROC NN O O
and NN O O
WLC NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
supported NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
imagery NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
rational-emotive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
practical NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6522132)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drugs NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
pharmacologic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
elevation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
95th NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
battery NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
phase NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Antihypertensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
slight NN O O
interactive NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
arithmetic NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
other NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (653534)

Failure NN O O
of NN O O
pyridoxine NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
raised NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pyridoxine NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
as NN O O
having NN O O
an NN O O
antilactogenic NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
presumably NN O O
by NN O O
suppressing NN O O
prolactin NN O I-OUT
secretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
measured NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hyperprolactinaemic NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
postpartum NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
postdelivery NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chlorpromazine-induced NN O I-PAR
hyperprolactinaemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
galactorrhoea NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
pyridoxine NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
elevated NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
neither NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
suppressed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6552999)

[ NN O O
Tocolysis NN O O
with NN O O
hexoprenalin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
comparison NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
threatening NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
24-less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
randomly NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
hexoprenalin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
77 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hexoprenalin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
salbutamol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
newborn NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
equal NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2500 NN O I-PAR
g. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
birth NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
completed NN O O
37 NN O O
weeks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
gestation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
hexoprenalin NN O I-INT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mothers NN O O
occurred NN O O
statistically NN O O
highly NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
during NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hexoprenalin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
side-effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
salbutamol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
tocolysis-index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Baumgarten NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
prolongation-index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Richter NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
lines NN O O
facilitates NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
tocolytic NN O O
drugs NN O O
concerning NN O O
its NN O O
tocolytic NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6586277)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
AMSA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
Pediatric NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
with 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
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
AMSA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4'- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
9-Acridinylamino NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
methanesulfon NN O I-INT
-m-anisidide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
Regimen NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
60 NN O O
mg/m2/day NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
Regimen NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
Regimens NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
and NN O O
36 NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ANLL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
Regimen NN O O
I. NN O O
Eighty-eight NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
life-threatening NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
Regimens NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

Bacterial NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
considered NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
or NN O O
fatal NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ANLL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fatal NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Complete NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
25.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
= NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
28.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
= NN O O
8.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
SE NN O O
= NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
evaluable NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
ALL NN O O
Regimen NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
ALL NN O O
Regimen NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
ANLL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
of NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
16-91 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
start NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
ALL NN O O
regimens NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
ANLL NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
ALL NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
Regimens NN O O
I NN O O
and NN O O
II NN O O
combined NN O O
. NN O O

Eighty-two NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
AMSA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
schedules NN O O
investigated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
heavily NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
AMSA NN O O
had NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
childhood NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
life-threatening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
fatal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
meant NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quantity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
commensurate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
incorporate NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
into NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
myelosuppressive NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6624525)

Double NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
arthrography NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
between NN O O
three NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
. NN O O

Meglumine NN O I-INT
iothalamate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Conray NN O I-INT
Meglumin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium-calcium-meglumine NN O I-INT
metrizoate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Isopaque NN O I-INT
Cerebral NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dimeglumine NN O I-INT
iocarmate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dimerex NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
containing NN O O
about NN O O
280 NN O O
mg NN O O
I/ml NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
double NN O I-PAR
contrast NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthrography NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
190 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
184 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
Dimerex NN O O
the NN O O
mixing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
synovial NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slower NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
Conray NN O I-INT
Meglumin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
fair NN O O
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
evaluated NN O O
subjectively NN O O
, NN O O
lasted NN O O
longer NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
Isopaque NN O I-INT
Cerebral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Conray NN O I-INT
Meglumin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
dosage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6630328)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
'Senokot NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
in NN O O
faecal NN O O
soiling NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
behavioural NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomly NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
particular NN O O
laxative NN O O
, NN O O
Senokot NN O I-INT
, NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
moderate NN O O
dosage NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
persistent NN O I-PAR
soiling NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
often NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
faecal NN O I-PAR
retention NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
following NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
outpatient NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
behavioural NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
Senokot NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
either NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
or NN O O
subsequently NN O O
when NN O O
Senokot NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
supplement NN O O
behavioural NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
every NN O O
child NN O O
who NN O O
continued NN O O
with NN O O
therapy NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
laxative NN O O
contributed NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
relieving NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
problem NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6633131)

Carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-PAR
adenosis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
DES-exposed NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
findings NN O I-PAR
characteristic NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
antenatal NN O I-PAR
DES NN O I-PAR
exposure NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Fourty-four NN O I-PAR
DES-exposed NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
their NN O O
vaginal NN O O
adenosis NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
I NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
35 NN O O
DES-exposed NN O O
offspring NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
DES-exposed NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
age-matched NN O O
control NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
III NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O O
adenosis NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
carbon NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
dysplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DES-exposed NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dysplasia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
DES-exposed NN O I-PAR
offspring NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (663366)

[ NN O O
Maintaining NN O O
sinus NN O O
rhythm NN O O
with NN O O
quinidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amiodarone NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
electric NN O I-PAR
cardioversion NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6650773)

Bovine NN O I-INT
carotid NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
heterografts NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
polytetrafluoroethylene NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
BCAH NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PTFE NN O I-INT
vascular NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
when NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reasons NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clot NN O I-OUT
salvageability NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
retrospective NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
subjective NN O O
experiences NN O O
favor NN O O
PTFE NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
over NN O O
BCAHs NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
explanation NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
part NN O O
that NN O O
BCAH NN O I-INT
preceded NN O O
PTFE NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
into NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
inexperience NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dialysis NN O O
unit NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
BCAH NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
review NN O O
of NN O O
impressions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O O
materials NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
decided NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
PTFE NN O I-INT
grafts NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6653648)

Diazoxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
haemodialysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
peripheral NN O I-INT
vasodilator NN O I-INT
diazoxide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
alpha-beta NN O I-INT
adrenoceptor NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
haemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
diazoxide NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
labetalol NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
diazoxide-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
from NN O O
192 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3/115 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
141 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8/85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
7 NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
diazoxide NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
haemodialysis NN O O
was NN O O
21.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
24.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
repeated NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
diazoxide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
labetalol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
17 NN O O
instances NN O O
fell NN O O
from NN O O
198 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5/104 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
to NN O O
143 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7/89 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
180 NN O O
min NN O O
following NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
6 NN O O
episodes NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
haemodialysis NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
17.2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
the NN O O
repeated NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
diazoxide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
labetalol NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
haemodialysis NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diazoxide-treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
labetalol 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- (6686808)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
antacids NN O I-INT
on NN O I-PAR
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Influence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
anticholinergics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Different NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antacid NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MAO NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
mmol/h NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MAO NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
mmol/h NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
radiotelemetric NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Heidelberg NN O I-OUT
capsule NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
different NN O O
doses NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
tenfold NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
doubling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
and NN O O
antacids NN O I-INT
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
antacid NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
antacid NN O O
dose NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
so NN O O
great NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
binds NN O O
secreted NN O O
acid NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
leaves NN O O
the NN O O
stomach NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
will NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Concomitant NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antacid NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6740101)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serologic NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
injectable NN O O
trivalent NN O I-INT
poliovirus NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age 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
that NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
trivalent NN O I-INT
poliovirus NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OPV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
injectable NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
inactivated NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
trivalent NN O I-INT
poliovirus NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IPV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
confirmed NN O O
minimum NN O O
D-antigen NN O O
content NN O O
of NN O O
27 NN O O
, NN O O
3.5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
units NN O O
for NN O O
poliovirus NN O O
types NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Sera NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
439 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
for NN O O
neutralizing NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
detectable NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reciprocal NN O I-OUT
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
for NN O O
antibodies NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
poliovirus NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
had NN O O
detectable NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
poliovirus NN O O
types NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
types NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
IPV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6751144)

Epidural NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
epidurally NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
upper NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
78 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analgesia NN O I-OUT
provided NN O O
by NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
matched NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
an NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
regime NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
total NN O O
dose NN O O
required NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
route NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
one-fifth NN O O
that NN O O
required NN O O
intramuscularly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
sedation NN O O
was NN O O
correspondingly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
mechanics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
risks NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
epidural NN O O
route NN O O
outweigh NN O O
the NN O O
marginal NN O O
advantages NN O O
it NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
analgesic NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6753091)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O O
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
after NN O O
polypectomy NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intranasal NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Bdp NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
earlier NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
Bdp NN O I-INT
after NN O O
polypectomy NN O O
could NN O O
prevent NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
polyps NN O O
and NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O O
removals NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
signs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
allergy NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
nasal NN O I-PAR
polyposis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intranasal NN O I-INT
Bdp NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
polypectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
2.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
polyps NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
time-intervals NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
examining NN O O
doctor NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
already NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
intranasal NN O O
Bdp NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
implications NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6753858)

Comparative NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lofexidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6758263)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
analgetic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
upper NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
laparotomies NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6761890)

Platelet NN O I-INT
inhibitory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
method NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
thrombi NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
essential NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelet-inhibitory NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prosthetic NN O I-OUT
materials NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
111Indium-labelled NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Dacron NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
grafts NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
either NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
DPM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Autologous NN O I-INT
platelets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
labelled NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
re-injected NN O I-INT
seven NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
following NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
graft NN O I-INT
thrombogenicity NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emissions NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
reference NN O O
site NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
thrombogenicity NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
12 NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
femoro-popliteal NN O O
bypass NN O O
was NN O O
0.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.09 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
0.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
on NN O O
ASA NN O O
+ NN O O
DPM NN O O
started NN O O
pre-operatively 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

Post-operative NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
DPM NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
started NN O O
two NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
platelet NN O O
labelling NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
aorto-femoral NN O O
grafts NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduce NN O O
thrombogenicity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
0.12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
0.25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo 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

In NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
patients NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
emissions NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O O
over NN O O
reference NN O O
fell NN O O
significantly NN O O
on NN O O
starting NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
DPM NN O I-INT
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
net NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
platelets NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
Dacron NN O O
grafts NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
quantitated NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
DPM NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
this NN O O
rate NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6762195)

Immunotherapy NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
non-lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1975 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1977 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
264 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
non-lymphocytic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Australian NN O I-PAR
National NN O I-PAR
Leukaemia NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
251 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
three NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
achieved NN O O
similar NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CROP NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisolone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
CR NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
hydroxyurea NN O I-INT
in NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Remission NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
when NN O O
induction NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-five NN O O
patients NN O O
reaching NN O O
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
chemo-immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
intradermal NN O I-INT
leukaemic NN O I-INT
blast NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
had NN O O
prolonged NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
161 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
chemo-immunotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Institutions NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
developed NN O O
supportive NN O O
facilities NN O O
reported NN O O
lower NN O O
CR NN O O
rates NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Leucocytosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
100 NN O O
X NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
shortened NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Trial NN O O
has NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (6807568)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
effort NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
exertional NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
protocol NN O O
using NN O O
serial NN O O
treadmill NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Verapamil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
480 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
anginal NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
5.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.3 NN O O
to NN O O
2.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.9 NN O O
attacks NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
3.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.9 NN O O
to NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
tablets NN O O
per NN O O
week 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
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treadmill NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
from NN O O
6.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
minutes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
to NN O O
7.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.8 NN O O
minutes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
phase 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

Verapamil NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rate-pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
rest 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
a NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
during NN O O
submaximal NN O O
exercise 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

Verapamil NN O I-INT
also NN O O
caused NN O O
less NN O O
marked NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-OUT
depressions NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
exercise 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
at NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
rate-pressure NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
redistribution NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
ischemic NN O O
zone NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
verapamil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
minimal NN O O
, NN O O
consisting NN O O
mainly NN O O
of NN O O
constipation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Verapamil NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
drug NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
angina NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
effort NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6836750)

Pilot NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myometrial NN O I-PAR
invasion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myometrial NN O I-PAR
invasion NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
total NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
hysterectomy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
salpingo-oophorectomy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
complementary NN O I-INT
radium NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
stump NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Hormone NN O O
therapy NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
gestonorone NN O I-INT
caproate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
17 NN O I-INT
alpha-hydroxy-19-norpregn-4-en NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
dione NN O I-INT
caproate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
i.m NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/week NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
year NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
the NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
51 NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
evaluable NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
with NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27 NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
four NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
further NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Actuarial NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
95.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
82.8 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

Although NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
, NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
deep NN O O
myometrial NN O O
invasion NN O O
and NN O O
undifferentiated NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
hormone NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
FIGO NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myometrial NN O I-PAR
invasion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6839001)

Human NN O O
platelet NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
salicylate NN O I-INT
dosage NN O O
forms NN O O
. NN O O

Acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ASA NN O O
) NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
as NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
collagen-induced NN O O
14C-serotonin NN O O
release NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
650 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
enteric-coated NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ecASA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
compressed NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cASA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
ecASA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
salicylate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
578 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
minimum NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
platelet NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O O
ASA NN O O
and NN O O
salicyclic NN O O
acid NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
high-pressure NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
ecASA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cASA NN O I-INT
inhibited NN O O
14C-serotonin NN O O
release NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
products 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

No NN O O
relationship NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
observed NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
ASA NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
14C-serotonin NN O O
release NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
predicted NN O O
from NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
experiments NN O O
wherein NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
incubating NN O O
plasma NN O O
containing NN O O
specified NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6841763)

Modifying NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Type NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
coronary-prone NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6844471)

Breathlessness NN O O
and NN O O
psychiatric NN O O
morbidity NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
emphysema NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
psychotherapeutic NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
paper NN O O
describes NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
disabled NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
obstructive NN O I-PAR
airways NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
giving NN O I-PAR
rise NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
dyspnoea NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
COAD NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
types NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
untreated NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
medical NN O O
nurse NN O O
without NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
sustained NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
dyspnoea NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
less NN O O
psychodynamic NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
supportive NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
analytical NN O O
, NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
psychosomatic NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
involved NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
medical NN O O
and NN O O
nursing NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
liaison NN O O
psychotherapy NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6849726)

Interactions NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
methotrimeprazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mouse NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Interactions NN O O
between NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrimeprazine NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
mice NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
volunteer NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
mice NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
methotrimeprazine NN O I-INT
only NN O O
possessed NN O O
antinociceptive NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
doses NN O O
which NN O O
caused NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
small NN O O
non-sedative NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
methotrimeprazine NN O O
potentiated NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
volunteer NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
confirm NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Methotrimeprazine NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

caused NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6849742)

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
intravenous NN O O
boluses NN O O
of NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
practolol NN O O
and NN O O
propranolol NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
Increases NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
graded NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
practolol NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
practolol NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
Dose NN O O
related NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
graded NN O O
boluses NN O O
of NN O O
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
Practolol NN O I-INT
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
isoprenaline NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Practolol NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
further NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
Propranolol NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
propranolol NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
5 NN O O
Practolol NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
but NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
The NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bolus NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
isoprenaline NN O O
provides NN O O
useful NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
beta NN O O
2-adrenoceptor NN O O
antagonism NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
practolol NN O I-INT
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
short-lived NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6850464)

Nonspecific NN O O
and NN O O
selective NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Toronto NN O O
General NN O O
Hospital NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
with NN O O
bacille NN O I-INT
Calmette-Gu?rin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
, NN O O
malignant NN O O
melanoma NN O O
and NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intraperitoneally NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pancreatic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
proved NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
resectable NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
consecutive NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-PAR
stimulation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
immune NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NED NN O I-PAR
137 NN O I-PAR
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
historical NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
intraperitoneally NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O O
for NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
cancer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
rational NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
manipulating NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
combine NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
selective NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6859471)

Postoperative NN O O
dreaming NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
following NN O O
pentazocine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
premedication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
dreaming NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pentazocine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
premedicants NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
otherwise NN O O
standard NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
sequence NN O O
is NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
psychotomimetic NN O O
problems NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
difficulty NN O O
of NN O O
precise NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
hallucinations NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6871470)

Delayed NN O I-OUT
alloimmunization NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
random NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
donor NN O I-INT
platelet NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
thrombocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
54 NN O I-PAR
thrombocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Alloimmunization NN O O
of NN O O
recipients NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O O
multiple-donor NN O I-INT
platelet NN O I-INT
concentrates NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MD NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
random NN O I-INT
single-donor NN O I-INT
platelets NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SD NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
SD NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alloantibodies NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
mostly NN O I-OUT
anti-HLA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
transfusions NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
MD NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

SD NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
became NN O O
refractory NN O O
to NN O O
random NN O O
platelets NN O O
less NN O O
frequently NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
time NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
SD NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
increments NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
last NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
MD NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
1-hr NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
24-hr 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
increments NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O I-INT
SD NN O I-INT
platelet NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
postponed NN O O
alloimmunization NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6882809)

Handwarming NN O O
and NN O O
relaxation NN O O
in NN O O
temperature NN O O
feedback NN O O
: NN O O
positive NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
temperature NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
warm-relax NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cool-relax NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
determine NN O O
how NN O O
successful NN O O
hand-warming NN O O
and NN O O
-cooling NN O O
alters NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
relaxation NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
eight NN O O
1/2-hour NN O O
sessions NN O O
the NN O O
WR NN O O
and NN O O
CR NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
main NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
reported NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
relaxation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
reported NN O O
feelings NN O O
of NN O O
relaxation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
directionality NN O O
of NN O O
temperature NN O O
change NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
primarily NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
expectancies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6885201)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
tablet NN O O
formulations NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
formulations NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
250-mg NN O I-INT
naproxen NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
, NN O O
tablet NN O O
I NN O O
from NN O O
AFI NN O O
, NN O O
Oslo NN O O
, NN O O
Norway NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tablet NN O O
II NN O O
Naprosyn NN O O
, NN O O
Astra-Syntex NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
by NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
two-period NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
HPLC NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
two-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
tablet NN O O
formulation NN O O
and NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
trial NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Rapid NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
most NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
50-60 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
reached NN O O
within NN O O
1.5-3 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
tablet NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
formulations NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tablet NN O O
I NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
tablet NN O O
II NN O O
was NN O O
1.05 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.21 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
naproxen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
occasion NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
preparation NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6927657)

Extra NN O I-INT
prompts NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
no NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
prompts NN O I-INT
in NN O O
self-care NN O O
training NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
color-coded NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
in NN O O
teaching NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
how NN O O
to NN O O
lace NN O O
shoes NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
first NN O O
learned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
lace NN O I-INT
shoes NN O I-INT
whose NN O I-INT
laces NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
eyelets NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
color-coded NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
white NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
encountered NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
extra NN O I-INT
prompt NN O I-INT
condition NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
color NN O I-INT
codes NN O I-INT
could NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
longer NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
depended NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
solve NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
discriminations NN O I-INT
required NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
lace NN O I-INT
properly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
counterbalanced NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
reached NN O O
criterion NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
non-color-coded NN O O
, NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
shoe NN O O
before NN O O
experiencing NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
prompt NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
post-hoc NN O O
analyses NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
first NN O O
learned NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
color-coded NN O O
, NN O O
extra NN O O
prompt NN O O
condition NN O O
encountered NN O O
significant NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
transferring NN O O
their NN O O
newly NN O O
acquired NN O O
skill NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
naturalistic NN O O
, NN O O
non-color-coded NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
learned NN O O
initially NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
extra NN O O
prompts NN O O
had NN O O
little NN O O
difficulty NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
color-coded NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
follow-up NN O O
procedure NN O O
requiring NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
to NN O O
choose NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
color NN O O
prompt NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
cue NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
consistently NN O O
chose NN O O
the NN O O
color NN O O
cue NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
it NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improper NN O O
lacing NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
clinicians NN O O
avoid NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
highly NN O O
salient NN O O
, NN O O
non-criterion-related NN O O
prompts NN O O
in NN O O
teaching NN O O
certain NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
adaptive NN O O
skills NN O O
to NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (6938012)

Cardiovascular NN O O
complications NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Estracyt NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
estrogen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
212 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Stockholm NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
estramustine NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Estracyt NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
polyestradiol NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cardiovascular NN O O
complications NN O O
categorized NN O O
as NN O O
impaired NN O O
arterial NN O O
circulation NN O O
including NN O O
ischemic NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
incompensation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cerebral NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O O
frequent NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
getting NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
complications NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
occurred NN O O
within NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
in NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
them 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
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
previous NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
criterion NN O O
was NN O O
however NN O O
in NN O O
retrospect NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
only NN O O
67 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
126 NN O O
patients NN O O
getting NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
several NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6958487)

Budesonide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hay NN O I-PAR
fever NN O I-PAR
- NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

93 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beclomethasone NN O I-INT
dipropionate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Becotide NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
sensitive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
birch NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
grass NN O I-PAR
pollen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
sensitivity NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
skin NN O I-PAR
prick NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
total NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
400 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Budesonide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
Becotide NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O I-INT
four NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
four-week NN O O
period NN O O
starting NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O I-OUT
pollen NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
diary NN O O
cards NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
budesonide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
than NN O O
Becotide NN O I-INT
Nasal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
few NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6980168)

Whole NN O O
pelvic NN O O
irradiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reactivities NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (6984358)

Tolfenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
useful NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tolfenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
biosynthesis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
proved NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
usefulness NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjuncts NN O O
to NN O O
tolfenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
tolfenamic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
twice NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tolfenamic NN O I-INT
acid-caffeine NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
proved NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
working NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vigilance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Metoclopramide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
somewhat NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6988462)

A NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
biopsy NN O I-INT
needles NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
sheathed NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Tru-Cut NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
suction NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Menghini NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
over NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
offered NN O O
any NN O O
special NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Seventy-seven NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
operator NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
biopsy NN O O
fragmentation NN O O
was NN O O
commoner NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
suction NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
and NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
largest NN O O
core NN O O
obtained NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
sheathed NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cytology NN O O
provided NN O O
useful NN O O
additional NN O O
information NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Menghini NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
suction NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
was NN O O
repeatedly NN O I-OUT
reusable NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
considerably NN O I-OUT
cheaper NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
sheathed NN O I-INT
needle NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
once NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (6992570)

Carbenicillin-trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
carbenicillin-gentamicin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
empiric NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
granulocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
carbenicillin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C-T/S NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
those NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
carbenicillin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C-G NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
empiric NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
granulocytopenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
favorable-prognosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unfavorable-prognosis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
anticipated NN O I-PAR
duration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
granulocytopenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Over-all NN O O
, NN O O
empiric NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
of NN O O
62 NN O O
patients NN O O
or NN O O
89 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
66 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
mwithin NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
30 NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
( NN O O
94 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-T/S NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-G NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
within NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
favorable NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
( NN O O
77 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-T/S NN O O
trials NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-G NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Combined NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
favorable NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
C-T/S NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
53 NN O O
of NN O O
62 NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
C-G NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
44 NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
analysis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Manetl-Naenszel NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
the NN O O
over-all NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
outcome NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.049 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
applicability NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
result NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
rather NN O O
low NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
gram-negative NN O O
bacterial NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
superinfection NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
equally NN O O
divided NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
protocol NN O O
dosing NN O O
achieved NN O O
target NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
trimethoprim NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
gentamicin NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/ml NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
57 NN O O
of NN O O
68 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-T/S NN O O
trials NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
) NN O O
C-G NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7003882)

[ NN O I-INT
Median NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
mediolateral NN O I-INT
episiotomy NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7005474)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderated NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
DPB NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
sodium NN O I-PAR
intake NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
unrestricted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
captopril NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
propranolol NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
supine NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
remaining NN O O
patients NN O O
from NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
DBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
at NN O O
maximum NN O O
allowable NN O O
dosages NN O O
during NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
by NN O O
combined NN O O
administration NN O O
in NN O O
following NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
after NN O O
seven NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Captopril NN O I-INT
has NN O O
potential NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7006663)

Report NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
myelomatosis NN O O
trial NN O O
after NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
's NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
on NN O O
Leukaemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
seventy-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
between NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
intermittent NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
death NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
overall NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
3 NN O O
treatments NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
guided NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
comfort NN O O
and NN O O
convenience NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
prognostic NN O O
feature NN O O
at NN O O
presentation NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
was NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
good NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
intermediate NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
renal-function NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
which NN O O
were NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
prognosis NN O O
( NN O O
X2 NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
= NN O O
62.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
presentation NN O O
was NN O O
strongly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
prognosis NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
renal-function NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
107 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
good NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
haemoglobin NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
g/l NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
5-year NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
prognostic NN O O
features NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
less NN O O
important NN O O
when NN O O
account NN O O
was NN O O
taken NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
haemoglobin NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7007454)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
gingivitis NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fourth NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eighth NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thirty NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
mouthwash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
mouthwash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
folate NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
C NN O O
: NN O O
folate NN O I-INT
mouthwash NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Supplementation NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
during NN O O
months NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
took NN O O
one NN O O
tablet NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
rinsed NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
min NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mouthwash NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
and NN O O
finish NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
14-day NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
red NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P1I NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gingival NN O I-OUT
exudate NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
meter NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GEF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
1-week NN O O
diet NN O O
sheets NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
parameter NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
. NN O O

Correlation NN O O
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
between NN O O
GI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
P1I NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
GI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GEF NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
GI NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
throughout NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
except NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eighth NN O O
month NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
0.001 NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
P NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
despite NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
P1I NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
folate NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
eighth NN O O
month NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
Groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
0.001 NN O O
less NN O O
than 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
folate NN O O
mouthwash NN O O
produced NN O O
highly NN O O
significantly NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7010528)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
carbenoxolone NN O I-INT
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 I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
carbenoxolone NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
Biogastrone NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
ulcers NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
healed NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
17 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allotted NN O O
double-blind NN O O
additional NN O O
dummy NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
16 NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
ulcer NN O O
healed NN O O
completely NN O O
endoscopically NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
23 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
additional NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
only NN O O
14 NN O O
ulcers NN O O
healed NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
ulcer NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oedema NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypokalaemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypernatraemia NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
carbenoxolone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
the NN O O
potassium-retaining NN O O
diuretic NN O O
amiloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
like NN O O
the NN O O
aldosterone NN O O
antagonist NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduces NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
ulcer-healing NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
carbenoxolone NN O O
sodium NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
it NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7010662)

[ NN O O
Biological NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-INT
magnesium-vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
certain NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
observed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
author NN O O
's NN O O
transl NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7010854)

Clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydralazine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
unselected NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
completing NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
92 NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
programs NN O O
: NN O O
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
metoprolol NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
hydralazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
reduction NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
therapy NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
metoprolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydralazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
initiated NN O O
before NN O O
individual NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
single NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Antihypertensive NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
some NN O O
biochemical NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
changes NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
smallest NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
beta-blocker NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hydralazine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7011331)

Preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin-migraine NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
1,3,4,14b-tetrahydro-2,7-dimethyl-2H-dibenzo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
f NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pyrazino- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,2 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-oxazepine NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Org NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
94 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

1,3,4,14b-Tetrahydro-2,7-dimethyl-2H-dibenzo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
f NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pyrazino- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,2-d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-oxazepine NN O I-INT
hydrogen NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Org NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
94 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
antamine NN O O
preparation NN O O
with NN O O
anti-serotoninergic NN O O
and NN O O
anti-histaminic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
side-effects NN O O
permits NN O O
protracted NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin-migraine NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
chemical NN O O
structure NN O O
-- NN O O
tetracyclic NN O O
ring NN O O
, NN O O
C-beta NN O O
, NN O O
C-alpha NN O O
, NN O O
amine NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
position NN O O
-- NN O O
allows NN O O
block NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
receptors NN O O
for NN O O
serotonin NN O O
and NN O O
histamine NN O O
. NN O O

Preventive NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
Org NN O I-INT
GC NN O I-INT
94 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
can NN O O
almost NN O O
completely NN O O
eliminate NN O O
migraine NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

21 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
profited NN O O
from NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
a NN O O
drop NN O O
from NN O O
5 NN O O
-- NN O O
30 NN O O
attacks NN O O
to NN O O
0 NN O O
-- NN O O
1 NN O O
attack NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
normalization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
serotonin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
5-HIAA NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
histamine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-PAR
reacted NN O O
only NN O O
rarely NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
typical NN O O
side-effects NN O O
of NN O O
anti-serotonin NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
dizziness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperorexia NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
hardly NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin-migraine NN O O
cases NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
methodology NN O O
were NN O O
applied NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7015093)

[ NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
stress NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
still NN O O
far NN O O
from NN O O
being NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
reported NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hoe NN O I-INT
069 NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
eliminated NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ameliorated NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
gastroscopy NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
secretin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
component NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
recommendable NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postsurgical NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (701664)

Poylmerized NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
ragweed NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
an NN O O
improved NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single-blind NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
glutaraldehyde-treated NN O I-INT
polymerized NN O I-INT
ragweed NN O I-INT
with NN O O
nonpolymerized NN O I-INT
monomeric NN O I-INT
ragweed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
an NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
polymerized NN O O
AgE NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
readily NN O O
available NN O O
ragweed NN O O
preparation NN O O
containing NN O O
all NN O O
ragweed NN O I-INT
antigens NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O I-PAR
ragweed-sensitive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
polymerized NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
monomeric NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
: NN O O
serum-specific NN O I-INT
IgE NN O I-INT
against NN O O
antigen NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
total NN O O
blocking NN O O
antibody NN O O
against NN O O
antigen NN O O
E NN O O
, NN O O
local NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
injection NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
symptom NN O O
score NN O O
indices NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
antigen NN O O
E NN O O
-- NN O O
specific NN O O
IgE NN O O
and NN O O
blocking NN O O
antibody NN O O
activity NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
15,000 NN O O
protein NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
units NN O O
( NN O O
PNU NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
blocking NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
monomer NN O O
group NN O O
rose NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
170 NN O O
ng NN O O
AgE NN O O
bound NN O O
per NN O O
ml NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
2,813 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blocking NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
polymer NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
181 NN O O
ng NN O O
AgE NN O O
bound NN O O
per NN O O
ml NN O O
to NN O O
1,574 NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
15,000 NN O O
PNU NN O O
, NN O O
blocking NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
consistent NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
postseasonal NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
times NN O O
less NN O O
induration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
polymerized NN O I-INT
ragweed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
7 NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
monomer NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
polymer NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
experienced NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7017139)

Value NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anal NN O I-INT
dilator NN O I-INT
after NN O O
anal NN O O
stretch NN O O
for NN O O
haemorrhoids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
compared NN O O
anal NN O I-INT
stretch NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
dilatation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
89 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
haemorrhoids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
had NN O O
transient NN O O
incontinence NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
flatus NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
dilator NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
improved NN O O
and NN O O
required NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
15 NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
anal NN O I-INT
stretch NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
anal NN O O
dilator NN O O
improves NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
anal NN O I-OUT
stretch NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7028532)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
diclofensine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
psychoactive NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

Diclofensine NN O I-INT
inhibits NN O O
the NN O O
uptake NN O O
of NN O O
serotonin NN O O
, NN O O
noradrenaline NN O O
and NN O O
dopamine NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
out-patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
's NN O O
therapeutically NN O O
effective NN O O
dose NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Maprotiline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reference NN O O
drug NN O O
: NN O O
fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
diclofensine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
thirteen NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
maprotiline NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Depending NN O O
on NN O O
tolerance NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
periods NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
5 NN O O
to NN O O
150 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Doses NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
. NN O O

Findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
diclofensine NN O I-INT
would NN O O
be NN O O
sufficient NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dosage NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
increased NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
offers NN O O
few NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
advantages NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
approximately NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
differed NN O O
greatly NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
abrupt NN O I-OUT
dissipation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
continued NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
psycho-energizing NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mood NN O I-PAR
alleviating NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
desired NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7029293)

Multimodal NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nonmetastatic NN O I-PAR
Ewing NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
sarcoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
264 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
Ewing NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
sarcoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
between NN O I-PAR
1973 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1978 NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
83 NN O I-PAR
institutions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
national NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Southwest NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Leukemia NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Intergroup NN O O
Study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
pulmonary NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dactinomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VAC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
would NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
reduce NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
RT NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
lesion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
VAC NN O O
plus NN O O
ADR NN O O
; NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lengths NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease-free NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
treated NN O O
with NN O O
VAC NN O O
plus NN O O
ADR NN O O
or NN O O
VAC NN O O
plus NN O O
RT NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
VAC NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
ADR NN O I-INT
or NN O O
bilateral NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
RT NN O O
to NN O O
VAC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
highly NN O I-OUT
advantageous NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
nonpelvic NN O O
primaries NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O O
and NN O O
lung NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
distant NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
bilateral NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
RT NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
ADR NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
recent NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
eliminate NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pessimism NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
accompanied NN O O
a NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
Ewing NN O O
's NN O O
sarcoma NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
distant NN O O
metastases NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
failure NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
tumor NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
through NN O O
well-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
optimal NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
lesion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7032533)

Double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
plafibride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
hyperlipoproteinemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
N-2- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
p-chlorophenoxy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-isobutyryl-N'-morpholinomethylurea NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
plafibride NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ITA NN O I-INT
104 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were 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
lasting NN O O
four NN O O
months NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
hyperlipoproteinemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inconsistent NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lipoproteinogram NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-beta-lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
and NN O O
so NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
alpha- NN O O
and NN O O
beta-lipoprotein NN O O
fractions NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
platelet NN O O
functioning NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
obvious NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
very NN O O
evident NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
ADP NN O O
and NN O O
adrenaline NN O O
inductors NN O O
and NN O O
rather NN O O
less NN O O
significant NN O O
for NN O O
collagen NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
adhesiveness NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
. NN O O

Tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
excellent NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
palpebral NN O I-OUT
xanthelasmas NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
heartburn NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
corrected NN O O
with NN O O
alkalines NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
other NN O O
case NN O O
an NN O O
urticarial NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
disappeared NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
temporarily NN O O
stopped NN O O
and NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reappear NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hematological NN O I-OUT
malfunctions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
tendency NN O O
towards NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GOT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GPT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
drug NN O O
tested NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
hyperlipoproteinemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
forms NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
suspected NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7032811)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low-salt NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
intralymphocytic NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
young 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
studied NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
was NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
free NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
while NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
was NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
low-salt NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
third NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
acute NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
free NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
intralymphocytic NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
re-checked NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low-salt NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
intralymphocytic NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
acute NN O O
salt NN O O
loading NN O O
, NN O O
borderline NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
intralymphocytic NN O O
sodium NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
greater NN O O
natriuresis NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
intralymphocytic NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
initially NN O O
normal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7035637)

Age-related NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
two NN O O
Haemophilus NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
Hib NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
71 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
vaccine NN O O
contained NN O O
the NN O O
Hib-specific NN O I-INT
capsular NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PRP NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
second NN O O
vaccine NN O O
contained NN O I-INT
PRP NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
pertussis NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
PRP-P. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
third NN O O
vaccine NN O O
, NN O O
DTP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-PRP NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
after NN O O
vaccination NN O O
with NN O O
PRP-P NN O O
than NN O O
after NN O O
PRP NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunoresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
both NN O O
vaccines NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
PRP NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
PRP-P NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
DTP NN O O
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PRP-P NN O I-INT
is NN O O
both NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
has NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
PRP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7036084)

[ NN O I-INT
Cred? NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
has NN O O
lost NN O O
its NN O I-OUT
justification NN O I-OUT
today NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7036799)

Lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
mixtures NN O O
for NN O O
epidural NN O O
blockade NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
lumbar NN O O
epidural NN O O
blockade NN O O
was NN O O
instituted NN O O
in NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
solution NN O O
containing NN O O
1:200,000 NN O O
epinephrine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
solutions NN O O
used NN O O
were NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
cent NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lidocaine-bupivacaine NN O I-INT
mixtures NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratios NN O O
of NN O O
1:3 NN O O
, NN O O
1:1 NN O O
or NN O O
3:1 NN O O
by NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

Onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
spread NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O O
to NN O O
regression NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
segments NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O O
and NN O O
complete NN O O
sensory NN O O
blockade NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated 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
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
solutions NN O O
and NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
84 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
partial NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
70 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
complete NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
to NN O O
128 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
partial NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
101 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
complete NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Using NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
criterion NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
blockade NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
mixtures NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
intermediate NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
single NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
lidocaine NN O O
( NN O O
124 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
286 NN O O
+/- NN O O
32 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
fastest NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
blockade NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
most NN O O
profound NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mixture NN O O
containing NN O O
equal NN O O
proportions NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
unaltered NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mixtures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7037697)

Preliminary NN O O
report NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
M.D NN O O
. NN O O

Anderson NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
neutron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
locally NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
cervix NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7044324)

Treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
tungiasis NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
niridazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Ambilhar NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7047002)

Corticosteroid-induced NN O O
osteopenia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
D2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prednisone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
comparatively NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
'triple-treatment NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D2 NN O I-INT
45000 NN O I-INT
iu NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
fluoride NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
calcium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
4.5 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
prednisone- NN O I-INT
and NN O O
triple-treatment NN O I-INT
upon NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
content NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
prednisone NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

BMC NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
rapidly NN O O
and NN O O
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
triple-treatment NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
preventive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
induced NN O O
osteopenia NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
25OHD2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
25OHD3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
1,25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
without NN O O
triple-treatment NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
25OHD2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
enormously NN O O
, NN O O
25OHD3 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
suppressed NN O O
possibly NN O O
by NN O O
substrate NN O O
competition NN O O
for NN O O
hydroxylation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
liver NN O O
and NN O O
1,25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
halved NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
1,25 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OH NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
2D NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
raised NN O O
25OHD2 NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
excess NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7048172)

Non-Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
malignant NN O O
lymphomas NN O O
: NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
localized NN O O
relapses NN O O
with NN O O
chemo NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
radio NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
BCG-therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsing NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
lymphomas NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
chemo NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thereafter NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
BCG NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
BCG NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
systematically NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
BCG NN O I-INT
and NN O O
they NN O O
also NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
fairly NN O O
good NN O O
disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Such NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
probably NN O O
of NN O O
curing NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7056921)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
vicarious NN O I-INT
reinforcement NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disturbed NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7069027)

Perception NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
depressed NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7072873)

Memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
in NN O O
longitudinal NN O O
health NN O O
surveys NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
field NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
to NN O O
improve NN O O
respondent NN O O
recall NN O O
is NN O O
becoming NN O O
increasingly NN O O
popular NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
surveys NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
one-year NN O O
field NN O O
experiment NN O O
involving NN O O
over NN O I-PAR
1,200 NN O I-PAR
respondents NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
cent NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
aids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Differences NN O O
in NN O O
reporting NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
particularly NN O O
striking NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
six NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
survey NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
symptoms NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
, NN O O
transitory NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
minorities NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Respondents NN O O
assigned NN O O
memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
report NN O O
a NN O O
doctor NN O O
contact NN O O
-- NN O O
especially NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
fall/winter NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
respondent NN O O
who NN O O
used NN O O
their NN O O
memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
at NN O O
least NN O O
once NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
252 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
nearly NN O O
35 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
said NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
influenced NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
aids NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
influenced NN O O
said NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
became NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
aware NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ten NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
people NN O O
said NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
became NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
worried NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
depressed NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
information NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
memory NN O O
aids NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
constitutes NN O O
about NN O O
a NN O O
four NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
risk NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
people NN O O
who NN O O
reported NN O O
using NN O O
their NN O O
memory NN O O
aids NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
once NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
memory NN O I-INT
aids NN O I-INT
influenced NN O O
perceptions NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7075499)

[ NN O O
Dose-effect NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris 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

Fifteen NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
evidence 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
stable NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
exercise-induced NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISDN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dialy NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
120 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
240 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
480 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
seventh NN O O
day NN O O
an NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
standardized NN O O
level NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
ISDN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anginal NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O O
fell NN O O
parallel NN O O
to NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ISDN NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mononitrates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
rose NN O O
almost NN O O
linearly NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
ISDN NN O O
thus NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ischaemia NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
ergometric NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
protracted NN O O
anti-anginal NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ISDN NN O O
is NN O O
largely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
presumably NN O O
an NN O O
added NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
blood NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
basic NN O O
substance.U NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7080985)

[ NN O O
Comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
cinoxacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cinobac NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nitrofurantoin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Furadantine NN O I-INT
MC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
oxolinic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Uritrate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
urinary NN O O
tract NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uncomplicated NN O I-PAR
urinary NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7092002)

Antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
bronchitis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
tetracycline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
evaluate NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
need NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
sufficiently NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
require NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
although NN O I-PAR
none NN O I-PAR
needed NN O I-PAR
ventilatory NN O I-PAR
support NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pneumonia NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
bronchodilators NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
tetracycline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

Arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
gases NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
spirometric NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bacteriologic NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
illness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed 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
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
improved NN O O
both NN O O
symptomatically NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
objective NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
function 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
period NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
tetracycline NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
needed NN O O
in NN O O
moderately NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
exacerbations NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (709549)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
adriamycin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7118776)

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tinidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
aerobic NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
anaerobic NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7134226)

Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
K NN O I-INT
3920 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
platelet NN O O
, NN O O
coagulation NN O O
and NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
12 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
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
dosages NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
synthetic NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
some NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
coagulation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolysis NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
a NN O O
prompt NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
enhanced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

Indobufen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
adhesiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
lengthen NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7148967)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
dorsal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
resting NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
hypertonus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertonic NN O I-PAR
wrist NN O I-PAR
flexors NN O I-PAR
volunteered NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
experiment NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
dorsal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
resting NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

Individuals NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
fitted NN O O
with NN O O
dorsal NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
individuals NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
volar NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
by NN O O
spring-weighted NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
splint NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
hypertonus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
volar NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dorsal NN O I-INT
splints NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
hypertonus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
age NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
intervening NN O O
variable NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
gradual NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
hypertonus NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
hypertonus NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7159500)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
familial NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
guar NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
guar NN O I-INT
( NN O O
15.6 NN O O
g/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
dietetic NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
and NN O O
apolipoproteins NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
familial NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
corresponding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HLP NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
IIa NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Either NN O I-INT
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
guar NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cross-over NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Guar NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
lowering NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
by NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
very NN O O
low NN O O
density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
VLDL NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
HDL NN O O
) NN O O
cholesterols NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
apoprotein NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
was NN O O
diminished NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
or NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
fractions NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
consistent NN O O
manner NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
guar NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neither NN O O
the NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
side-effects NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
guar NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
slight NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
meteorism NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
early NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
guar NN O I-INT
exerts NN O O
its NN O O
cholesterol-lowering NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
bezafibrate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7174605)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
critically NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
an NN O O
ongoing NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
haloperidol-placebo-haloperidol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo-haloperidol-placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
sequences NN O O
. NN O O

Statistically NN O O
, NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
behavioral NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
discrimination NN O O
learning NN O O
paradigm NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
learned NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
. NN O O

Discrimination NN O O
attained NN O O
on NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
retained NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7196452)

Menstrual NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
infertile NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
re-evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
evidence NN O I-INT
for NN O O
psychological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7200736)

Prostaglandin NN O I-PAR
E1 NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypotensive NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Hypotension NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PGE1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100-150 NN O O
ng/kg/minute NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
operative NN O O
blood NN O O
loss NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
. NN O O

PGE1 NN O O
decreased NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
approximately NN O O
34 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
pre-administration NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
induced NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
about NN O O
75 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
returned NN O O
to NN O O
within NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
with NN O O
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
infusion NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
pre-ejection NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
period NN O O
were NN O O
shortened NN O O
. NN O O

Renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PGE1 NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
safely NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7205145)

An NN O O
evaluation NN O O
method NN O O
providing NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
radioimmunoassay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radioimmunoassay NN O I-INT
results NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
each NN O O
assay NN O O
run NN O O
is NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
polynomial NN O O
is NN O O
fitted NN O O
to NN O O
untransformed NN O O
data NN O O
( NN O O
y NN O O
= NN O O
counts NN O O
per NN O O
minute NN O O
; NN O O
x NN O O
= NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
curve.A NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
is NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
sample NN O O
, NN O O
taking NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
the NN O O
variance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
curve NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
duplicate NN O O
assay NN O O
jointly NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7208897)

Breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Sweden NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
single NN O O
modality NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
population-based NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
projects NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
progress NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sweden NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
randomized NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Mammography NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
screening NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

51 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
carcinomas NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
screening NN O O
were NN O O
either NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
or NN O O
invasive NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
diameter NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
mm NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
. NN O O

Axillary NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Sensitivity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
over NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
projects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-OUT
ultimate NN O I-OUT
aim NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
randomized NN O I-OUT
projects NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
demonstrate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
estimated NN O O
that NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
statistics NN O I-OUT
will NN O O
reach NN O O
significant NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
1983. NN O O
, NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7211918)

Heparin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
venous NN O I-PAR
thromboembolism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
embolism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
venous NN O I-PAR
thrombosis 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
intermittent NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
enhanced NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
major NN O O
bleeding NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
intermittent NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
equal NN O O
frequency NN O O
during NN O O
intermittent NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recurrent NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
heparin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Controlling NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
with NN O O
coagulation NN O O
tests NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
with NN O O
intermittent NN O O
injections NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
bleeding NN O O
complications NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O O
heparin NN O O
therapy NN O O
could NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
recurrences NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
heparin NN O O
therapy NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
resulted NN O O
from NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
from NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
arbitrary NN O O
lower NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
given NN O O
intermittently NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O O
given NN O O
continuously NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
fewer NN O O
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
more NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
intermittent NN O O
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
preferable NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
fewer NN O O
recurrences NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
given NN O O
continuously NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
will NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
recurrences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7218018)

Are NN O O
oral NN O O
cathartics NN O O
of NN O O
value NN O O
in NN O O
optimizing NN O O
the NN O O
gallium NN O O
scan NN O O
? NN O O
Concise NN O O
communication NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
normal NN O O
intestinal NN O O
secretion NN O O
of NN O O
9-15 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
administered NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
gallium-67 NN O I-INT
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
early NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
intra-abdominal NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
no NN O I-INT
bowel NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
cc NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
magnesia NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
cc NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cascara NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
gallium NN O I-OUT
interfered NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7219904)

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
therapeutics NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
prospective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
chronic NN O O
hypertension NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
and NN O O
preliminary NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
population NN O I-OUT
selection NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
underlying NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
prospectively NN O O
throughout NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
intensified NN O O
prenatal NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
assignment NN O O
of NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
hydralazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methyldopa NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
clinics NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Duke NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preeclampsia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
8.7 NN O O
versus NN O O
32.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
diabetes NN O I-OUT
mellitus NN O I-OUT
diagnosed NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
49.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
' NN O O
general NN O O
obstetric NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7235205)

Theophylline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
saliva NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
microcrystalline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sustained-release NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
in NN O O
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Theophylline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
saliva NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
in NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
dosage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
microcrystalline NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
tablet NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Nuelin NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
sustained-release NN O I-INT
preparation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Nuelin NN O I-PAR
Retard NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
wide NN O O
individual NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
when NN O O
individual NN O O
serum NN O O
to NN O O
saliva NN O O
ratios NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
saliva NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
measurements NN O O
alone NN O O
is NN O O
unreliable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
preparations NN O O
produced NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
theophylline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
-- NN O O
20 NN O O
mcg/ml NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
tablet NN O O
giving NN O O
higher NN O O
monitoring NN O O
through NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
smaller NN O O
through NN O O
to NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
and NN O O
highly NN O O
bioavailable NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
AUC NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Nuelin NN O I-INT
Retard NN O I-INT
preparation NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
smooth NN O O
, NN O O
sustained NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
theophylline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
range NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
dosage NN O O
should NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
improved NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7259216)

Topical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
alopecia NN O O
areata NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
previously NN O O
that NN O O
alopecia NN O O
areata NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
dinitrochlorobenzene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DNCB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
other NN O O
contact NN O I-INT
allergens NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Whether NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
work NN O O
by NN O O
inducing NN O O
immunologic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
or NN O O
simply NN O O
a NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
reaction NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
definitively NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
randomly NN O O
studied NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
alopecia NN O I-PAR
areata NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
DNCB NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
croton NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
applied NN O I-PAR
topically NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty-three NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
regrowth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
regrew NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
DNCB NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
croton NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
regrew NN O I-OUT
hair NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
treated NN O O
later NN O O
with NN O O
DNCB NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
proved NN O O
contact NN O O
allergen NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
induced NN O O
contact NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
light NN O O
of NN O O
recent NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mutagenicity NN O O
of NN O O
DNCB NN O I-INT
to NN O O
bacteria NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
contact NN O O
allergens NN O O
for NN O O
topical NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
sought NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7285032)

[ NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
essential NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
prazosin NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
comparison NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
propranolol NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7298122)

Changing NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Minneapolis NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Blood NN O O
Pressure NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
modifying NN O O
dietary NN O O
sodium NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressures NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
95th NN O I-PAR
percentile NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sex NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
130/90 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
began NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
to NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O O
diet NN O O
toward NN O O
a NN O O
goal NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
mEq NN O O
sodium NN O O
per NN O O
person NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Adherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
3-day NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
records NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
collections NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
sodium NN O I-OUT
intakes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Sodium NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
participants NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
dropouts NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
vs NN O O
130 NN O O
and NN O O
133 NN O O
mmoles/24 NN O O
hr NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
height NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7326194)

Lower NN O O
relapse NN O O
rates NN O O
after NN O O
neighbourhood NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
Corynebacterium NN O I-INT
parvum NN O I-INT
in NN O O
operable NN O O
cervix NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
immunotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O I-INT
neighbourhood NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
C. NN O I-INT
parvum NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
involving NN O O
43 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
uteri NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
confined NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
vagina NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
parametrial NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
When NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
spread NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
parametrial NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
additional NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whereas NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O O
minor NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
CP NN O O
were NN O O
encountered NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
shows NN O O
a NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CP NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
further NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
added NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
our NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
longer NN O O
after NN O O
immune NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
control NN O O
3.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
) NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.5 NN O O
( NN O O
s.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
CP NN O O
13.0 NN O O
months NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.0 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
T NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
become NN O I-OUT
sensitized NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
DNCB NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
CP NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
capable NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transforming NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
macrophages NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
sequestration NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tissues NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7388581)

Vaginal NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
yeast NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
yeast NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
93 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
nystatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
miconazole NN O I-INT
pessaries NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
vaginal NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
37 NN O O
patients NN O O
defaulted NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
required NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
4.3-4.6 NN O O
. NN O O

Lactobacilli NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
plentiful NN O O
in NN O O
78 NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
86 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
lactobacilli NN O O
and NN O O
yeasts NN O O
commonly NN O O
coexist NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
organisms NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
negligible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
nystatin NN O O
and NN O O
micromazole NN O O
were NN O O
equallly NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-PAR
yeast NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
micronazole NN O I-INT
offered NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7390376)

[ NN O I-PAR
Obstetrical NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
tramadol NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Parenteral NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
Tramal NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
deliveries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
deliveries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pethidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
medicaments NN O O
excerted NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O I-OUT
analgetic NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
Tramal NN O I-INT
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
labour NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
newborn NN O O
. NN O O

Tramal NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
obstetrical NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
since NN O O
it NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
excert NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
upon NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7410734)

Scaling NN O O
clinical NN O O
judgments NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O O
pathology NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
psychophysiological NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
magnitude NN O O
estimation NN O O
. NN O O

Summing NN O O
scores NN O O
across NN O O
heterogeneous NN O O
symptom NN O O
items NN O O
without NN O O
consideration NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
differing NN O O
psychopathological NN O O
significance NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
criticized NN O O
as NN O O
producing NN O O
an NN O O
inadequate NN O O
picture NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
individual NN O O
's NN O O
clinical NN O O
status 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
derive NN O O
symptom NN O O
item NN O O
weights NN O O
representing NN O O
clinically NN O O
judged NN O O
seriousness NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
symptom NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
Steven NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
psychophysical NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
magnitude NN O I-INT
estimation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
nationwide NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
129 NN O I-PAR
clinicians NN O I-PAR
rated NN O O
the NN O O
pathological NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
221 NN O O
symptom NN O O
items NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
design NN O O
such NN O O
that NN O O
every NN O O
rater NN O O
rated NN O O
121 NN O O
items NN O O
, NN O O
21 NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
all NN O O
raters NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
only NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
A NN O O
or NN O O
B NN O O
subgroup NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
each NN O O
rater NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
item NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
seriousness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pathology NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
represent NN O O
if NN O O
manifested NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
boy NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
girl NN O O
child NN O O
, NN O O
boy NN O O
adolescent NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
girl NN O O
adolescent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
one-fourth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
raters NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
211 NN O O
two-way NN O I-INT
analyses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
variance NN O I-INT
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
interaction NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
sex NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
ratings NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
resulting NN O O
magnitude NN O I-OUT
estimation NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
pathology NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
9.9 NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
satisfactoy NN O O
reliability NN O O
and NN O O
convergent NN O O
validity NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
psychophysical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prothetic NN O O
continuum NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7429786)

Liquid NN O I-INT
antacids NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
palatability NN O O
and NN O O
predictability NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7449282)

Cardiac NN O O
and NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

Haemodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
M-mode NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
trimester NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
lowered NN O O
by NN O O
bed NN O O
rest NN O O
only NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
oxprenolol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methyldopa NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
remained NN O O
elevated NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
raised NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
trimester NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
normotensive NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
displayed NN O O
an NN O O
exaggerated NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inappropriately NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oxprenolol-treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

6 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
ws NN O O
no NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
beta-adrenoreceptor NN O I-INT
blocking NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
peripheral NN O O
resistance NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
foetal NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
described NN O O
in NN O O
maternal NN O O
hypertension NN O O
of NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oxprenolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7481533)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
surveillance NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pedunculated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
sessile NN O I-PAR
tubular NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tubulovillous NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Funen NN O O
Adenoma NN O O
Follow-up NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
wanted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
surveillance NN O I-INT
intervals NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
pedunculated NN O O
and NN O O
small NN O O
sessile NN O O
tubular NN O O
and NN O O
tubulovillous NN O O
adenomas NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
colonoscopic NN O I-PAR
polypectomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
surveillance NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
colorectal NN O O
examinations NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
cumulated NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
35.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28.7-41.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
35.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
28.4-42.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
44.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
36.0-53.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
60.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
48.5-71.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
96 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
adenoma NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
villous NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
dysplasia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
2.3-8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
3.8-13.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
48 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
4.2-13.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7.6-27.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
96 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
than NN O O
one NN O O
adenoma NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O I-PAR
above NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
adenomas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
than NN O O
two NN O O
adenomas NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
factor NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
developed NN O O
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
expected NN O O
( NN O O
3.43 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
Danish NN O O
population NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.9 NN O O
, NN O O
0.2-2.6 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
After NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
with NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
polyps NN O O
, NN O O
colorectal NN O O
examination NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
examinations NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
new NN O O
significant NN O O
neoplasia NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
when NN O O
first NN O O
surveillance NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Extending NN O O
the NN O O
surveillance NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
also NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
being NN O O
examined NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
surveillance NN O O
examinations NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
probable NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
from NN O O
surveillance NN O O
examinations NN O O
themselves NN O O
may NN O O
justify NN O O
a NN O O
recommendation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
longest NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7485923)

[ NN O I-INT
Erythropoietin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
during NN O O
frequent NN O O
autologous NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
donations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dose-finding NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Avoidance NN O O
of NN O O
homologous NN O O
blood NN O O
products NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
demand NN O O
for NN O O
preoperative NN O O
autologous NN O O
blood NN O O
donation NN O O
programs NN O O
are NN O O
increasing NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
many NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
compromised NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
slow NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
erythropoietic NN O O
system NN O O
when NN O O
anemia NN O O
occurs NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
blood NN O O
donation NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
limited NN O O
. NN O O

Augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
blood NN O O
donation NN O O
by NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
rHuEPO NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
orthopaedic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
300 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
500 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
U/kg NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Erypo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Cilag NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Sulzbach NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
distributor NN O I-INT
Fresenius NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Oberursel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Germany NN O O
) NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
while NN O O
every NN O O
week NN O O
450 NN O O
ml NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

Iron NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
was NN O O
prescribed NN O O
orally NN O O
twice NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
ineligible NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
uncontrolled NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
haematological NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
donation NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
cancelled NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
haematocrit NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS 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
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
end-point NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
elevated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
400 NN O O
and NN O O
500 NN O O
U/kg 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
Table NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DISCUSSION NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
erythropoietic NN O O
stimulus NN O O
of NN O O
phlebotomy NN O O
for NN O O
autologous NN O O
blood NN O O
donations NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
not NN O O
efficient NN O O
enough NN O O
to NN O O
guarantee NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lowering NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
jeopardizes NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
avoidance NN O O
of NN O O
homologous NN O O
blood NN O O
transfusions NN O O
. NN O O

rHuEPO NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
autologous NN O O
blood NN O O
collections NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
predonation NN O O
haematocrit NN O O
values NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high-dosage NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
, NN O O
homologous NN O O
transfusions NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
broad NN O O
interindividual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
erythropoietic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
limitations NN O O
in NN O O
iron NN O O
availability NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
disorders NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
are NN O O
mostly NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
terminal NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
such NN O O
disturbances NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
. NN O O

rHuEPO NN O O
ameliorates NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
preoperative NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
haematocrit NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
autologous NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
donations NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-related NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
individually NN O O
adjusted NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
rHuEPO NN O O
and NN O O
iron NN O O
supplementation NN O O
merits NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7486842)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Our NN O O
study NN O O
aims NN O O
at NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
obesity NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
35.9 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5.3 NN O I-PAR
kg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
start NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
1-month NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
crossed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
period NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
period NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
period NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
monthly NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
serotoninergic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
such NN O O
as NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
need NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
before NN O O
being NN O O
used NN O O
indiscriminately NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7488285)

Corticosteroids NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
exchanges NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
polyarteritis NN O I-PAR
nodosa NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Churg-Strauss NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
predicting NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
sixty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
define NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
severe NN O I-PAR
polyarteritis NN O I-PAR
nodosa NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Churg-Strauss NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CSS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
indication NN O O
for NN O O
plasma NN O O
exchange NN O O
treatment 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
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
prednisone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
plasma NN O I-INT
exchanges NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
34 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
first-line NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
PAN NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
CSS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Factors NN O O
predicting NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
were NN O O
renal NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
involvement NN O O
, NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
, NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
involvement NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
loss NN O O
> NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
years NN O O
old NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
B NN O O
virus-related NN O O
PAN NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
recovery NN O O
or NN O O
remission NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
findings NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Relapse NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
initial NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
followup NN O I-OUT
period NN O O
was NN O O
31.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
35.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.8 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
followup NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
61.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
8.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
remission NN O O
without NN O O
treatment NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
cure-defining NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
( NN O O
12.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
maintenance NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low-dose NN O I-OUT
corticosteroids NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eleven NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
[ NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
[ NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Uncontrolled NN O O
vasculitis NN O O
was NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
the NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A 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
5-year NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Based NN O O
on NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
exchanges NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
exchanges NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
systematically NN O O
proposed NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O O
PAN NN O O
or NN O O
CSS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7489845)

Cholesterol-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
retard NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-PAR
nephropathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
is NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
to NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
hypercholesterolaemia NN O O
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
pathogenetic NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
glomerular NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cholesterol-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
in NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
lovastatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
HMG NN O I-INT
CoA NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
16 NN O O
; NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
30.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.6 NN O O
mg/day 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
18 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Renal NN O O
function NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
serially NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
creatinine NN O O
, NN O O
glomerular NN O O
filtration NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
Cr51-EDTA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24-h NN O O
urinary NN O O
protein NN O O
excretion NN O O
. NN O O

Lovastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
LDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
apo NN O I-OUT
B 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
the NN O O
reductions NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
being NN O O
26 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
triglyceride NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
HDL-cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apo NN O I-OUT
A1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Lp NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
deteriorated NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lovastatin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lovastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O O
hour NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both 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

Lovastatin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
elevations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
effective NN O O
normalisation NN O O
of NN O O
hypercholesterolaemia NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
retard NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O I-OUT
nephropathy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7491394)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
live NN O O
and NN O O
videotape NN O O
ratings NN O O
: NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
live NN O O
ratings NN O O
with NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
videotapes NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
5.62 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
consecutive NN O O
admissions NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Live NN O O
ratings NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
raters NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
baseline NN O O
period 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
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CPRS NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CGI NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
videotaped NN O O
. NN O O

Employing NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
instruments NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
videotapes NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
raters NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
know NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
blind NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
study NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
videotapes NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
differed NN O O
from NN O O
live NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
for NN O O
haloperidol NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
only NN O O
on NN O O
live NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
not NN O O
on NN O O
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
videotapes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
detected NN O O
for NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
either NN O O
live NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
videotape NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7492158)

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
formula NN O O
milk NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
birthweight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
which NN O O
compared NN O O
a NN O O
follow NN O O
on NN O O
formula NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
against NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
1.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
iron NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O O
class NN O O
or NN O O
demographic NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
the NN O O
amounts NN O O
taken NN O O
lessened NN O O
between NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
median NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Very NN O O
few NN O O
infants NN O O
developed NN O O
iron NN O I-OUT
deficiency NN O I-OUT
anaemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
fall NN O O
between NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
in NN O O
both 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
iron NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
on NN O O
milk NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7492424)

Ebeltoft NN O O
project NN O O
: NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
five-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
Danish NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
increasing NN O O
political NN O O
pressure NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
profession NN O O
to NN O O
approach NN O O
welfare NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
coronary NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
diabetes NN O O
, NN O O
through NN O O
prevention NN O O
. NN O O

General NN O O
practitioners NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
offer NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
checks NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
healthy NN O I-INT
people NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
scientific NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
universal NN O O
need NN O O
, NN O O
usefulness NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
an NN O O
intervention 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
. NN O O

AIM NN O O
A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
people NN O O
's NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O I-INT
checks NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
discussions NN O O
about NN O O
health NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
, NN O O
participants NN O O
' NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
health NN O O
advice NN O O
following NN O O
health NN O O
checks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
goals NN O O
they NN O O
set NN O O
following NN O O
discussion NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
five-year NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
population-based NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ebeltoft NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Denmark NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
All NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Ebeltoft NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2000 NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
invited NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
-- NN O O
one NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O I-INT
check NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
being NN O I-INT
screened NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
cardiovascular NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
liver NN O I-INT
function NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
fitness NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sight NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hearing NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
optional NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
immunodeficiency NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
this NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
other NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O I-INT
check NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
they NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
opportunity NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
attend NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
practitioner NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
discuss NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1370 NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
response NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Health NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
905 NN O O
participants NN O O
following NN O O
health NN O O
checks NN O O
. NN O O

Almost NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
456 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
the NN O O
opportunity NN O O
of NN O O
discussing NN O O
their NN O O
health NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
took NN O O
up NN O O
the NN O O
offer NN O O
; NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
456 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
had NN O O
decided NN O O
to NN O O
undertake NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eleven NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
discussed NN O O
their NN O O
health NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
doctor NN O O
were NN O O
referred NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
specialist NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
considerable NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O O
check NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
health NN O O
advice NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
offered NN O O
a NN O O
health NN O O
talk NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
appeared NN O O
willing NN O O
to NN O O
make NN O O
relevant NN O O
lifestyle NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O I-INT
checks NN O I-INT
and NN O O
health NN O O
talks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7499684)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
six-hour NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
early-phase NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
air NN O O
pollutants NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
of NN O O
susceptible NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
inhaled NN O O
allergen NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
nitrogen NN O I-INT
dioxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NO2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
nasal NN O O
airways NN O O
resistance NN O O
( NN O O
NAR NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
in NN O O
nasal NN O O
lavage NN O O
fluid NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
season NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
exposed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
air NN O I-INT
or NN O O
400 NN O O
ppb NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NAR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
eosinophil NN O I-OUT
cationic NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mast NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
tryptase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MCT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
myeloperoxidase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interleukin-8 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
air NN O O
or NN O O
400 NN O O
ppb NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
challenged NN O O
with NN O O
allergen NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
evaluation NN O O
for NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
NAR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MCT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Exposure NN O O
to NN O O
air NN O O
or NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
either NN O O
NAR NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ECP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MCT NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
MPO NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nasal NN O O
lavage NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

Allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
air NN O O
and NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
MCT NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
MPO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O O
lavage NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
allergen NN O O
challenge NN O O
after NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
air NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
ECP NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
lavage NN O I-OUT
fluid 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
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
acute NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
NO2 NN O I-INT
at NN O O
concentrations NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
curbside NN O O
in NN O O
heavy NN O O
traffic NN O O
during NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
pollution NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
prime NN O O
eosinophils NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
activation NN O O
by NN O O
allergen NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7505498)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
Sandostatin NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
preservation NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
pancreas NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7516831)

Optimized NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
curable NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
role NN O O
of NN O O
prescreening NN O O
with NN O O
prostate-specific NN O O
antigen NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O I-PAR
1,002 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
45-80 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cancers NN O O
detectable NN O O
by NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
prostate-specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
digital NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DRE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
transrectal NN O I-OUT
ultrasonography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRUS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subpopulation NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
) NN O O
identified NN O O
by NN O O
serum NN O O
PSA NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
3.0 NN O O
micrograms/L NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
extended NN O O
to NN O O
7,350 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
DRE NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
approach NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
TRUS NN O I-INT
only NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
tests NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Because NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
detection NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
find NN O O
cancers NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
, NN O O
potentially NN O O
curable NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
major NN O O
interest NN O O
that NN O O
71.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
evaluable NN O O
cancers NN O O
were NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
B NN O O
; NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10.7 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
stages NN O O
C1 NN O O
and NN O O
C2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
only NN O O
9.2 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
stage NN O O
D NN O O
( NN O O
metastatic NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
while NN O O
none NN O O
was NN O O
at NN O O
stage NN O O
D NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
unselected NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unscreened NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
technique NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
identify NN O O
men NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
having NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
more NN O O
cancers NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
by NN O O
doing NN O O
DRE NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
PSA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Follow-ups NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
done NN O O
every NN O O
second NN O O
year NN O O
using NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cancers NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
annual NN O O
follow-up NN O O
by NN O O
DRE NN O I-INT
+ NN O O
PSA NN O I-INT
were NN O O
PSA+ NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Cancers NN O O
are NN O O
discovered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
approach NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
estimated NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
2,665 NN O O
per NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Such NN O O
cancers NN O O
are NN O O
potentially NN O O
curable NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
detected NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
strategy NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
markedly NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
presently NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
leading NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
North NN O O
American NN O O
men NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7526007)

Using NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
symptom NN O O
score NN O O
, NN O O
uroflowmetry NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O O
specific NN O O
antigen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Benign NN O I-PAR
Prostatic NN O I-PAR
Hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O O
Outcomes NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
American NN O I-OUT
Urological NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
are NN O I-INT
often NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
urological NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
interpretation NN O O
is NN O O
confounded NN O O
by NN O O
within-patient NN O O
variability NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
chance NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
2 NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
variation NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
are NN O O
repeated NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
interval NN O O
variation NN O O
is NN O O
modest NN O O
and NN O O
might NN O O
easily NN O O
be NN O O
misinterpreted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
true NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
patient NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
approximately NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
might NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
chance NN O O
increase NN O O
or NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O O
score NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4.9 NN O O
points NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O O
urine NN O O
flow NN O O
rate NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
4.1 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

per NN O O
second NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
PSA NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1.6 NN O O
ng./ml NN O O
. NN O O

Clinicians NN O O
can NN O O
use NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
to NN O O
help NN O O
interpret NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
can NN O O
consider NN O O
obtaining NN O O
paired NN O O
measurements NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
chance NN O O
variation NN O O
when NN O O
they NN O O
plan NN O O
on NN O O
following NN O O
them NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7527107)

Double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
trandolapril NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Investigator NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
international NN O O
trial NN O O
recruited NN O O
205 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
investigators NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
a NN O O
4-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in 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
16 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
trandolapril NN O I-INT
2 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HCTZ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
( NN O O
68 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
( NN O O
69 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Morning NN O I-OUT
predosing NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measurement NN O O
. NN O O

Intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
supine NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
16 NN O O
between NN O O
trandolapril NN O O
( NN O O
-10.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
HCTZ NN O O
( NN O O
-10.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
gave NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
reduction NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
drug NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
-15.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.13 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
normalized NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
group NN O O
in NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
trandolapril NN O O
( NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
HCTZ NN O O
( NN O O
60 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

Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Trandolapril NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
HCTZ NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
compounds NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7528271)

Multicyclic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dose-intensive NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
supported NN O O
by NN O O
sequential NN O O
reinfusion NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
progenitors NN O I-INT
in NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
support NN O O
multicyclic NN O O
, NN O O
dose-intensive NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
reinfusing NN O I-INT
hematopoietic NN O I-INT
progenitors NN O I-INT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
in NN O O
leukapheresis NN O O
product NN O O
or NN O O
whole NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ICE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
micrograms/d NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
SC NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
. NN O O

Hematopoietic NN O O
progenitors NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
were NN O O
reinfused NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
leukapheresis NN O I-INT
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
cryopreservation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
leukapheresis NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
WBC NN O O
count NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
. NN O O

Cohort NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
leukapheresis NN O I-INT
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
cycle NN O O
and NN O O
storage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leukapheresis NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
Cohort NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
500 NN O O
to NN O O
750 NN O O
mL NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
drawn NN O O
by NN O O
venesection NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
cycle NN O O
and NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
In NN O O
cohorts NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
WBC NN O O
count NN O O
was NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
count NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/L NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leukapheresis NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
for NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
progenitors NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ICE NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
mobilizing NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
progenitors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
, NN O O
120-fold NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Long-term NN O O
cultures NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
stem-cell NN O I-OUT
depletion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-OUT
dose-intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
standard NN O O
every-4-weeks NN O O
ICE NN O O
is NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
134 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
cohorts NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supportive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
dose-intensity NN O O
of NN O O
ICE NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
doubled NN O O
by NN O O
reinfusing NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
progenitors NN O O
collected NN O O
by NN O O
leukapheresis NN O O
or NN O O
venesection NN O O
and NN O O
stored NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7539544)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
glucagon NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hyoscine NN O I-INT
N-butyl NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
before NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-INT
retrograde NN O I-INT
cholangiopancreatography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
tried NN O O
to NN O O
resolve NN O O
whether NN O O
glucagon NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
premedication NN O O
for NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
retrograde NN O I-OUT
cholangiopancreatography NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ERCP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
first NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amylase NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Then NN O O
an NN O O
endoscope NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duodenum NN O O
without NN O O
premedication NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
peristaltic NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

ERCP NN O O
began NN O O
after NN O O
studied NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
premedicated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
glucagon NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
hyoscine NN O I-INT
N-butyl NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
minutes NN O O
later NN O O
the NN O O
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
again NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Glucagon NN O I-INT
elicited NN O O
hyperglycemia NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
hyoscine NN O I-INT
N-butyl NN O I-INT
bromide NN O I-INT
manifested NN O O
an NN O O
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
necessary NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
ERCP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.1 NN O O
min NN O O
versus NN O O
21.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.7 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cholangiopancreatography NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
92.1 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
91.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
hyperamylasemia NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
pancreatitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
preventable NN O O
when NN O O
glucagon NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
premedications NN O O
appear NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ERCP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7551999)

Abdominoperineal NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
and NN O O
anterior NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
abdominoperineal NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
anterior NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
any NN O O
differences NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
interactions NN O O
between NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
1292 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
rectal NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
surgical NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Radiotherapy NN O O
increased NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
irradiated NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
abdominoperineal NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Sphincter-saving NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
appear NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
optimum NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7554709)

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
monoamine NN O I-INT
oxidase NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
mofegiline NN O I-INT
assessed NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
dose NN O O
tolerance NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
mofegiline NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasma NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
indicated NN O O
rapid NN O O
absorption NN O O
and NN O O
elimination NN O O
: NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentration NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
about NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
; NN O O
half-life NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Maximal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
oral NN O O
clearance NN O O
decreased NN O O
disproportionately NN O O
with NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Mofegiline NN O I-OUT
rapidly NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
markedly NN O I-OUT
inhibited NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
monoamine NN O I-OUT
oxidase NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAOB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
within NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
phenylethylamine NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
proportionately NN O O
with NN O O
doses NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
mg. NN O O
No NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
elimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
catecholamines NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
ECG NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
classic NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
48 NN O O
mg NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
mg NN O O
multiple NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
far NN O O
exceeded NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
> NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
platelet NN O O
MAOB NN O O
inhibition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7557852)

Antipyrine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
hepatic NN O O
metabolic NN O O
function NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
antipyrine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
APC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Among NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
by NN O I-PAR
normalization NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alanine NN O I-PAR
transaminase NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
APC NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
0.47 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0.12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
0.98 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
0.34 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1.02 NN O I-PAR
mL/min/kg NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
wt NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
value NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
significantly NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
nonresponders NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
0.23 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
0.08 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
0.67 NN O I-PAR
mL/min/kg NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
wt NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
.001 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

APC NN O O
was NN O O
closely NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
> NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mL/min/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
was NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
without NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
. NN O O

Cases NN O O
without NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
APC NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mL/min/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
chance NN O O
of NN O O
responding NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
this NN O O
was NN O O
unlikely NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
reflection NN O O
of NN O O
histological NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
Scheuer NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
poor NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
subgroup NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-.31 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 I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
independent NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
predictive NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
APC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
using NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mL/min/kg NN O O
body NN O O
wt NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
cut-off NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
APC NN O O
correctly NN O O
predicted NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
interferon NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

APC NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Regardless NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
APC NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6-month NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
APC NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
evident NN O O
among NN O O
responders NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
interferon 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- (7559165)

A NN O O
two-filter NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
for NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
paper NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
explore NN O O
a NN O O
two-filter NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
simplest NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
multi-channel NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
discrimination NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
simple NN O O
tones NN O O
. NN O O

According NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
model NN O O
, NN O O
frequency NN O O
discrimination NN O O
is NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
output NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
auditory NN O O
filters NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
centered NN O O
below NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
above NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tone NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
idea NN O O
can NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
results NN O O
that NN O O
frequency NN O O
discrimination NN O O
is NN O O
relatively NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
randomization NN O O
of NN O O
stimulus NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
suggests NN O O
a NN O O
close NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
listeners NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
perform NN O O
frequency NN O O
discrimination NN O O
of NN O O
simple NN O O
tones NN O O
and NN O O
spectral-shape NN O O
discrimination NN O O
of NN O O
two-tone NN O O
complexes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
listeners NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
perform NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
tasks NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
six NN O I-INT
frequencies NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
0.25 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
kHz NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
spectral-shape-discrimination NN O O
task NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
frequency-difference NN O O
limens NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
obtained NN O O
and NN O O
predicted NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7559252)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
mechanical NN O O
loading NN O O
on NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
applied NN O O
external NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
resistive NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
R NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
elastic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
loads NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
respiratory NN O O
cycle NN O O
to NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
pseudorandom NN O O
loading NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

Loads NN O O
ranged NN O O
in NN O O
magnitude NN O O
from NN O O
imperceptible NN O I-INT
( NN O O
R0/E0 NN O O
) NN O O
through NN O O
just NN O I-INT
perceptible NN O I-INT
( NN O O
R1/E1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O I-INT
( NN O O
R2/E2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O O
pattern NN O O
responses NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
reflex NN O O
responses NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
R0/E0 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
reflex NN O O
responses NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
reactions NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
perception NN O O
of NN O O
impeded NN O O
breathing NN O O
( NN O O
R1/E1 NN O O
and NN O O
R2/E2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pattern NN O I-OUT
regulation NN O I-OUT
dynamics NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
computed NN O I-OUT
impulse NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
anticipated NN O O
that NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
contributions NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
marked NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
strategies NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O O
nonlinearity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
pattern NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
loading NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
qualitative NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
subjects NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
load NN O O
size NN O O
increased NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
within-subject NN O O
variability NN O O
( NN O O
coefficient NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
nonlinearity NN O O
as NN O O
loads NN O O
became NN O O
perceptible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
emergence NN O O
of NN O O
behavioral NN O O
control NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
instances NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
marked NN O O
by NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
complexity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impulse NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
dominated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
zeroth-order NN O O
lag NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
dynamically NN O O
simpler NN O O
responses NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7562882)

Lisinopril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
improves NN O O
insulin NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
aged NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
cross-over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lisinopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
before NN O O
breakfast NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
between NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lisinopril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
a NN O O
euglycaemic NN O O
glucose NN O O
clamp NN O O
with NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
indirect NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
allowed NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whole NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
disposal NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
substrate NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
morning NN O I-OUT
SBP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
DBP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Lisinopril NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
whole NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
disposal NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
30.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mumol/kg NN O O
LBM NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
non-oxidative NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
18.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
vs. NN O O
10.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mumol/kg NN O O
LBM NN O O
x NN O O
min 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
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
4.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
175 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
160 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg 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
DBP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
106 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
vs. NN O O
95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
ACE NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.71 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
reduces NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7564450)

Hemostatic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
platelets NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

Altered NN O O
shear-induced NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impaired NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
an NN O O
annoying NN O O
problem NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
hemostatic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
platelets NN O O
comprises NN O O
two NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
shear-induced NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
cyclooxygenase NN O O
pathways NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
is NN O O
inhibited NN O O
in NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
hemostatic NN O O
function NN O O
depends NN O O
mainly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
pathway NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
shear-induced NN O O
pathway NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
preoperative NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
shear-induced NN O I-OUT
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
bleeding NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
Thrombostat NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
mimics NN O O
bleeding NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
injured NN O O
arteriole NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
shear-induced NN O I-OUT
pathway NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aspirin-treated NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
before NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
impaired NN O O
more NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
operation 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
remained NN O O
worse NN O O
afterward 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
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
platelets NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
thromboxane NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
collagen-induced NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
platelets NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
aggregation NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
adenosine NN O O
diphosphate NN O O
was NN O O
inhibited NN O O
before NN O O
the 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
and NN O O
showed NN O O
substantial NN O O
recovery NN O O
during NN O O
the 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

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
shear-induced NN O O
pathway NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin-treated NN O I-INT
platelets NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
pathway NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O O
platelets NN O O
and NN O O
causes NN O O
severe NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
afterward NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7584286)

Why NN O O
are NN O O
there NN O O
sometimes NN O O
concreteness NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
prose NN O O
? NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
experiments NN O I-PAR
explored NN O O
on-line NN O O
encoding NN O O
strategies NN O O
and NN O O
memory NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
imagery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
imagery NN O I-PAR
texts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
consistently NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
concreteness NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
text NN O I-OUT
depend NN O O
on NN O O
how NN O O
materials NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
different NN O O
respects NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
experiments NN O O
clarified NN O O
apparently NN O O
contradictory NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
by NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
concreteness NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
generally NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
memory NN O O
for NN O O
prose NN O O
when NN O O
imageability NN O O
is NN O O
manipulated NN O O
between-subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
their NN O O
occurrence NN O O
when NN O O
imageability NN O O
is NN O O
manipulated NN O O
within-subjects NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
occurrence NN O O
when NN O O
imageability NN O O
is NN O O
manipulated NN O O
within-subjects NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
presentation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
moving NN O O
window NN O O
analyses NN O O
of NN O O
text NN O I-INT
processing NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
differential NN O O
strategies NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
when NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
listened NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
vs NN O O
low NN O O
imagery NN O O
text NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
generalize NN O O
to NN O O
reading NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
materials NN O O
. NN O O

Potential NN O O
explanations NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
theories NN O O
of NN O O
mental NN O O
imagery NN O O
and NN O O
memory NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7591314)

The NN O O
European NN O I-PAR
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
Project NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
pre-hospital NN O I-PAR
thrombolysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
mortality NN O O
by NN O O
about NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
since NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
factor NN O O
, NN O O
pre-hospital NN O O
treatment NN O O
would NN O O
give NN O O
better NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
health NN O O
deciders NN O O
need NN O O
reliable NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
which NN O O
to NN O O
base NN O O
future NN O O
policies NN O O
concerning NN O O
this NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
European NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
Project NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
European NN O O
Economic NN O O
Community-supported NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
pre-hospital NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
thrombolytic NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
treatment NN O O
given NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
hospital NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5469 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
198 NN O I-PAR
mobile NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
pre-hospital NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
anistreplase NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thrombolytic NN O I-PAR
agent NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
pre-hospital NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2750 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
anistreplase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
2719 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
delay NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
injections NN O O
was NN O O
55 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
non-significant NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
30-day NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
favour NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pre-hospital NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
observed NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pre-hospital NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
borderline NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.049 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
some NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
frequently NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pre-hospital NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-hospital NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
pre-hospital NN O I-OUT
thrombolytic NN O I-OUT
strategy NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
suspected NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
well-equipped NN O I-OUT
well-staffed NN O I-OUT
mobile NN O I-OUT
emergency NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7593098)

Quantifying NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
osteonecrosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
using NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
core NN O O
decompression NN O O
with NN O O
conservative NN O O
treatment NN O O
we NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
necrosis NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
predicts NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
collapse NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
, NN O O
37 NN O I-PAR
hips NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
early-stage NN O I-PAR
osteonecrosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ON NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
core-decompression NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conservatively-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
regularly NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
plain NN O I-INT
radiography NN O I-INT
and NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
ON NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
abnormal NN O O
signal NN O O
intensity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
weight-bearing NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
coronal NN O O
and NN O O
sagittal NN O O
MRIs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
arc NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
necrotic NN O O
portion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mid-coronal NN O O
image NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mid-sagittal NN O O
image NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
necrosis NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
formula NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
A/180 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
( NN O O
B/180 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
100 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
this NN O O
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
collapse NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
necrotic NN O I-OUT
portion NN O I-OUT
ascertain NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
future NN O O
collapse NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
propose NN O O
a NN O O
systematic NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
determining NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
necrotic NN O I-OUT
portion NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
early-stage NN O I-PAR
ON NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7595068)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
fats NN O I-INT
high NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
saturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Plasma NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
atherogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
thrombogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
how NN O O
plasma NN O O
Lp NN O O
[ NN O O
a NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
young NN O O
men NN O O
was NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
fats NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
stearic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C18 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
palmitic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
lauric+myristic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C12+ NN O I-INT
C14 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
fats NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
myristic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C14 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
palmitic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
C16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experiment NN O I-INT
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Strictly NN O I-INT
controlled NN O I-INT
isocaloric NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
with NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
from NN O O
test NN O O
fats NN O O
were NN O O
served NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
wash-out NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diets NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
C18 NN O I-INT
gave NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
51 NN O O
( NN O O
12-560 NN O O
) NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
diets NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
C16 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
38 NN O O
( NN O O
12-533 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.020 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
C12 NN O O
+ NN O O
C14 NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
12-534 NN O O
) NN O O
mg/L 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

These NN O O
differences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
in NN O O
experiment NN O O
I NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
experiment NN O O
II NN O O
we NN O O
saw NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
diets NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
C16 NN O O
and NN O O
C14 NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
observations NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
fat NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
stearic NN O O
acid NN O O
might NN O O
affect NN O O
Lp NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
way NN O O
than NN O O
fats NN O O
high NN O O
in NN O O
palmitic NN O O
and NN O O
myristic+lauric NN O O
acid NN O O
. NN O O

Lp NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
associate NN O O
with NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
tissue-plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
t-PA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
coagualant NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7595712)

Cisplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
extensive NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
Hoosier NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive-stage NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Karnofsky NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
KPS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adequate NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
reserve NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CNS NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
concurrent NN O O
whole-brain NN O O
radiotherapy 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
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
VP NN O O
) NN O O
both NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
75 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
VIP NN O O
) NN O O
all NN O O
given NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
. NN O O

Cycles NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
171 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
87 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
VIP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
duration NN O O
is NN O O
26 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
163 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
162 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Myelosuppression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
VIP NN O O
. NN O O

Objective NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
55 NN O O
of NN O O
82 NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
of NN O O
81 NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
assessable NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
VP NN O O
and NN O O
VIP NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
different NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.039 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
VP NN O O
and NN O O
VIP NN O O
were NN O O
7.3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
9.0 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.045 NN O O
for NN O O
survival NN O O
curves NN O O
by NN O O
stratified NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
VIP NN O O
combination NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
improved NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
VP NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extensive NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7612555)

Prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
pterygium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
as NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
pterygium NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted 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
66 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
pterygium NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
excision NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
intraoperative NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
was NN O O
14.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
12-23 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
36 NN O O
eyes NN O O
that NN O O
underwent NN O O
simple NN O O
excision NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
( NN O O
38.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
exhibited NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
3.33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
excision NN O O
and NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
had NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0006 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
serious NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
adjunctive NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
pterygium NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7616334)

Primary NN O O
care-based NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
detoxification NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
care-based NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
detoxification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AOD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
two NN O O
protocols NN O O
: NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Central NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CMU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
freestanding NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
staffed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nurse NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Injection NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDUs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
seeking NN O I-PAR
substance NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
addicted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
opioids NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
e.g. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
heroin NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
currently NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
clonidine NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
and NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
over NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
protocols NN O O
included NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
medications NN O O
for NN O O
muscle NN O O
cramps NN O O
, NN O O
insomnia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
. NN O O

Successfully NN O O
detoxified NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
referred NN O O
to NN O O
ongoing NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
opioid-addicted NN O I-PAR
IDUs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
AOD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
125 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
clonidine NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
clonidine/naltrexone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
clonidine NN O O
vs NN O O
clonidine/naltrexone NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
: NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
first NN O O
heroin NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
years NN O O
vs NN O O
23 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
craving NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
45/100 NN O O
vs NN O O
49/100 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
withdrawal NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
19/72 NN O O
vs NN O O
18/72 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
88/125 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
AODs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
successful NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
24/57 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
clonidine NN O O
and NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
64/68 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
clonidine/naltrexone NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
primary NN O O
care-based NN O O
AOD NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
by NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
providers NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
clonidine/naltrexone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
setting NN O O
than NN O O
is NN O O
clonidine NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Ambulatory NN O O
opioid NN O O
detoxification NN O O
can NN O O
give NN O O
internists NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
initiating NN O O
drug NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
IDUs NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
addicted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
opioids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7617857)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
parenchymal NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
measure NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
mammograms NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
hormonal NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Mammograms NN O I-INT
of NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
obtained NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
year NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
blindly NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
quantitative NN O O
density NN O O
percentage NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Wolfe NN O O
classification NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Mammographic NN O I-OUT
densities NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
increase NN O O
, NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
11.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
shift NN O O
in NN O O
Wolfe NN O O
classification NN O O
from NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
parenchymal NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
tissue NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
mammographic NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
continuous NN O I-PAR
combined NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
was NN O O
most NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
baseline NN O O
density NN O O
percentage NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7620474)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
meals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
facilitating NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
anorexia NN O I-PAR
nervosa NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
on NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Measures NN O O
included NN O O
scintigraphic NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
studies NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
meals NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
self-rating NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
eating NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

Gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
but NN O O
equally NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Yet NN O O
subjective NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cisapride NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
they NN O O
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
more NN O O
hungry NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
did NN O O
not NN O O
gain NN O O
more NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
modest NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
.30 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
emptying NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
subjective NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
virtually NN O O
absent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7635420)

Synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
interleukin-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
colchicine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PBC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
progressive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
cholestatic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interleukin-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
PBC NN O O
by NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
altered NN O O
immune NN O O
function NN O O
and NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
. NN O O

Colchicine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
has NN O O
some NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
PBC NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
affects NN O O
interleukin-1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
prospectively NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
synthesis NN O O
of NN O O
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
PBMC NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PBC NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
colchicine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PBMC NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
stimulated NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
with NN O O
phytohemagglutinin NN O O
( NN O O
PHA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
lipopolysaccharide NN O O
( NN O O
LPS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
epidermidis NN O O
, NN O O
recombinant NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
antigen NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
in NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Over NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histologic NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
stable NN O O
and NN O O
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
synthesis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
constitutively NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
immune-mediated NN O O
stimulants NN O O
( NN O O
PHA NN O O
, NN O O
IL-2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mitochondrial NN O O
antigen NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
bacterial NN O O
stimulants NN O O
LPS NN O O
or NN O O
S NN O O
epidermidis NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
, NN O O
PHA NN O O
induced NN O O
increases NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O O
( NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
colchicine NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
IL-2-induced NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
synthesis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
S NN O I-OUT
epidermidis-induced NN O I-OUT
IL-1 NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
enhanced NN O O
in NN O O
colchicine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
IL-1 NN O O
beta NN O O
production NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
relate NN O O
to NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
except NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
S NN O O
epidermidis 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- (7640140)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
non-invasive NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-INT
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
sex NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
short-term NN O O
and NN O O
day-to-day NN O O
variability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
technique NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
interferometry NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ocular NN O I-INT
fundus NN O I-INT
pulsations NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
non-invasive NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
quantification NN O O
of NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
additional NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
sex NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
20-33 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Simultaneous NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
haemodynamics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
interferometry NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
fundus NN O I-OUT
pulsations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
mechanocardiography NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a/b NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
oxymetric NN O I-OUT
fingerplethysmography NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
sonography NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cumulative NN O O
, NN O O
stepwise NN O O
increasing NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
phenylephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoprenaline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Laser NN O O
interferometry NN O O
detected NN O O
the NN O O
isoprenaline-effects NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
min-1 NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
signal-to-noise NN O O
ratio NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
measurements NN O O
under NN O O
baseline NN O O
was NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
systemically NN O O
effective NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
phenylephrine NN O O
or NN O O
sodium NN O O
nitroprusside NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O O
time NN O O
intervals NN O O
were NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
for NN O O
isoprenaline-induced NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
PEP NN O O
and NN O O
QS2c-measurements NN O O
had NN O O
high NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
. NN O O

Fingerplethysmography NN O O
proved NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
measurement NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vasodilating NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
nitroprusside NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
specific NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
low NN O O
reproducibility NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O O
from NN O O
Doppler NN O O
sonography NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O O
reproducibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
applied NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
sex NN O O
difference NN O O
for NN O O
several NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
under NN O O
baseline NN O O
conditions NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
under NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
% NN O O
-change NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

Laser NN O I-INT
interferometry NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
valuable NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
, NN O O
highly NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
pulse NN O O
pressure NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
battery NN O O
of NN O O
non-invasive NN O O
tests NN O O
appears NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
characterization NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Gender NN O O
differences NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
pose NN O O
a NN O O
relevant NN O O
problem NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7643653)

In NN O O
vivo NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
catheter-tip NN O I-INT
PO2 NN O I-INT
sensor NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
sampling NN O O
lumen NN O O
fabrication NN O O
. NN O O

Fabrication NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sampling NN O O
lumen NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
PO2 NN O I-INT
sensor NN O I-INT
is NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
mechanically NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
laser NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
sensor NN O I-OUT
data NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrin NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
138 NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
laser-cut NN O I-PAR
catheters NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
blocked NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
non-reading NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
laser-cut NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
differences NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
sensor NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
37.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
results NN O O
within NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.05 NN O O
kPa NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
within NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
kPa NN O O
of NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
blood NN O O
gas NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

Drift NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
within NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
kPa NN O O
h-1 NN O O
for NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
monitoring NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recalibration NN O I-OUT
occur NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
calibrations NN O O
. NN O O

Scanning NN O O
electron NN O O
micrographs NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
smaller NN O O
sampling NN O I-OUT
lumen NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
laser-cut NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
fibrin NN O I-OUT
deposition NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sampling NN O O
hole NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
low NN O O
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
problem NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
cost NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
system NN O O
is NN O O
usually NN O O
sufficient NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
purposes NN O O
, NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
calibration NN O O
is NN O O
checked NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7644960)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O O
on NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O O
practitioner NN O O
( NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
analgesics NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physiotherapist NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUMMARY NN O O
OF NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
Exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
nonchronic NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
back NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
opinion NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
nonspecific NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
paid NN O I-PAR
job NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
checked NN O O
monthly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
From NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
363 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
gainfully NN O I-PAR
employed NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Indications NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
absence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
based NN O O
largely NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
absences NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
who NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
reported NN O O
sick NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absences NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
year NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Good NN O O
compliance NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Exercise NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
sickness NN O I-OUT
absence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7649753)

Are NN O O
PRO NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
screens NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
postdischarge NN O O
adverse NN O O
outcomes NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
possible NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
care NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
Peer NN O O
Review NN O O
Organizations NN O O
( NN O O
PROs NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DATA NN O O
SOURCES/STUDY NN O O
SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
sources NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
generic NN O I-INT
screen NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
beneficiaries NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
July NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
June NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20,136 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
1987 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
Medicare NN O I-PAR
Provided NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Review NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEDPAR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
files NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-INT
Hospital NN O I-INT
Association NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AHA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1988 NN O I-INT
Annual NN O I-INT
Survey NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Hospitals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Multivariate NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
generic NN O O
discharge NN O O
administered NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
PROs NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
patient NN O O
outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
readmission NN O O
within NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
patient NN O O
characteristics NN O O
recorded NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
uniform NN O O
discharge NN O O
abstract NN O O
. NN O O

PRINCIPAL NN O O
FINDINGS NN O O
Four NN O O
discharge NN O O
screens NN O O
indicated NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
outcome-absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
documentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
planning NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
unaddressed NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
three NN O O
discharge NN O O
screens NN O O
examined-abnormal NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
fluids NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
discharge-were NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
postdischarge NN O O
adverse NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Generic NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
screens NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
inadequate NN O O
discharge NN O O
planning NN O O
, NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
unaddressed NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
important NN O O
indicators NN O O
of NN O O
substandard NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
discharge NN O O
screens NN O O
apparently NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
detect NN O O
errors NN O O
in NN O O
care NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O O
consequences NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7654128)

Failure NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
mentally NN O I-PAR
retarded NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
studies NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
self-injurious NN O O
behavior NN O O
( NN O O
SIB NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
overactivity NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
opioid NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
opioid NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
SIB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
mentally NN O I-PAR
retarded NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
mentally NN O I-PAR
retarded NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
SIB NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Active NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
first NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
100-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subsequently NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
with NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O O
observations NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
11 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
list NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-two NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
SIB NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
with NN O O
SIB NN O O
) NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
have NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
SIB NN O O
and NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
contrary NN O O
, NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
care NN O O
staff NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
50-mg/d NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
worse NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
broad NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
mentally NN O O
retarded NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
SIB NN O O
and/or NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7655889)

Movement-related NN O I-INT
potentials NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Presence NN O O
and NN O O
predictability NN O O
of NN O O
temporal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spatial NN O I-INT
cues NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
inferred NN O O
from NN O O
movement-related NN O I-INT
potentials NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MRPs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
which NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
preparation NN O O
and NN O O
execution NN O O
of NN O O
voluntary NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
internally NN O O
determined NN O O
movements NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
activity NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
abnormal NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
since NN O O
its NN O O
major NN O O
input NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
is NN O O
disrupted NN O O
. NN O O

Investigation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
activity NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
movement NN O O
deficits NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
reveal NN O O
functions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
. NN O O

Movement-related NN O I-INT
potentials NN O I-INT
associated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sequential NN O I-INT
movements NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
investigated NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
various NN O I-INT
cueing NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
MRPs NN O O
revealed NN O O
involvement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
in NN O O
movements NN O O
which NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
internally NN O O
determined NN O O
( NN O I-INT
non-cued NN O I-INT
and NN O O
externally NN O I-INT
cued NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
predictable NN O I-INT
movements NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-INT
unpredictable NN O I-INT
movements NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
movements NN O O
which NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
internally NN O O
determined NN O O
( NN O I-INT
non-cued NN O I-INT
movements NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O I-INT
externally NN O I-INT
cued NN O I-INT
movements NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
therefore NN O O
impaired NN O O
internal NN O O
control NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
operating NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
bypassed NN O O
when NN O O
external NN O I-INT
cues NN O I-INT
are NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
As NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
, NN O O
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
more NN O O
reliant NN O O
on NN O O
external NN O I-INT
cues NN O I-INT
and NN O O
are NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
predictive NN O O
models NN O O
to NN O O
internally NN O O
guide NN O O
movement NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
involvement NN O O
also NN O O
relied NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
predictability NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
presence NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
timing NN O I-INT
cues NN O I-INT
and NN O O
not NN O I-INT
spatial NN O I-INT
cues NN O I-INT
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
and NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
organizations NN O O
of NN O O
sequential NN O O
movement NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
programming NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
movements NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
non-cued NN O I-INT
movements NN O O
, NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
MRPs NN O O
for NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
subjects NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
MRP NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
cortical NN O O
activity NN O O
following NN O O
movement NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
observations NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
proposed NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
supplementary NN O O
motor NN O O
area NN O O
, NN O O
involving NN O O
the NN O O
temporal NN O O
organization NN O O
of NN O O
voluntary NN O O
and NN O O
internally NN O O
determined NN O O
sequential NN O O
movements NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7670096)

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
I/II NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
in NN O O
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birthweight NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
significant NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
circulatory NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
, NN O O
monocytes NN O O
, NN O O
platelets NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
. NN O O

Neonates NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birthweight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
VLBW NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
nosocomial NN O O
infections NN O O
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
deficiencies NN O O
in NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
previously NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O O
colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
) NN O O
production NN O O
and NN O O
mRNA NN O O
expression NN O O
from NN O O
stimulated NN O O
neonatal NN O O
mononuclear NN O O
cells NN O O
are NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
from NN O O
adult NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
murine NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
to NN O O
neonatal NN O O
rats NN O O
has NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
neutrophilia NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
production NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
survival NN O O
of NN O O
pups NN O O
during NN O O
experimental NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
sepsis 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
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
biologic NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhu NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
VLBW NN O O
neonates NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
VLBW NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
500 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1,500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
at NN O O
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
via NN O O
2-hour NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O O
blood NN O O
counts NN O O
, NN O O
differential NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
platelet NN O O
counts NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
tibial NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
aspirate NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Neutrophil NN O O
C3bi NN O O
receptor NN O O
expression NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

GM-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
sandwich NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O O
immunosorbent NN O O
assay NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
all NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ANC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
10.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
continued NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
of NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
When NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O O
was NN O O
normalized NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
first NN O O
ANC NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ANC NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
days NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
tested NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
monocyte NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AMC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
neonates NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
additionally NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tibial NN O O
bone NN O O
marrow NN O O
aspirates NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
storage NN O I-OUT
pool NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BM NN O I-OUT
NSP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
10.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Neutrophil NN O I-OUT
C3bi NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
expression NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O I-INT
at NN O O
5.0 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
elimination NN O O
half-life NN O O
( NN O O
T1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
rhuGM-CSF NN O O
was NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
3.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
400 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7672876)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
Contractubex NN O O
gel NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
fresh NN O I-PAR
scars NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Scar NN O O
development NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
topically NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Contractubex NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Merz NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Co. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
D-Frankfurt/Main NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
onion NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50/U NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
allantoin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
began NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O I-INT
26 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
year NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
scars NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
untreated NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
monthly NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
appearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
colour NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
scar NN O I-OUT
width NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Contractubex-treated NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
, NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
skin-coloured NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Hypertrophic NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
keloidal NN O I-OUT
scars NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
less NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
scar NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
scar NN O I-OUT
height NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen 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
observation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
scar NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
bad NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
Contractubex NN O O
gel NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
scar NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7673658)

Cyproheptadine NN O O
augmentation NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
6 NN O O
week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O I-INT
augmentation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
ongoing NN O I-PAR
haloperidol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
in-patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cyproheptadine NN O O
augmentation NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
psychotic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cyproheptadine NN O O
augmentation NN O O
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
atypical NN O O
profile NN O O
of NN O O
antipsychotics NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
neuroendocrinological NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
augmentation NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
did NN O O
induce NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
cyproheptadine NN O O
augmentation NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
schizophrenic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
intolerant NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
extrapyramidal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
antipsychotics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7674231)

Cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
somatomedin NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
insulin-like NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
chronic NN O O
rheumatic NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
anabolic NN O O
hormones NN O O
that NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
musculoskeletal NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
active NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
cells NN O O
changed NN O O
during NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CysA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
20 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
and NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
psoriatic NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PsA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
RA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
PsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
CysA NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hydroxychloroquine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OH-Chlor NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
divided NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
insulin-like NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
somatomedin NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
Gla NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shown NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CysA NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OH-Chlor NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dehydroepiandrosterone NN O I-OUT
sulphate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DHEAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O I-PAR
finding NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
further NN O I-PAR
series NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
OH-D NN O O
, NN O O
1-25 NN O O
( NN O O
OH NN O O
) NN O O
2-D3 NN O O
or NN O O
parathyroid NN O O
hormone NN O O
after NN O O
CysA NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
CysA NN O O
on NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
may NN O O
explain NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
immunologic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
results NN O O
during NN O O
CysA NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatic NN O O
diseases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7676782)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
eltanolone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
termination NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eltanolone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
steroid NN O O
hypnotic NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
thiopental NN O O
in NN O O
short NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty NN O I-PAR
unpremedicated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Asa NN O I-PAR
1-2 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
eltanolone NN O I-INT
0.6 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
E1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
E2 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
minute NN O O
before NN O O
induction NN O O
glycopyrrolate NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
alfentanil NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
micrograms.kg-1 NN O I-INT
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
induction NN O O
failed NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
boluses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Anaesthesia NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
with NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
bolus NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
drug NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O

Recovery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
nurse NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
agent NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
s.d NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
doss NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
E1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
E2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.0 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
T NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Induction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
E1 NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other 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

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
few NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
involuntary NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
movements NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hypertonus NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eltanolone NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thiopental NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
n.s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slower NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
eltanolone NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
thiopental NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
toleration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
fluids NN O O
, NN O O
walking NN O O
, NN O O
voiding NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesic NN O O
requirements NN O O
or NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting 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- (7680306)

[ NN O O
Late NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

49 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
43.7 NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
21-65 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
Doppler NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
a NN O O
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
5.37 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2-10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
end NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
COPP/ABVD NN O I-PAR
scheme NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
mediastinal NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
possible NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
myocardium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pericardium NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
valves NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
sequelae NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Maximal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
integrated NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ei NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ai NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
velocities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
E/A NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Ei/Ai NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
pulsed NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
mitral NN O O
and NN O O
tricuspid NN O O
valves NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
on NN O O
two-dimensional NN O O
echo NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
42.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
valvar NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
19 NN O O
( NN O O
38.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
pericardial NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
9 NN O O
( NN O O
18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
fibre NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O O
controls NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
hearts NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morphological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
various NN O O
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
mediastinal NN O O
radiation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
successfully NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
described NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
of NN O O
minor NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7692109)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
chemoprophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostatectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
599 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
urological NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostatectomy NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
197 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
ceftriaxone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
gm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
203 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
160/800 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
199 NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
antimicrobial NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
preoperative NN O I-PAR
indwelling NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
infectious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
of NN O O
197 NN O O
( NN O O
7.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
203 NN O O
( NN O O
12.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
of NN O O
199 NN O O
( NN O O
21.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
highly NN O O
significant 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
between NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
it NN O O
was 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

Single-dose NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
infectious NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
transurethral NN O I-PAR
prostatectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7699494)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
1- NN O O
and NN O O
3-minute NN O O
lockout NN O O
periods NN O O
during NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-PAR
sedation NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
midazolam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
maximum NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
injected NN O O
intravenously NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
about NN O O
3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Patient-controlled NN O O
sedation NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
1-mg NN O O
increments NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
at NN O O
3-minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
provides NN O O
comparable NN O O
conditions NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
doctor-controlled NN O O
sedation NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
with NN O O
1-mg NN O O
increments NN O O
at NN O O
1-minute NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
sedation NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
surgery 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
find NN O O
out NN O O
how NN O O
safe NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
to NN O O
shorten NN O O
the NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
increments NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
to NN O O
1 NN O O
minute NN O O
in NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
third NN O I-PAR
molar NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
visits NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
sedation NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
increments NN O O
at NN O O
1-minute NN O I-INT
or NN O O
3-minute NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
at NN O O
one NN O O
visit NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
visit NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
time NN O O
taken NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
they NN O O
thought NN O O
was NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
tolerate NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
increment NN O O
interval NN O O
was NN O O
3 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
t NN O O
= NN O O
-4.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
techniques NN O O
provided NN O O
good NN O O
operating NN O I-OUT
conditions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
stable NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
sedation NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
contact NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
significant NN O O
majority NN O O
preferred NN O O
the NN O O
sedation NN O O
technique NN O O
with NN O O
1-minute NN O O
increment NN O O
intervals NN O O
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
4.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7704288)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
insulin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
norepinephrine NN O O
spillover NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
obese NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normoglycemic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
insulin NN O O
resistance NN O O
, NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
obese NN O I-PAR
insulin NN O I-PAR
resistant NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
normoglycemic NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
investigated NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
BMI NN O I-PAR
27.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
SEM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
850 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.i.d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GIR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
radioisotope NN O I-OUT
dilution NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
during NN O O
euglycemic NN O O
hyperinsulinemic NN O O
clamp NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2 NN O O
mU/l NN O O
and NN O O
fasting NN O O
glucose NN O O
5.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
and NN O O
5.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mmol/l NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
metformin NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

GIR NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
hour NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
clamp NN O O
was NN O O
3.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
x NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Resting NN O I-OUT
MSA NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
right NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
spillover NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
151 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10/95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
146 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5/94 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
after NN O O
metformin NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
metformin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Renal NN O O
plasma NN O O
flow NN O O
and NN O O
MSA NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
insulin NN O O
clamp NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
renal NN O O
NE NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
body NN O O
NE NN O O
spillover NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
nonuniform NN O O
regional NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
nerve NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
hyperinsulinemia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7705531)

Expectant NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
of NN O O
functional NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
facilitates NN O O
the NN O O
disappearance NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
formed NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
revealed NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mobile NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
unilocular NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
thin-walled NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
echoes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
exceeding NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
by NN O O
stratification NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
multiphasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
re-evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
ages NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
cyst NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptive NN O O
administration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
disappearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
cysts NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
expectant NN O O
management NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
multiphasic NN O O
pills NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
cysts NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
expectant NN O O
management NN O O
achieves NN O O
similar NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7706148)

Teaching NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
autism NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
seek NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
acquisition NN O O
of NN O O
novel NN O O
information NN O O
and NN O O
generalization NN O O
of NN O O
responding NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
delay NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
teach NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
autism NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ask NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
question NN O I-INT
What NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
? NN O I-INT
when NN O I-INT
novel NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
instructional NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Once NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
ask NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
was NN O O
acquired NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
's NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
learn NN O O
novel NN O O
information NN O O
by NN O O
asking NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
ask NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
less NN O O
structured NN O O
context NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
studies NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
multiple NN O O
baseline NN O O
across NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Generalization NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
person NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
novel NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
learned NN O O
to NN O O
ask NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
instructional NN O O
context NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
walk NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
school NN O O
building NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
request NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
three-dimensional NN O O
objects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
acquisition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
information NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
consistent NN O O
for NN O O
receptive NN O O
and NN O O
expressive NN O O
tests NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
varied NN O O
results NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
3rd NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
studies NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
taught NN O O
to NN O O
ask NN O O
questions NN O O
that NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
acquisition NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7707405)

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
increase NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
syndromes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
scans NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
other NN O O
retrospective NN O O
data NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
brain NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
late-occurring NN O I-OUT
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
delivering NN O O
24 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O O
fractions NN O O
during NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
no NN O I-INT
prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
examination NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
scan NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brain NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
repeatedly NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Patterns NN O O
of NN O O
failure NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
total NN O O
event NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
isolated NN O O
first NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
competing-risk NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
an NN O O
isolated NN O O
first NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-6 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
2-year NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
67 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
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
-13 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
2-year NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
21.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
= NN O O
0.83 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
computed NN O O
tomography NN O O
brain NN O O
scans NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prophylactic NN O I-INT
cranial NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
given NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
brain NN O O
metastasis NN O O
threefold NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
possible NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
statistical NN O O
power NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
favor NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
indication NN O O
of NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
cranial NN O O
irradiation NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
confirmatory NN O O
trials NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
assess NN O O
late-occurring NN O O
toxic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
possible NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
needs NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
trials NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7708953)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
breast NN O O
size NN O O
on NN O O
late NN O O
radiation NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
dose NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
appearance NN O O
in NN O O
559 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
tumour NN O I-INT
excision NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
noted NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
3/48 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
small NN O O
breasts NN O O
developed NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
late NN O O
changes NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
94/423 NN O O
( NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
medium NN O O
sized NN O O
breasts NN O O
and NN O O
34/88 NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
large NN O O
breasts NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
possibility NN O O
is NN O O
that NN O O
greater NN O O
radiation NN O O
changes NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
greater NN O O
dose NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
large NN O O
breasts NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
explore NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
radiation NN O O
dose NN O O
distributions NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
separate NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
three-level NN O O
transverse NN O O
computer NN O O
tomographic NN O O
images NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
breast NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
position NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
breast NN O O
size NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
inhomogeneity NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
marked NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O O
appearance NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
large NN O O
breasts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7712308)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
enzymes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus-related NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UDCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
enzyme NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
gamma-glutamyl NN O I-OUT
transferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
101 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
virus-related NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
UDCA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
450 NN O I-PAR
mg/day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
52 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
UDCA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
. NN O O

ALT NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
157.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
62.6 NN O O
IU/l NN O O
to NN O O
82.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
46.4 NN O O
IU/l 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
GGT NN O O
fell NN O O
from NN O O
141.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
86.2 NN O O
IU/l NN O O
to NN O O
66.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
49.5 NN O O
IU/l NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
ALT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GGT NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Although NN O O
our NN O O
encouraging NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
validated NN O O
by NN O O
double-blind NN O O
histological NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
UDCA NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
fail NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
respond NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7714229)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cholinomimetic NN O I-INT
SDZ NN O I-INT
ENS-163 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
scopolamine-induced NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Scopolamine-induced NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
nervous NN O O
system NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
cholinomimetic NN O I-INT
SDZ NN O I-INT
ENS-163 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eighteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
placebo/intravenous NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
SDZ NN O I-INT
ENS-163/intravenous NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
placebo/0.4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
SDZ NN O I-INT
ENS-163/0.4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O O
with NN O O
scopolamine NN O O
caused NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Computerized NN O I-OUT
Neuropsychological NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
Battery NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CNTB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
salivation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
SDZ NN O O
ENS-163 NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
CNTB NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
salivation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Despite NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
cholinomimetic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
SDZ NN O O
ENS-163 NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CNTB NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
salivation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
indistinguishable NN O O
between NN O O
placebo/scopolamine NN O O
and NN O O
SDZ NN O O
ENS-163/scopolamine NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
SDZ NN O O
ENS-163 NN O O
has NN O O
cholinomimetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
normal NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
insufficient NN O O
to NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
muscarinic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.4 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
scopolamine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7733183)

Dose-related NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
progression NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
foscarnet NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
AIDS NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
Protocol NN O O
915 NN O O
Team NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
previous NN O O
dose-ranging NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
foscarnet NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
but NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
confirm NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
first NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
retrospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
progression NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
retina NN O O
destroyed NN O O
when NN O O
progression NN O O
occurs NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
given NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
foscarnet NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
( NN O O
90 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight/day NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
FOS-90 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
] NN O O
or NN O O
120 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
weight/day NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
FOS-120 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
] NN O O
after NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
photographs NN O O
and NN O O
pre-established NN O O
definitions NN O O
and NN O O
methodology NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
masked NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
posterior NN O O
progression NN O O
rates NN O O
and NN O O
foveal NN O O
proximity NN O O
rates NN O O
for NN O O
individual NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
selected NN O O
by NN O O
prospectively NN O O
defined NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Rates NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
following NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
FOS-90 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
N NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
FOS-120 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
greatest NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
enlarged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
posterior NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
43.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
12.5 NN O O
microns/day NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
posterior NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
closest NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
fovea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
42.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
5.5 NN O O
microns/day NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.010 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
foveal NN O I-OUT
proximity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
either NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
32.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.4 NN O O
microns/day NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.031 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
foscarnet NN O I-INT
have NN O O
slower NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
progression NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
less NN O O
retinal NN O O
tissue NN O O
damage NN O O
during NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
foscarnet NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight/day NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight/day NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
preserve NN O O
vision NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cytomegalovirus NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7733424)

The NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutritional NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
following NN O O
work-site NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
screening 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
following NN O O
a NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
screening NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
work-sites NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
special NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
behaviorally NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
cholesterol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
retested NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
per-person NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
educational NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
about NN O O
$ NN O O
50 NN O O
. NN O O

Cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
little NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
intervention NN O O
groups NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
screening NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
special NN O O
intervention NN O O
worksites NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
those NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
intervention NN O O
worksites NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
drop NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
a NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
special NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
behaviorally NN O I-INT
based NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
following NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
screening NN O O
can NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
meaningful NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
long-term NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
. NN O O

Nutrition NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
in NN O O
work-sites NN O O
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
way NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
communities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7739439)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

An NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
33 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
osteomyelitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
drainage NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sterile NN O I-INT
physiologic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
applied NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
antibiotic NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
added NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
sterile NN O I-INT
physiologic NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
C NN O O
reactive NN O O
protein NN O O
( NN O O
CRP NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
later NN O O
on NN O O
every NN O O
third NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
3rd NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
21st NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
established NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
similarity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CRP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
points NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
mechanical NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
through NN O O
drainage NN O O
is NN O O
dominant NN O O
, NN O O
speaking NN O O
about NN O O
rinsing NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
eliminating NN O O
necrotic NN O O
tissues NN O O
and NN O O
small NN O O
sequesters NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7755996)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
biplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
in NN O O
structure NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
transesophageal NN O I-PAR
echocardiography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
imaging NN O I-OUT
capability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
multiplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
, NN O O
317 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
transesophageal NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Images NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
cardiac NN O O
structures NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
graded NN O O
prospectively NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
three-grade NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
multiplane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
biplane NN O I-INT
probes NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
visualization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
structures NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Doppler NN O I-OUT
signals NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
multiplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
biplane NN O O
probe NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
esophageal NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
all NN O O
failed NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
multiplane NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7761011)

[ NN O O
Postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
: NN O O
peridural NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparative NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
herein NN O O
present NN O O
their NN O O
personal NN O O
series NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
opiodes NN O O
, NN O O
peridural NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
sublingual NN O I-INT
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
to NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
post-operative NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
major NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
classified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
an NN O O
overlapping NN O O
progression NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Spontaneous NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
significantly NN O O
to NN O O
zero NN O O
at NN O O
T6 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
necessity NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
buprenorphine NN O I-INT
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
sixth NN O O
hour NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
consequent NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
lead NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
believe NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
more NN O O
advantageous NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7774537)

Diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
status NN O O
among NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
Pakistani NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Oslo NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
nutritional NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
Pakistani NN O I-PAR
immigrant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Norwegian NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
survey NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
18th NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Aker NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Ullev?l NN O I-PAR
Hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Norway NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O I-PAR
All NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Pakistani NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
Norwegian NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
84 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D3 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Pakistanis NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
Norwegians NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
19 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
vs NN O O
55 NN O O
nmol/l 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
83 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Pakistani NN O O
women NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D3 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
below NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
value NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Pakistanis NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
parathyroid NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
2.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
1.6 NN O O
pmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Pakistanis NN O O
also NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
D NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Norwegians NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
2.2 NN O O
vs NN O O
3.3 NN O O
micrograms/day 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
a NN O O
lower NN O O
total NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
supplements NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
2.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
7.0 NN O O
micrograms/day NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
Pakistanis NN O O
a NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
margarine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O O
main NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O O
D3 NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
, NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.48 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Pakistanis NN O O
avoided NN O O
any NN O O
direct NN O O
sunshine NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O I-OUT
outdoor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
25-hydroxyvitamin NN O I-OUT
D3 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Pakistani NN O O
women NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
Norwegians NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
793 NN O O
vs NN O O
1134 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
Pakistani NN O O
women NN O O
living NN O O
in NN O O
Oslo NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
great NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
vitamin NN O O
D NN O O
deficiency NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
are NN O O
avoidance NN O O
of NN O O
sun NN O O
exposure NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
dietary NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
D NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O O
no NN O O
or NN O O
little NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7799030)

Cytokine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-INT
limb NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PURPOSE NN O O
Isolated NN O I-INT
limb NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ILP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
tumor NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TNF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
high NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
extremity NN O O
melanoma NN O O
and NN O O
sarcoma NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
TNF NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
mediators NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extremity NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sarcoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
underwent NN O O
90-minute NN O O
ILP NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TNF-alpha NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
to NN O O
13 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
of NN O O
limb NN O O
volume NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O I-INT
TNF/IFN/M NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
M NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
monitoring NN O O
( NN O O
CIM NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
leak NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
perfusion NN O O
circuit NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
radioactive NN O O
iodine-131 NN O I-INT
albumin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Cytokine NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
perfusate NN O O
and NN O O
systemic NN O O
circulation NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
ILP NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
enzyme-linked NN O I-INT
immunosorbent NN O I-INT
assay NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Systemic NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
perfusion NN O I-OUT
circuit NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
TNF/IFN/M NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
M NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Hypotension NN O I-OUT
that NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
vasopressor NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
leak NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
zero NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
leak NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
TNF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
perfusion NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
leak NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
and NN O O
8.2 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
v NN O O
0.7 NN O O
and NN O O
2.0 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
TNF/IFN/M NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
interleukin-6 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
M NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
12,395 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10,374 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
v NN O O
79.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.2 NN O O
pg/mL NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intracellular NN O I-OUT
adhesion NN O I-OUT
molecule NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICAM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IL-8 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TNF-R NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
ILP NN O O
with NN O O
TNF/IFN/M NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
ILP NN O O
with NN O O
TNF/IFN/M NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
safely NN O O
performed NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
I131 NN O O
albumin NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
sensitive NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
leakage NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
perfusion NN O O
circuit NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
measured NN O O
leak NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
develop NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
postoperative NN O O
hypotension NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
systemic NN O O
TNF NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
perfusate NN O O
TNF NN O O
levels NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
leaks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7801065)

Low NN O O
power NN O O
Ga-Al-As NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
painful NN O I-OUT
osteoarthritis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O I-INT
power NN O I-INT
Ga-Al-As NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
on NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periarticular NN O I-PAR
tender NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
uni- NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
effect NN O I-PAR
variables NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
palpation NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
isokinetic NN O I-OUT
quadriceps NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
9 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
registered NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
nine NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
periarticular NN O O
tender NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
dose NN O O
per NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
22.5 NN O O
joule NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
overall NN O O
assessment NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
clearly NN O O
demonstrable NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7806134)

Lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
different NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
serum NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
[ NN O O
Lp NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
levels NN O O
by NN O O
administering NN O O
estrogens NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
a.m. NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
p.m. NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
twenty-four NN O I-PAR
post-menopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
random NN O O
sampling NN O O
numbers NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
0.625 NN O O
mg NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
per NN O O
os NN O O
for NN O O
21 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
: NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
pill NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
a.m. NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
: NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
pill NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
p.m NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
regards NN O O
the NN O O
anthropometric NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
basal NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
steroid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pituitary NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
conjugated NN O I-INT
equine NN O I-INT
estrogens NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
decreased NN O O
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
different NN O O
Lp NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
behaviour NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
serum NN O O
hormonal NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
existence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
circadian NN O O
rhythm NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hepatic NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
estrogens NN O O
, NN O O
whose NN O O
expression NN O O
is NN O O
higher NN O O
during NN O O
evening NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7809641)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
plastic NN O I-INT
cast NN O I-INT
fixation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
loco NN O I-PAR
classico NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
fracture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
functional NN O O
and NN O O
radiological NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
positions NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
wrist NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
plaster NN O I-INT
cast NN O I-INT
following NN O O
Colles NN O O
' NN O O
fracture NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
2.2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
3.3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
2.2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AO NN O I-PAR
classification NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
radius NN O I-PAR
was 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

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
way NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
reduction NN O O
were NN O O
concerned NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
only NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
lay NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
of NN O O
fixation NN O O
in NN O O
plaster NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
the NN O O
wrist NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
immobilized NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
neutral NN O I-INT
flexion-extension NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
the NN O O
wrist NN O O
was NN O O
dorsiflexed NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
carpus NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
pushed NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
volar NN O I-INT
direction NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
impression NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
plaster NN O I-INT
cast NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
review NN O O
2-7 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
accidents NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
wrist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
closure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
radiographic NN O I-OUT
appearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
5 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
significant NN O I-PAR
disability NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
flexion NN O O
and NN O O
ulnar NN O O
abduction 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
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
clenching NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
injured NN O O
and NN O O
healthy NN O O
hand NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
6.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3.8 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
radiographic NN O O
examination NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
sagittal NN O O
inclination NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
radial NN O O
shortening NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7810153)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
on NN O O
delayed NN O O
colonic NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autonomic NN O I-PAR
regulation NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
complain NN O O
of NN O O
dysphagia NN O O
and NN O O
therapy NN O O
resistant NN O O
constipation NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
is NN O O
concerned NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
symptoms NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
neuronal NN O O
degeneration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
we NN O O
therefore NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
myenteric NN O O
plexus NN O O
by NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
67.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Webster NN O I-PAR
rating NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
2 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
colonic NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
limit NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
other NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
acceleration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
On NN O O
average NN O O
the NN O O
colonic NN O I-OUT
transit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
130 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
79 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
objective NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
subjective NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Central NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
worsening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Parkinsonian NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
cisapride NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
constipation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
PD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7814161)

Physiological NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
physiological NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
recruiting NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
fitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
physiological NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
paced NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
Mobitz NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Double NN O O
blind NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
comparing NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
measuring NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
6-min NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
climb NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
flights NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stairs NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
living NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
atrioventricular NN O I-INT
synchronous NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
atrioventricular NN O I-INT
synchronous NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
ventricular NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
360 NN O O
+/- NN O O
65 NN O O
m NN O O
vs. NN O O
327 NN O O
+/- NN O O
69 NN O O
m 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 I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
climb NN O I-OUT
stairs NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
19 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
in NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
increasing NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
with NN O O
ventricular NN O O
. NN O O

Physiological NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
produces NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improves NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
alone NN O O
should NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
contraindication NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
physiological NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7814306)

Vigorous NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
activities NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
on NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
antecedent NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
on NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
profound NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
behaviors NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
environment NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
non-exercise NN O I-INT
conditions NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
From NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
selected NN O O
subsequently NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
community-integrated NN O O
vocational NN O O
task NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
antecedent NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
controlled NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
less NN O O
vigorous NN O O
antecedent NN O O
conditions NN O O
did NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
preceded NN O O
the NN O O
vocational NN O O
task NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
individual NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
antecedent NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Use NN O O
of NN O O
antecedent NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
maladaptive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stereotypic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
retardation NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
supported NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7815983)

[ NN O O
Carbohydrate NN O O
substitutes NN O O
: NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
intestinal NN O I-PAR
absorption NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fructose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sorbitol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xylitol NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
carbohydrate NN O O
substitutes NN O O
fructose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sorbitol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xylitol NN O I-INT
are NN O O
gaining NN O O
more NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

But NN O O
they NN O O
can NN O O
provoke NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
side-effects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
malabsorption NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
sugars NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
25 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
sugar NN O I-INT
within NN O O
3 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
determined NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
H2-exhalation NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
malabsorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
sorbitol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
fructose NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
xylitol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
for NN O O
sorbitol NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
fructose NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
xylitol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

57 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
pathological NN O O
H2-test NN O O
after NN O O
sorbitol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
fructose NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
malabsorbers NN O O
of NN O O
xylitol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
administering NN O O
xylitol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fructose NN O I-INT
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
concomitant NN O O
symptoms NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
sorbitol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
H2-exhalation NN O O
tests NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
tool NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-OUT
malabsorption NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
should NN O O
find NN O O
broader NN O O
application NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
non-specific NN O O
abdominal NN O O
complaints NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7820060)

Interferon NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
hairy NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
update NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1986 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
report NN O O
follow-up NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
hairy NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
leukemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HCL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
alfa-2b NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IFN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1986 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
through NN O O
April NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
only NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
expired NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-seven NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
61 NN O O
patients NN O O
completing NN O O
the NN O O
intended NN O O
12 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
eventually NN O O
considered NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
failures NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-three NN O O
required NN O O
re-treatment NN O O
( NN O O
41 NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
pentostatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O O
without NN O O
further NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
HCL NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
failure NN O O
was NN O O
31.3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O O
patients NN O O
are NN O O
alive NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
required NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
their NN O O
initial NN O O
12 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifteen NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
IFN NN O I-INT
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
eventually NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pentostatin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ten NN O O
with NN O O
2-chlorodeoxyadenosine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2-CdA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirteen NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
malignancy NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
six NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
malignancy NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
44.6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
99.1 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
palliation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
that NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
eventually NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Future NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
HCL NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
aware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
malignancies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7824501)

[ NN O O
New NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
nonspecific NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
provocation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
dose-response NN O O
relationship NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
bronchial NN O I-PAR
hyperreactivity NN O I-PAR
within NN O O
the NN O O
scope NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
drug NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
bronchial NN O I-PAR
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
unspecific NN O O
inhalatory NN O O
provocation NN O O
tests NN O O
are NN O O
generally NN O O
employed NN O O
to NN O O
judge NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
parameter-specific NN O O
provocation NN O O
doses NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
target NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
provocation NN O O
doses NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
equally NN O O
calculable NN O O
for NN O O
every NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
way NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
examination NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
evaluable NN O O
case NN O O
studies NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
appreciably NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
test NN O O
participants NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
meaningful NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
comparison NN O O
may NN O O
even NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
under NN O O
certain NN O O
circumstances NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
evaluation NN O I-PAR
model NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
presented NN O O
here NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
fully NN O O
exploit NN O O
the NN O O
obtained NN O O
data NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
the NN O O
percentile NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
linear NN O O
regression NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
defined NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
provocation NN O O
substance NN O O
are NN O O
analyzed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
analogy NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
supplement NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
best NN O O
case/worst NN O O
case NN O O
analysis NN O O
are NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
statistical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
evaluation NN O O
with NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
test NN O O
participants NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
previously NN O O
used NN O O
evaluation NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
allows NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
statistical NN O O
confirmation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
bronchial NN O I-PAR
hyperresponsiveness NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7825420)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
timolol/pilocarpine NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
drops NN O O
in NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
, NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
combination NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
containing NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Fotil NN O O
, NN O O
Leiras NN O O
, NN O O
Finland NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Timpilo NN O O
, NN O O
MSD NN O O
, NN O O
USA NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
daytime NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressure NN O O
curve NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
by NN O O
examining NN O O
visual NN O O
fields NN O O
, NN O O
visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
, NN O O
optic NN O O
discs NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
determining NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
and NN O O
pulse NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
performing NN O O
Schirmer NN O O
and NN O O
fluorescein NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
10-week NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
pilocarpine NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
7.48 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
for NN O O
Fotil NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6.31 NN O O
for NN O O
Timpilo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
29.3 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Fotil NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
Timpilo NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
70 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
89 NN O O
patients NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
severe NN O O
enough NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
discontinued NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
others NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
of NN O O
transient NN O O
nature NN O O
and NN O O
considered NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
burning NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
Fotil NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
blurring NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
light NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
Timpilo NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
contraindication NN O O
to NN O O
beta-blockers NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
drugs NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
safe 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- (7826791)

Co-administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pethidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
spinal NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Co-administration NN O O
of NN O O
pethidine NN O I-INT
0.75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
intrathecally NN O O
provided NN O O
good NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
, NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
isobaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sensory NN O O
and NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
after NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
isobaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
isobaric NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
sensory NN O O
block NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
motor NN O O
block NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
patient-controlled NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
only NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
pethidine-clonidine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
median NN O O
39 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
median NN O O
34 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine-morphine NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
median NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/24 NN O O
h 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

Visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
operation NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
at NN O O
all NN O O
but NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
recording NN O O
times NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
offer NN O O
any NN O O
major NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7831455)

Scales NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
neuroleptic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
specific NN O O
measures NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
CPRS NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
article NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
psychometric NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
scales NN O O
for NN O O
rating NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
schizophrenic NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
consist NN O O
of NN O O
items NN O O
selected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O O
's NN O O
Psychiatric NN O O
Rating NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
CPRS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
contains NN O O
items NN O O
covering NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
childhood NN O O
psychopathology NN O O
. NN O O

CPRS NN O O
rating NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
19 NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
8.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
5.5-11.7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, 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
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
item NN O O
composition NN O O
and NN O O
coherence NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
scale NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
interrater NN O O
reliabilities NN O O
of NN O O
clinicians NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scales NN O O
for NN O O
resolving NN O O
treatment NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
both NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
both NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
neuroleptic NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7831456)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
and NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
weight NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
research NN O O
measured NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
behavioral NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
weight NN O O
in NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
41 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O I-INT
fixed NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
assignment NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
naltrexone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drug NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
gas NN O I-INT
chromatography/mass NN O I-INT
spectrometry NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
weights NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
levels NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.12 NN O O
to NN O O
5.60 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
0.71 NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
intellectual NN O O
functioning NN O O
, NN O O
scores NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Consensus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CPRS NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.06 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
receiving NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
weight NN O O
percentile NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
90th NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
lose NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
-0.42 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
case NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
weight NN O O
percentiles NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
+0.03 NN O O
kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7851604)

Profound NN O O
luteinizing NN O O
hormone NN O O
suppression NN O O
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
the NN O O
gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone-agonist NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
LH NN O O
during NN O O
continued NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
levels NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
LA NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Clinical NN O O
assisted NN O O
conception NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
stimulation NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
assisted NN O I-PAR
conception NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
according NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ultrashort NN O I-INT
protocols NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
alternative NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
then NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
thus NN O O
her NN O O
own NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
over NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
When NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
stopped NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
LH NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
profoundly NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
levels NN O O
when NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
was NN O O
continued NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Loss NN O O
of NN O O
LH NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O O
stimulation NN O O
regimens NN O O
that NN O O
use NN O O
pure NN O O
FSH NN O O
with NN O O
LA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
ultrashort NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
LH NN O I-OUT
lasts NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
explainable NN O O
by NN O O
persistent NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
GnRH NN O O
by NN O O
LA NN O O
during NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7857500)

Hypericum NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
depressions NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
somatic NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
somatic NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
hypericum NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
LI NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
therapy NN O O
lasted NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
was NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
criteria NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
: NN O O
HAMD NN O O
, NN O O
B-L NN O O
, NN O O
CGI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
vegetative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
level NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
LI NN O O
160 NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Typical NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
depression NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
lack NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tiredness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
disturbed NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
especially NN O O
responsive NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
case NN O O
were NN O O
any NN O O
undesirable NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7859140)

Safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
thymopentin NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AZT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-treated NN O I-PAR
asymptomatic NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
200-500 NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
cells/mm3 NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Thymopentin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
( NN O O
s.c. NN O O
) NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
, 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
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-treated NN O I-INT
asymptomatic NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
immunodeficiency NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HIV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-infected NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
200-500 NN O I-INT
CD4 NN O I-INT
cells/mm3 NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
entry NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
352 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
prestratified NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
stratum NN O I-INT
I NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
235 NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
> NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
entry NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stratum NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
117 NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
AZT NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
entry NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-INT
end NN O I-INT
points NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
p24 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
dissociated NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
p24 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
evaluated NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intent-to-treat NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
two NN O O
strata NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
individually NN O O
because NN O O
they NN O O
yielded NN O O
different NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcomes NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
treatment-by-stratum NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stratum NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
16 NN O O
months NN O O
AZT NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
) NN O O
two NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.024 NN O O
; NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
) NN O O
estimate NN O O
, NN O O
4.9 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
limit NN O O
( NN O O
CI NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
22.2 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
three NN O O
AIDS-related NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ARC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AIDS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
[ NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
RR NN O O
estimate NN O O
, NN O O
5.9 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
1.7 NN O O
to NN O O
20.0 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
stratum NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
AZT NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
ARC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AIDS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.79 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
p24 NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
laboratory NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
AZT-experienced NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
progression NN O O
rates NN O O
to NN O O
AIDS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ARC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AIDS NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
little NN O O
prior NN O O
AZT NN O O
experience NN O O
had NN O O
low NN O O
progression NN O O
rates NN O O
; NN O O
these NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
changed NN O O
by NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
thymopentin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7862876)

Neuroendocrine NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
5-HT NN O O
receptor NN O O
agonist NN O O
, NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
lowered NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
prolactin NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
differ NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
previously NN O O
described NN O O
5-HT-receptor NN O O
agonists NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
selective NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
5-HT1D NN O O
or NN O O
5-HT1B NN O O
receptors NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
data NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
exclude NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
neuroendocrine NN O O
changes NN O O
reflect NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
stress NN O O
responses NN O O
or NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
pituitary NN O O
blood NN O O
flow NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7865492)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
duodenal NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
24 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
( NN O O
H.pylori NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Du NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
upon NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
DU NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
190 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DU NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Four NN O O
different NN O O
methods-microscopy NN O O
of NN O O
Gram NN O I-OUT
stained NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
smear NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
culture NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biopsy NN O I-OUT
urease NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
E NN O I-OUT
staining-were NN O I-OUT
taken NN O O
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
colonization NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
finding NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-INT
cometidine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
colloidal NN O I-INT
bismuth NN O I-INT
subcitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CBS NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CBS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

To NN O O
detect NN O O
DU NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
gastroscopy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
cimetidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
the NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
CBS NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
double NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
44.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
89.3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
were NN O O
categorized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
later NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
group-one NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradicated NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
57.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
78.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
group-the NN O O
other NN O O
of NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
not NN O O
eradicated NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
DU NN O I-PAR
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
DU NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7871820)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
omega NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
on NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
peroxidation NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
by NN O O
breath NN O I-INT
ethane NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pentane NN O I-INT
output NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7873425)

Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
halothane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
baroreflex NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
humans NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7881024)

Gastric NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
human NN O I-INT
epidermal NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
introduced NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
epidermal NN O I-INT
growth NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
hEGF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
cetraxate NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
antiulcer NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
healing NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
also NN O O
prospected NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EGF NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
was NN O O
77.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
67/86 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
micrograms NN O I-PAR
EGF NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-PAR
twice NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
51.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
45/87 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
CH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Taking NN O O
together NN O O
all NN O O
aspects NN O O
assessed NN O O
including NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
judged NN O O
the NN O O
hEGF NN O I-INT
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
anticuler NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
rats NN O O
, NN O O
50 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
mouse NN O O
EGF NN O O
( NN O O
mEGF NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
hydroxypropyl NN O I-INT
cellulose NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HPC NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
1.0 NN O O
g/kg NN O O
sucralfate NN O O
given NN O O
by NN O O
gastric NN O O
intubation NN O O
significantly NN O O
raised NN O O
the NN O O
residual NN O I-OUT
mEGF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
gastric NN O O
luminal NN O O
content NN O O
( NN O O
HPC NN O O
: NN O O
x NN O O
30 NN O O
; NN O O
sucralfate NN O O
: NN O O
x NN O O
300 NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
as NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
EGF NN O O
alone NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
tissue NN O O
( NN O O
HPC NN O O
: NN O O
x NN O O
60 NN O O
; NN O O
sucralfate NN O O
: NN O O
x NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
treatments NN O O
significantly NN O O
promoted NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rat NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
whereas NN O O
each NN O O
agent NN O O
alone NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
saline NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
indicated NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
ulcers NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
EGF NN O I-INT
with NN O O
agents NN O O
allowing NN O O
it NN O O
to NN O O
remain NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stomach NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
most NN O O
reports NN O O
suggested NN O O
less NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
EGF NN O O
on NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
gastroduodenal NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
EGF NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
step NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
evidence NN O O
above NN O O
would NN O O
possibly NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
guide NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7881454)

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
multiple-dose NN O I-INT
bioequivalence NN O I-INT
studies NN O I-INT
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
repeated NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CMAX NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
concentration-time NN O O
profile NN O O
, NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
develop NN O O
a NN O O
bivariate NN O I-OUT
random NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
model NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
situation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
2 NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CMAX NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
assumes NN O O
no NN O O
differential NN O O
carryover NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
includes NN O O
components NN O O
for NN O O
inter- NN O O
and NN O O
intrasubject NN O O
variability NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
formulations NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
derive NN O O
the NN O O
uniformly NN O O
minimum NN O O
variance NN O O
unbiased NN O O
estimators NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
also NN O O
happen NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
restricted NN O O
maximum NN O O
likelihood NN O O
estimators NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
we NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
size NN O O
formula NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7881703)

Absolute NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
single-dose NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Medrol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
product NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
it NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
from NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
formulation NN O O
, NN O O
Solu-Medrol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
non-smoking NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
treatment NN O O
days NN O O
volunteers NN O O
remained NN O O
recumbent NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
and NN O O
fluid NN O O
intake NN O O
standardized NN O O
over NN O O
this NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Serial NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
14-hour NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
methylprednisolone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
high NN O O
performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
geometric NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
AUCi.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
AUCtablet NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4,049 NN O O
and NN O O
3,334 NN O O
ng.h/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
tablet NN O O
product NN O O
was NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
in NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
published NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
oral NN O O
dosage NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Volunteers NN O O
displayed NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
other NN O O
clinically NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hematology NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
chemistry NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
tablet NN O O
product NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
substitute NN O O
for NN O O
parenteral NN O O
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
situations NN O O
requiring NN O O
high-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7889896)

Long-stay NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
short-stay NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
protein-energy NN O I-PAR
malnutrition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
contrast NN O O
early NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
attempted NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hospital NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
protein-energy NN O I-PAR
malnutrition NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PEM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Field NN O O
experiment NN O O
, NN O O
two-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
with NN O O
one NN O O
between NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
short- NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
long-stay NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
repeated NN O I-PAR
measures NN O I-PAR
factor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
post-admission NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Covariates NN O O
introduced NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Kingston NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Jamaica NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
contribute NN O I-PAR
longitudinal NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
every NN O I-PAR
measurement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
When NN O O
concurrent NN O O
illnesses NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
treated NN O O
and NN O O
normal NN O O
feeding NN O O
re-established NN O O
( NN O O
weight NN O O
gain NN O O
5 NN O O
g/kg.day-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
short-stay NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
long-stay NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
LS NN O I-INT
retained NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
hospital NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
nutritional NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
mean NN O O
40 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

SS NN O I-INT
discharged NN O I-INT
immediately NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
18 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Service NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
high-energy NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.31 NN O O
MJ NN O O
with NN O O
20.6 NN O O
g NN O O
protein NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
discharge NN O O
LS NN O I-INT
received NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
home NN O O
care NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
without NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significant NN O O
advantages NN O O
for NN O O
LS NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
NCHS NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
length NN O O
also NN O O
30 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Weight NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
peaked NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
length NN O O
later NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Contrary NN O O
to NN O O
earlier NN O O
reports NN O O
, NN O O
full NN O O
nutritional NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
hospital NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
PEM NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
move NN O O
towards NN O O
expected NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
home NN O O
community NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
approximately NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
is NN O O
developmentally NN O O
advantageous NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
critical NN O O
time NN O O
after NN O O
weaning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7892971)

Peritonsillar NN O O
infiltration NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
paediatric NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
forty-two NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
adenotonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
peritonsillar NN O O
infiltration NN O I-INT
, NN O O
following NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
0.25 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
plain NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
on NN O O
awakening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
each NN O O
occasion NN O O
the NN O O
observer NN O O
gave NN O O
the NN O O
child NN O O
a NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
severe NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
after NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thereafter NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
peritonsillar NN O O
infiltration NN O O
with NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
only NN O O
moderately NN O O
useful NN O O
as NN O O
analgesia NN O O
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
tonsillectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7893582)

Angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibition NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
exogenous NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
forearm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
by NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibition NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
up-regulation NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O O
AT1 NN O O
receptors NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
induced NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
forearm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O I-INT
matched NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
response NN O O
to NN O O
increasing NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
venous NN O O
occlusion NN O O
plethysmography NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
2 NN O O
week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
enalapril NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
angiotensin NN O I-OUT
II NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
supine NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infused NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
50,000 NN O O
fmol NN O O
min-1 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
48.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
57.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
54.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
enalapril NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
14 NN O O
day NN O O
period NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
exogenous NN O O
intra-arterial NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
forearm NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
salt NN O I-PAR
replete NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (789390)

Aspirin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Coronary NN O O
Drug NN O O
Project NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7896655)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
opiate NN O O
blocker NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Thirteen 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
3.4 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
5.4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dependent NN O I-INT
measures NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
parent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
teacher NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Naltrexone NN O I-OUT
Side-Effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
actometer NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
10-second NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
recording NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
on-task NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
initiations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disruptive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self-stimulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Eight NN O O
of NN O O
13 NN O O
subjects NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Impulsivity-Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
Factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SE-Restlessness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Teacher NN O I-OUT
SE-Restlessness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
initiation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinic NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Actometer NN O I-OUT
readings NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
very NN O O
active NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
behavioral NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

Administering NN O O
the NN O O
bitter NN O O
tablet NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
promise NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
for NN O O
modest NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
communication NN O I-OUT
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 I-PAR
Parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
measures NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
outpatient NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7906128)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
change NN O O
benzodiazepine-prescribing NN O I-INT
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prepaid NN O O
group NN O O
practice NN O O
setting NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
benzodiazepine-prescribing NN O I-INT
behavior NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
prepaid NN O O
group NN O O
practice NN O O
( NN O O
PPGP NN O O
) NN O O
setting NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
six-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
setting NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
270,000 NN O I-PAR
member NN O I-PAR
group-model NN O I-PAR
PPGP NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Colorado NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Participants NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
62 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
38.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
1 NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
one-on-one NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
brief NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
2 NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
face-to-face NN O I-INT
presentation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
departmental NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
written NN O I-INT
educational NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Controls NN O O
received NN O O
no NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-OUT
on/off NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
elderly NN O I-OUT
PPGP NN O I-OUT
members NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
preintervention NN O I-OUT
minus NN O I-OUT
postintervention NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
benzodiazepines NN O I-OUT
prescribed NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
physician NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
postintervention NN O O
benzodiazepine NN O I-OUT
on/off NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
controlling NN O O
for NN O O
preintervention NN O O
on/off NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
PPGP-member NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
PPGP-member NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
possible NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
standardized NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
benzodiazepines NN O I-OUT
prescribed NN O O
per NN O O
physician NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
controls NN O O
yielding NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
-278 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
-4,137 NN O O
, NN O O
2,844 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
-330 NN O O
( NN O O
-1,531 NN O O
, NN O O
1,358 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
-541 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
: NN O O
-3,716 NN O O
, NN O O
2,185 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
strategies NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
changing NN O O
physician NN O O
prescribing NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
settings NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
PPGP NN O O
setting NN O O
with NN O O
benzodiazepines NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
elderly NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O O
for NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7907677)

Warfarin NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
: NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Prevention NN O O
in NN O O
Atrial NN O O
Fibrillation NN O O
II NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

Warfarin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
established NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
stroke 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 O
but NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
agent NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin NN O O
in NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Prevention NN O O
in NN O O
Atrial NN O O
Fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
SPAF-I NN O O
) NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
direct NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolic NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

SPAF-II NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
prothrombin NN O O
time NN O O
ratio NN O O
1.3-1.8 NN O O
, NN O O
international NN O O
normalised NN O O
ratio NN O O
2.0-4.5 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
325 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
primary NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
parallel NN O O
randomised NN O O
trials NN O O
involving NN O O
715 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
385 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
75 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
sought NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O O
events NN O O
by NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
0.7 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-0.4 NN O O
to NN O O
1.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
0.67 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.24 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
low-risk NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
without NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
recent NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
previous NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.1 NN O O
to NN O O
1.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
decreased NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI-1.7 NN O O
to NN O O
4.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
3.6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
0.73 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.39 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
older NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
residual NN O I-OUT
deficit NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
or NN O O
haemorrhagic NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
with NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Warfarin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
small NN O O
. NN O O

Younger NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
older NN O O
patients NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
ischaemic NN O O
and NN O O
haemorrhagic NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
substantial NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
agent NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
inherent NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolism NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
antithrombotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7910732)

Exposure NN O O
reduced NN O O
agoraphobia NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
panic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
panic NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
agoraphobia NN O O
. NN O O

Earlier NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
anti-panic NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
exposure NN O O
has NN O O
anti-agoraphobic NN O O
effects NN O O
while NN O O
other NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
agoraphobia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
secondary NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
panic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
not NN O O
only NN O O
reduces NN O O
panic NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
agoraphobia NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
potentiates NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
exposure NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
agoraphobics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
4 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
exposure NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
other NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
'associative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
presumably NN O O
inert NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
controls NN O O
for NN O O
therapist NN O O
attention NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
8 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
exposure NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
framed NN O O
in NN O O
common NN O O
behavioral NN O O
terms NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
initial NN O O
cognitive NN O O
therapy NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
panic NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
associative NN O O
therapy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
panic NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
nor NN O O
associate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
trait NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-rated NN O I-OUT
agoraphobia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
behavioral NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
adding NN O O
exposure NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
clearly NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

Cognitive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
potentiate NN O O
exposure NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7910792)

[ NN O O
Postlaparoscopic NN O O
pain NN O O
syndrome NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
so-called NN O O
post-laparoscopic NN O O
algesia NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
operations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
impairment NN O O
takes NN O O
the NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
shoulder NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Eliminating NN O O
the NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
analgetics NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
fact NN O O
worth NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
consideration NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
post-operative NN O O
sojourn NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
becoming NN O O
shorter NN O O
and NN O O
shorter NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
involving NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
subdivided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
namely NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
lower NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
pressures NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
chemically NN O I-INT
inert NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
analgetics NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insufflated NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intraperitoneal NN O I-OUT
pH-values NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O O
subgroups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
post-operative NN O O
pain NN O O
perception NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
parameters NN O O
like NN O O
pH-value NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
insufflation NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
etc NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
raised NN O O
criteria NN O O
since NN O O
we NN O O
anticipated NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
shoulder NN O O
pain NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
unknown NN O O
factor NN O O
. NN O O

By NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
became NN O O
apparent NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
pains NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
gas NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
fact NN O O
which NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
assumption NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
pains NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physical NN O O
effect NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
cooling NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
peritoneum NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7924475)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
metered-dose NN O O
inhaler NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
spacer NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
intravenous NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
adds NN O O
any NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
presented NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
94 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
35.6 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11.2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
delivered NN O O
with NN O O
metered-dose NN O I-INT
inhaler NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
spacer NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Volumatic NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
puffs NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
10-min NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
routine NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
45 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
measurements NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects 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

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
( NN O O
6.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
44.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
5.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
aminophylline NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hospital NN O O
admission NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
10.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
9.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
Emergency NN O O
Department NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.83 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.37 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.75 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
accord NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
obstruction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
< NN O O
30 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
predicted NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
theophylline NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
theophylline NN O I-INT
level NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
vs NN O O
aminophylline NN O I-INT
group NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
theophylline NN O O
level NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
intravenous NN O O
aminophylline NN O O
adds NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
exacerbations NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (792738)

[ NN O O
Report NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
synthetic NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
parsalmide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
arthropathies NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
degenerative NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
, NN O O
analgesic NN O O
and NN O O
tranquillizing NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
synthetic NN O O
compound NN O O
called NN O O
parsalmide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
degenerative NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
arthropathies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
experiment NN O I-PAR
technique NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
pattern NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
attributing NN O I-PAR
parsalmide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
possess NN O O
good NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
comparable NN O O
clinically NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
. NN O O

Tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
at NN O O
gastroenteric NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
side NN O O
and/or NN O O
undesired NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
haemopoietic NN O O
, NN O O
renal NN O O
and NN O O
hepatic NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7928125)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
culture-specific NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
promote NN O I-INT
breastfeeding NN O I-INT
among NN O I-PAR
Vietnamese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Sydney NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
breastfeeding NN O O
among NN O O
immigrant NN O I-PAR
Vietnamese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Western NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
low NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
Vietnam NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
counteract NN O O
this NN O O
trend NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
language NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
culture NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
program NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
182 NN O I-PAR
prenatal NN O I-PAR
Vietnamese NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O O
collection NN O O
included NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
and NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
education NN O O
program NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
planned NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
actual NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
towards NN O I-OUT
breastfeeding NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
sustain NN O O
until NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
postpartum NN O O
. NN O O

Implications NN O O
for NN O O
nursing NN O O
practice NN O O
and NN O O
further NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7936339)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
dopexamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
splanchnic NN O O
perfusion NN O O
during NN O O
surgery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aorta NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Abdominal NN O O
aortic NN O O
surgery NN O O
has NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
and NN O O
splanchnic NN O O
perfusion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
dopexamine NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
inodilator NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
splanchnic NN O O
perfusion NN O O
with NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
intramucosal NN O O
pH NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
tonometry NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
abdominal NN O O
aneurysm NN O O
resection NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
excision NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
aortic NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
aneurysm NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
dopexamine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
microgram/kg/m NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
micrograms/kg/m NN O O
from NN O O
declamping NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Whereas NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dopexamine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
the NN O O
intramucosal NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mixed NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
dopexamine NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamping NN O O
dopexamine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
improving NN O O
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Also NN O O
, NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
produces NN O O
dose NN O O
related NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
changes NN O O
of NN O O
rapid NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
reversibility NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
interrupt NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
before NN O O
aortic NN O O
declamping NN O O
to NN O O
avoid NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intramucosal NN O O
pH NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7936677)

Management NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thyroid NN O I-PAR
isthmus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
tracheostomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
retrospective NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
thyroid NN O O
isthmus NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
encountered NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
tracheostomy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
being NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
details NN O O
retrospective NN O O
and NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
electrocautery NN O I-INT
division NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
isthmus NN O I-INT
with NN O O
older NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
electrocautery NN O I-INT
division NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
thyroid NN O I-OUT
isthmus NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
tracheostomy NN O O
is NN O O
faster NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
safe NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
other NN O O
techniques NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
perioperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7936969)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
ball NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
on NN O O
junior NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
volleyball NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lighter NN O I-INT
ball NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tachikara NN O I-INT
Volley NN O I-INT
Lite NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
72 NN O I-INT
seventh-grade NN O I-INT
girls NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
tournament NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
play NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pretest-to-posttest NN O I-INT
improvement NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
16-day NN O I-INT
volleyball NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
intact NN O O
classes NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
used NN O O
lighter NN O I-INT
balls NN O I-INT
during NN O O
skills NN O O
progressions NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
used NN O O
regulation NN O I-INT
balls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
students NN O O
used NN O O
regulation NN O I-INT
balls NN O I-INT
during NN O O
tournament NN O O
game NN O O
play NN O O
and NN O O
skills NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O I-OUT
pass NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
pretest NN O O
to NN O O
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
covariance NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
on NN O O
posttest NN O O
means NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
skill NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
x NN O O
game NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
practicing NN O O
with NN O O
lighter NN O I-INT
balls NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
correct NN O I-OUT
sets NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
average NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
success NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
set NN O O
and NN O O
underhand NN O O
serve NN O O
on NN O O
game NN O O
days NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
regulation NN O I-INT
ball NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7941489)

Promoting NN O O
health NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
a NN O O
board NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
have NN O O
become NN O O
salient NN O O
topics NN O O
in NN O O
Canadian NN O O
society NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
nursing NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
two NN O O
decades NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
noncommunicable NN O O
chronic NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
specific NN O O
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
habits NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
often NN O O
develop NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
life NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
public NN O O
health NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
Canadians NN O O
depends NN O O
substantially NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
of NN O O
educational NN O O
programs NN O O
directed NN O O
toward NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effective NN O O
teaching NN O O
strategies NN O O
that NN O O
seek NN O O
to NN O O
promote NN O O
health NN O O
and NN O O
wellness NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
developed NN O O
and NN O O
empirically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Educational NN O O
games NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
efficient NN O O
vehicle NN O O
for NN O O
carrying NN O O
out NN O O
developmentally NN O O
specific NN O O
nursing NN O O
interventions NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
begins NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
brief NN O O
overview NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
historical NN O O
origins NN O O
of NN O O
games NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
advantages NN O O
and NN O O
disadvantages NN O O
as NN O O
educational NN O O
strategies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pretest-posttest NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
that NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
board NN O I-INT
game NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
sixth NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Winnipeg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Manitoba NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
anatomy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physiology NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
diet NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lifestyle NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
associated NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7942578)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fish-oil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
vegetable-oil NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aggregation NN O O
and NN O O
ethanolamine-containing NN O O
lysophospholipid NN O I-OUT
generation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
activated NN O O
human NN O O
platelets NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stimulated NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
consuming NN O O
a NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
omega-3 NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vegetable NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
enriched NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oleic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
42-d NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
collagen-induced NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
using NN O O
washed NN O O
platelet NN O O
suspensions NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
nutritional NN O O
supplementation NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
considerable NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
omega-3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
omega-6 NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
platelet NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
with NN O O
fish-oil NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
EPA NN O O
, NN O O
20:5n-3 NN O O
) NN O O
enrichment NN O O
( NN O O
fish-oil NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
dramatically NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ether-containing NN O O
plasmenylethanolamine NN O O
( NN O O
13.5 NN O O
mol NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
; NN O O
mol NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
= NN O O
moles NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
moles NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
phosphatidylethanolamine NN O O
( NN O O
2.8 NN O O
mol NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
phosphatidylcholine NN O O
( NN O O
2.9 NN O O
mol NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
treatment NN O O
significantly NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
agonist-induced NN O I-OUT
accumulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lysoplasmenylethanolamine NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
derived NN O O
via NN O O
phospholipase NN O O
A2 NN O O
hydrolysis NN O O
of NN O O
plasmenylethanolamine NN O O
. NN O O

HPLC NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
eicosanoid NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
A23187-stimulated NN O O
neutrophils NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arachidonic NN O I-OUT
acid-derived NN O I-OUT
leukotriene NN O I-OUT
B4 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LTB4 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5-HETE NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5-hydroxyeicosatetraenoic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fish-oil NN O O
group NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
appearance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
EPA-derived NN O O
products NN O O
[ NN O O
LTB5 NN O O
and NN O O
5-HEPE NN O O
( NN O O
5-hydroxyeicosapentaenoic NN O O
acid NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
such NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
formation NN O O
of NN O O
lipoxygenase NN O O
products NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
vegetable NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7944932)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O O
gamma NN O O
on NN O O
infection-related NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
sustaining NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
observation NN O O
for NN O O
60 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
until NN O O
discharge NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SETTING NN O O
Nine NN O I-PAR
university-affiliated NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Four NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
Injury NN O I-OUT
Severity NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
contamination NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERVENTION NN O O
Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
discharge NN O I-INT
if NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
21 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adjunct NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
supportive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Infection NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
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
however NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
interferon NN O O
gamma NN O O
experienced NN O O
fewer NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
seven NN O O
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
18 NN O O
[ NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.008 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
fewer NN O O
overall NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
21 NN O O
[ NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
30 NN O O
[ NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.17 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
12 NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
through NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
late NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
in NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
dominated NN O O
by NN O O
findings NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
eliminate NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
unidentified NN O O
imbalance NN O O
between NN O O
arms NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
explanation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
infection-related NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
interferon NN O I-INT
gamma NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (7946102)

Aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
primary NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O I-OUT
carinii NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Primary NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O O
carinii NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
( NN O O
PCP NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
been NN O O
recommended NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Centers NN O O
for NN O O
Disease NN O O
Control NN O O
and NN O O
Prevention NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
alternatives NN O O
to NN O O
routine NN O O
primary NN O O
PCP NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
121 NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CD4+ NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
counts NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/l NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
primary NN O O
PCP NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
61 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
once NN O O
every NN O O
month NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
60 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
PCP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HIV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Morbidity NN O O
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
illness NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
and NN O O
AIDS NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
CD4+ NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
116 NN O O
and NN O O
107 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/l NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
incidents NN O O
of NN O O
PCP NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
16.4 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
2.3-32.4 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O O
incidents NN O O
of NN O O
PCP NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
one NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
episode NN O O
of NN O O
PCP NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
controls NN O O
was NN O O
18.5 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
3.1-32.9 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
unable NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
for NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
that NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
were NN O O
20 NN O O
and NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significant NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
we NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
detect NN O O
any NN O O
major NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
overall NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
markedly NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
PCP NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
check-ups NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
PCP NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
justifiable NN O I-OUT
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
selected NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (7946254)

Enhanced NN O I-INT
small NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
choral NN O I-INT
responding NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
student NN O I-INT
interaction NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
effective NN O I-INT
instructional NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
in NN O O
small NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
learning NN O O
effects NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
elementary NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Effective NN O O
strategies NN O O
included NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
choral NN O I-INT
responding NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
student-to-student NN O I-INT
responding NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
materials NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
30-minute NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
concepts NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
random NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
unpredictable NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
student NN O I-INT
responding NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty-minute NN O O
language NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
targeted NN O O
to NN O O
teach NN O O
receptive NN O O
and NN O O
expressive NN O O
skills NN O O
using NN O O
pictures NN O O
and NN O O
common NN O O
objects NN O O
across NN O O
five NN O O
categories NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
household NN O O
items NN O O
, NN O O
foods NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
opportunities NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
respond NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
responding NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
academic NN O I-OUT
engagement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
gains NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
weekly NN O I-OUT
criterion-referenced NN O I-OUT
pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
posttests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
inappropriate NN O I-OUT
student NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7954555)

Use NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Holter NN O I-INT
electrocardiography NN O I-INT
in NN O O
assessing NN O O
drug NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
ischemia NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
peri-PTCA NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Incidence NN O O
and NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
ischemia NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
peri-PTCA NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
percutaneous NN O I-PAR
transluminal NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
angioplasty NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
period NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
its NN O O
prevention NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
prospectively NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Holter NN O I-OUT
electrocardiographic NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
for NN O O
21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
PTCA NN O O
and NN O O
continued NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
41 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
PTCA NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
ischemic NN O O
episodes NN O O
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PTCA NN O O
produced NN O O
an NN O O
abrupt NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
number NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.015 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
rarity NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
Holter NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
after NN O O
PTCA NN O O
negated NN O O
any NN O O
attempt NN O O
at NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
their NN O O
prevention NN O O
. NN O O

Holter NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
late NN O O
coronary NN O O
restenosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7955250)

Late NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
preserved NN O O
papillary NN O O
muscles NN O O
during NN O O
mitral NN O I-PAR
valve NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
late NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
preserving NN O O
the NN O O
papillary NN O O
muscles NN O O
during NN O O
mitral NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-PAR
regurgitation NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
myxomatous NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
preservation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pres NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
preservation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
No NN O I-INT
Pres NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chordae NN O I-INT
tendineae NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
papillary NN O I-INT
muscles NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
mitral NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Rest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
nuclear NN O I-INT
ventriculograms NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
early NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
No NN O O
Pres NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
by NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
[ NN O O
rm NN O O
] NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
Pres NN O O
group NN O O
did NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
end-diastolic NN O O
volume NN O O
indexes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
No NN O O
Pres NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
exercise NN O O
because NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
by NN O O
rm NN O O
ANOVA NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Late NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
at NN O O
similar NN O O
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
by NN O O
rm NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
preload NN O I-OUT
recruitable NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
indexes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
by NN O O
rm NN O O
ANCOVA NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Pres NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Preserving NN O O
chordal NN O O
attachments NN O O
enhanced NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
recovery NN O O
after NN O O
mitral NN O O
valve NN O O
replacement NN O O
for NN O O
mitral NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7956382)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O O
on NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
transcutaneous NN O I-INT
electrical NN O I-INT
nerve NN O I-INT
stimulation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
adjunct NN O O
to NN O O
narcotic NN O O
medications NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
graft NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CABG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
right NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ITA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-five NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
extubation NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
24- NN O O
to NN O O
72-h NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Two-way NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
tests NN O O
indicated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
narcotic NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
FVC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
PEFR NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
reported NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
TENS NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
TENS NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
control 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

All NN O O
six NN O O
criterion NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
45 NN O O
; NN O O
time NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O O
further NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
despite NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
preoperative NN O O
values NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
TENS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
applied NN O O
continuously NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
following NN O O
CABG NN O O
with NN O O
ITA NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
advantageous NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
dysfunction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (7960300)

Assessing NN O O
drug NN O O
use NN O O
prevalence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
workplace NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
self-report NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
urinalysis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
800 NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
steel NN O I-PAR
manufacturing NN O I-PAR
company NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
self-report NN O I-INT
methods NN O I-INT
of NN O O
assessing NN O O
illicit NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
use NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
Individual NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
workplace NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group-administered NN O I-INT
questionnaire NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
workplace NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
interview NN O I-INT
off NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
worksite NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
621 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
participating NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
urinalysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
self-report NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
workplace NN O O
interview NN O O
condition NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
group NN O O
questionnaire NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
prevalence NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
by NN O O
self-reports NN O O
and NN O O
urinalysis NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
little NN O O
concordance NN O O
between NN O O
urinalysis NN O I-OUT
positives NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
self-report NN O I-OUT
positives NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
self-reports NN O O
and NN O O
urinalysis NN O O
are NN O O
complementary NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
best NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7963648)

The NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
UVB-induced NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pigmentation NN O I-OUT
correlate NN O O
linearly NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
manner NN O O
by NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ultraviolet NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
UVB NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-induced NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
we NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
UVB-induced NN O O
erythema NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
pigmentation NN O I-OUT
quantitatively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
d NN O O
after NN O O
irradiation NN O O
with NN O O
erythemogenic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
UVB NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
backs NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
Japanese NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
pigmentation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
melanin NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
image NN O I-INT
analytic NN O I-INT
method NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
videomicroscope NN O I-INT
interfaced NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
computer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
two NN O O
indices NN O O
was NN O O
linear NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
was NN O O
0.83 NN O O
when NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
whole NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
slope NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
line NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
delta NN O I-OUT
melanin NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
erythema NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
steeper NN O O
as NN O O
non-irradiated NN O O
skin NN O O
color NN O O
became NN O O
darker NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.63 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
more NN O O
efficient NN O O
melanogenesis NN O O
takes NN O O
place NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
with NN O O
darker NN O O
skin NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
erythema NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
suppressed NN O O
significantly NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
manner NN O O
by NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
topically NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
UVB NN O O
irradiation NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
imply NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
post-inflammatory NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O O
closely NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prior NN O O
inflammation NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
chemical NN O O
mediators NN O O
released NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
process NN O O
have NN O O
considerable NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
melanogenesis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
UVB-induced NN O I-OUT
hyperpigmentation NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
utilized NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
agents NN O I-INT
, NN O O
unless NN O O
these NN O O
have NN O O
direct NN O O
actions NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
tyrosinase NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
melanocytes NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7964693)

Therapy NN O O
for NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
supranuclear NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
past NN O O
and NN O O
future NN O O
. NN O O

Dysfunction NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
brain NN O O
systems NN O O
in NN O O
progressive NN O I-PAR
supranuclear NN O I-PAR
palsy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
complicated NN O O
attempts NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Neurotransmitter NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
strategies NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
the NN O O
dopaminergic NN O O
, NN O O
cholinergic NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serotonergic NN O O
systems NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
unsuccessful NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
bypass NN O O
the NN O O
degenerated NN O O
cortico-striato-pallidal NN O O
loop NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
administered NN O O
the NN O O
adrenergic NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
idazoxan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IDA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
PSP NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Approximately NN O O
one NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
dexterity NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
taking NN O O
IDA NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
new NN O O
therapies NN O I-INT
that NN O O
target NN O O
structures NN O O
outside NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PSP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Applying NN O O
this NN O O
strategy NN O O
and NN O O
developing NN O O
treatments NN O O
that NN O O
arrest NN O O
or NN O O
reverse NN O O
clinical NN O O
deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
PSP NN O O
will NN O O
require NN O O
improved NN O O
understanding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
underlying NN O O
the NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7964960)

Randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vomiting NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fractionated NN O I-PAR
total-body NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
total-body NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
-induced NN O I-PAR
nausea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
vomiting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
TBI NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
preparative NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
8-mg NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Administration NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
. NN O O

Initial NN O O
rescue NN O O
therapy NN O O
consisted 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
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
following NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
emetic NN O O
episodes NN O O
between NN O O
successive NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
TBI NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
total NN O O
emetic NN O O
episodes NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
receipt NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
emetic NN O O
episodes NN O O
between NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
TBI NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
total NN O O
emetic NN O O
episodes NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
antiemetics NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
emetic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
4-day NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
rescue NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
without NN O O
additional NN O O
antiemetic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
without NN O O
rescue NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
initial NN O I-INT
rescue NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O I-INT
required NN O O
no NN O O
additional NN O I-OUT
antiemetics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
relationships NN O O
were NN O O
apparent NN O O
between NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
ondansetron NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Oral NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
emesis NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
TBI NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7974179)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
concerning NN O O
the NN O O
point NN O O
A NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
intracavitary NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
High-dose NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
remote NN O I-INT
afterloading NN O I-INT
intracavitary NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
recognized NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
treatment NN O O
modality NN O O
for NN O O
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
1983 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
more NN O O
advantageous NN O O
treatment NN O O
schedule NN O O
with NN O O
keeping NN O O
the NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
reports NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
February NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
165 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
uterine NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
concerning NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
point NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
HDR NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
Gy/fraction NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
7.5 NN O I-INT
Gy/fraction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
external NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
Department NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Radiation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Adult NN O I-PAR
Diseases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Osaka NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UICC NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
follows NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IA NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIA NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
survivals NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
stage NN O O
IA NN O O
= NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
IB NN O O
= NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
IIA NN O O
= NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
IIB NN O O
= NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
= NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
IV NN O O
= NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
62 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
IV NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
these NN O O
survival NN O O
curves NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
stage NN O O
. NN O O

Five-year NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.9096 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
corresponding NN O O
distant NN O O
failure NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.2955 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moderate-to-severe NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
Kottmeier NN O O
's NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bladder NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rectal NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
needed NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
Kottmeier NN O O
's NN O O
grade NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Severe NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
: NN O O
1 NN O O
; NN O O
B NN O O
: NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
small NN O O
intestine NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
sigmoid NN O O
colon NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
dead NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ileus NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
schedules NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
fact NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
small NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
fractions NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
Gy/fraction NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
advantageous NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
load NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7975860)

Correlation NN O O
between NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
humoral NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
cellular NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
following NN O O
immunization NN O O
with NN O O
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBsAg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immune NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
surface NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HBsAg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
we NN O O
have NN O O
carefully NN O O
monitored NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
humoral NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
cellular NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
HBsAg NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hepatitis NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
vaccination NN O I-PAR
scheme NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
plasma-derived NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hevac NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recombinant NN O I-INT
HBsAg NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
yeast-derived NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Engerix-B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
humoral NN O O
and NN O O
cellular NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
vaccination NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
36 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
66 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
120 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
365 NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
395 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
kinetics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
humoral NN O O
immune NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
into NN O O
fast NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O O
and NN O O
slow/non-responders NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O O
anti-HBs NN O O
titre NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
395 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
high NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
2000 NN O O
U NN O O
l-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
2000 NN O O
U NN O O
l-1 NN O O
) NN O O
responders NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
close NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
kinetics NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
humoral NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vivo NN O I-OUT
anti-HBs NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
commercially NN O O
available NN O O
immunoradiometric NN O O
assays NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
HBsAg-specific NN O O
lymphoproliferation NN O O
assay NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
interassay NN O O
variability NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
dichotomous NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
proliferation NN O O
versus NN O O
non-proliferation NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
further NN O O
data NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
kinetics NN O O
and NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
humoral NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
hand NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
anti-HBs NN O O
response NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand 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- (7976148)

Oesophageal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
undetected NN O O
by NN O O
auscultation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
chest NN O O
. NN O O

Prompt NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
oesophageal NN O I-INT
intubation NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O O
concern NN O O
in NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
three NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
intubation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
trachea NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oesophagus NN O I-PAR
intubated NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
twice NN O O
. NN O O

Auscultation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
epigastrium NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
axilla NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
reliable NN O O
than NN O O
auscultation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
chest NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
anaesthetist NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
feeling NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
he NN O I-PAR
squeezes NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
bag NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
and NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
after NN O O
gastric NN O O
distension NN O O
with NN O O
gas NN O O
had NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
auscultation NN O O
of NN O O
epigastrium NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
and NN O O
left NN O O
axilla NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7977921)

Preventing NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
older NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Because NN O O
preventing NN O O
disability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
older NN O I-OUT
adults NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
national NN O O
priority NN O O
, 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
to NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
multicomponent NN O O
intervention NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
organization NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HMO NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1559 NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
seniors NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
targeting NN O I-INT
risk NN O I-INT
factors NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
disability NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
falls NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
635 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
visit NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
317 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
( NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
607 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
collection NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
annual NN O O
follow-up NN O O
surveys NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
subjects NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
declining NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
falls NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
2 NN O O
subjects NN O O
had NN O O
intermediate NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
outcomes NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
narrowed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
, NN O O
one-time NN O O
prevention NN O O
program NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
confer NN O O
short-term NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
benefits NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
HMO NN O I-PAR
enrollees NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
benefits NN O I-OUT
diminished NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
by NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
improved NN O O
outcomes NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (7995325)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
17 NN O I-INT
beta-oestradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
finger NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
circulation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women 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
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
contraceptives NN O O
, NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
menopause NN O O
on NN O O
skin NN O O
perfusion NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
phenomenon NN O I-PAR
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
female NN O O
sex NN O O
hormones NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clear NN O O
relation NN O O
between NN O O
skin NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
circulating NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
oestrogens NN O O
or NN O O
progestogens NN O O
has NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
17 NN O I-INT
beta-oestradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
progesterone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
finger NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
heat NN O O
and NN O O
cold NN O O
challenge NN O O
in NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Raynaud NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
phenomenon NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
standardized NN O O
finger NN O O
heating NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
water NN O O
bath NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cooling NN O O
tests NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
water NN O O
bath NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
recovery NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
twice NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
third NN O O
) NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

17 NN O I-INT
beta-Oestradiol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
progesterone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
hormonal NN O O
doses NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
( NN O O
high NN O O
) NN O O
physiological NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Fingertip NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
laser NN O I-OUT
Doppler NN O I-OUT
flux NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
progesterone NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
values NN O O
of NN O O
fingertip NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
and NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
flux NN O O
after NN O O
17 NN O O
beta-oestradiol NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
precooling NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
subjects NN O O
reached NN O O
significance NN O O
: NN O O
fingertip NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
respectively NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
32.7 NN O O
( NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
33.1 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
) NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
laser NN O O
Doppler NN O O
flux NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
oestradiol NN O O
: NN O O
33.6 NN O O
( NN O O
11.7 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
42.2 NN O O
( NN O O
9.5 NN O O
) NN O O
perfusion NN O O
units NN O O
; NN O O
both NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
ABSTRACT NN O O
TRUNCATED NN O O
AT NN O O
250 NN O O
WORDS NN O O
) NN O O


-DOCSTART- (7997386)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
contractility NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
nuclear NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Urban NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II-III NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Subjects NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
125 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
1.3 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
every NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
over NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
consecutive NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
radionuclide NN O I-INT
ventriculography NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
within NN O O
60 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Vital NN O O
signs NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction 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

Peak NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
either NN O O
fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fructose-1,6-diphosphate NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ejection NN O I-OUT
fraction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (799982)

Disopyramide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmias NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (80115)

Anaphylactoid NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
histamine NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
plasma NN O I-INT
substitutes NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
dogs NN O I-PAR
[ NN O O
proceedings NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8015504)

Early NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
low-dosage NN O O
all-norgestrel NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
estrogen NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
treatment NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
Latin NN O O
square NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
( NN O O
i NN O O
) NN O O
dl-norgestrel NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.075 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
continuously NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
ii NN O O
) NN O O
estradiol-17 NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
on NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
( NN O O
iii NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
hormones NN O I-INT
for NN O O
six NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
cycle NN O O
followed NN O O
each NN O O
hormonal NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
dl-norgestrel NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
123 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
160 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
126 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
162 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
dl-norgestrel NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
229 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
242 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
233 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 NN O O
vs. NN O O
246 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
fifth NN O O
and NN O O
sixth NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
flushing NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
vs. NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
64 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spotting NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
control NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cycles NN O O
were NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
control NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
endometrial NN O O
biopsy NN O O
showed NN O O
inactive NN O I-OUT
endometrium NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
subjects NN O O
re-biopsied NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pyruvate NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
fell NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
vasomotor NN O I-OUT
flushing NN O I-OUT
beginning NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
to NN O O
fourth NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8018108)

Endurance NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O O
fibrinolysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
heavy NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
on NN O O
recently NN O O
established NN O O
cardiovascular/thromboembolic NN O O
risk NN O O
factors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
system NN O O
, NN O O
tissue NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
( NN O O
tPA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
activator NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
( NN O O
PAI-1 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
food NN O O
composition NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
18-55 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
14-day NN O I-INT
skiing NN O I-INT
tour NN O I-INT
through NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Swedish NN O I-INT
mountains NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carrying NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pack NN O I-INT
load NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
spending NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
self-dug NN O I-INT
igloos NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ambient NN O I-INT
temp NN O I-INT
-10 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
-25 NN O I-INT
degrees NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
having NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Individual NN O I-INT
records NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
kept NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
consumed NN O I-INT
food NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Citrated NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
obtained NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
tPA NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
occlusion NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
VO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
dietary NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
negatively NN O O
with NN O O
PAI-1 NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Already NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
skiing NN O O
tour NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
drops NN O O
in NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
triglycerides NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
tPA NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
dropped NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
VO NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
tPA NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
unchanged NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
were NN O O
von NN O I-OUT
Willebrand NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
vWF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
related NN O O
mainly NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
expenditure NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
, NN O O
calculated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
food NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
mediated NN O O
through NN O O
changed NN O O
insulin NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
body NN O O
fat NN O O
mass NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
energy NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
food NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
differential NN O O
impact NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
receded NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
endurance NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
endurance NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
the NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
profile NN O O
by NN O O
reducing NN O O
PAI-1 NN O O
while NN O O
leaving NN O O
tPA NN O I-OUT
activity NN O O
unaffected NN O O
, NN O O
independently NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
composition NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
low NN O O
dietary NN O O
fiber NN O O
intake NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
PAI-1 NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8018457)

Interactive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
frusemide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
haemodynamics NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
natriuresis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
responses NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
and NN O O
natriuretic NN O O
indices NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
synthetase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
infused NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
ng NN O O
min-1 NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
were NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
fashion NN O O
in NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
frusemide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
caused NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
only NN O O
change NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
with NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
alone NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
pre-treatment NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
II NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
much NN O O
greater NN O O
falls NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fractional NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
all NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
vs NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Frusemide NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
midpoint NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
study NN O O
limb NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prompt NN O O
15 NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
fold NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
natriuresis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
combination NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
qualitatively NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-frusemide NN O I-INT
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
findings NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
demonstration NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
the NN O O
important NN O O
homeostatic NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
renal NN O O
prostaglandins NN O O
in NN O O
preserving NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
particularly NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
filtration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
under NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
elevated NN O O
circulating NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8033763)

Relationship NN O O
between NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O I-PAR
preferences NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
ethanol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
drug NN O O
preferences NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
explored NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
several NN O O
previously NN O O
published NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

Subjective NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
preference NN O O
for NN O O
, NN O O
ethanol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
grouped NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
drug NN O O
choices NN O O
: NN O O
'non-choosers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
never NN O I-PAR
chose NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
whereas NN O I-PAR
'choosers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
always NN O I-PAR
chose NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
subjective NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
demographic NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Ethanol NN O I-INT
decreased NN O I-OUT
Arousal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Elation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O I-OUT
Mood NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Vigor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
non-choosers NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
it NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
Arousal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Vigor NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
choosers NN O O
. NN O O

Ethanol NN O I-INT
choosers NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
males NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
full-time NN O I-OUT
students NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
non-choosers NN O O
. NN O O

Diazepam NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
sedative-like NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
choosers NN O O
and NN O O
non-choosers NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
markedly NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
Friendliness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
choosers NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Diazepam NN O I-INT
choice NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
recreational NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
marijuana NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stimulants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
drug NN O O
preference NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8034784)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
calculus NN O I-INT
scaling NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
calculus NN O I-INT
scaling NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SofScale NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ease NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
split-mouth NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Volpe-Manhold NN O I-OUT
calculus NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
quantify NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
and NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
calculus NN O O
deposition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
lingual NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mandibular NN O O
6 NN O O
anterior NN O O
teeth NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gel NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
directly NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
calculus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
subgingivally NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
area NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
be NN O I-INT
scaled NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pre- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-treatment NN O I-INT
gingival NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stain NN O I-INT
indices NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Operator NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subject NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
completed NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
ease NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scaling NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
with NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
scaling NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
side NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
SofScale NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
to NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
tissues NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
promote NN O O
tooth NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
scaling NN O O
time NN O O
between NN O O
product NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
when NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
2-minute NN O O
gel NN O O
contact NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8035029)

Paromomycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cryptosporidiosis NN O O
in NN O O
AIDS NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
cryptosporidiosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
switched NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
additional NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
character NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
weekly NN O O
24-h NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
oocyst NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
the NN O O
paromomycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
oocyst NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
314 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
109 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oocyst NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
initially NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
128 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/24 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
initially NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stool NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
fewer NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.25 NN O O
fewer/24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Trends NN O O
favored NN O O
drug NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stool NN O I-OUT
character NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Paromomycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
parasitologic NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
cryptosporidiosis NN O O
in NN O O
AIDS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8045623)

The NN O O
biological NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
etiopathogenesis NN O O
and NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
cervical NN O I-PAR
spondylosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
spondylosis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
average NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
1/2 NN O O
) NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
co-relation NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
established NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
features NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
radiological NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
parasites NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
multifactorial NN O I-OUT
etiology NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
deworming NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
gives NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
traditional NN O I-OUT
therapies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Many NN O O
new NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
are NN O O
proposed NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8047747)

Surrogate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
auxiliary NN O I-INT
endpoints NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
applications NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Surrogate NN O I-INT
endpoints NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
Prentice NN O O
as NN O O
response NN O O
variables NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
substitute NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
'true NN O O
' NN O O
endpoint NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
comparing NN O O
specific NN O O
interventions NN O O
or NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
applicability NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
definition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
related NN O O
surrogate NN O O
endpoint NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
discussed NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
emphasis NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
settings NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Auxiliary NN O I-INT
endpoints NN O I-INT
are NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
response NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
covariates NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
strengthen NN O O
true NN O O
endpoint NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

Specifically NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
response NN O O
variables NN O O
provide NN O O
some NN O O
additional NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
true NN O O
endpoint NN O O
occurrence NN O O
times NN O O
for NN O O
study NN O O
subjects NN O O
having NN O O
censored NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

Auxiliary NN O I-INT
variables NN O I-INT
will NN O O
very NN O O
frequently NN O O
be NN O O
available NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
they NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
without NN O O
making NN O O
additional NN O O
strong NN O O
assumptions NN O O
. NN O O

Approaches NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
auxiliary NN O I-INT
variables NN O I-INT
using NN O O
ideas NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
augmented NN O O
score NN O O
and NN O O
augmented NN O O
likelihood NN O O
methods NN O O
are NN O O
described NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8053586)

Deliberate NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
intraoperative NN O I-INT
hypothermia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Despite NN O O
enthusiasm NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
hypothermia NN O I-INT
during NN O O
neurosurgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
evaluated NN O O
systematically NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
deliberate NN O O
mild NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
and NN O O
rewarming NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normothermic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mildly NN O I-INT
hypothermic NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tympanic NN O O
membrane NN O O
temperature NN O O
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
at NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane-fentanyl-N2O-O2 NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
. NN O O

Normothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
warmed NN O O
to NN O O
36.5-37.0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
temperature NN O O
decrease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
cooled NN O O
to NN O O
35 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
group NN O O
temperatures NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
to NN O O
drift NN O O
to NN O O
34.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
before NN O O
rewarming NN O O
was NN O O
initiated NN O O
. NN O O

Water NN O O
blankets NN O O
and NN O O
convective NN O O
heating NN O O
devices NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
cool NN O O
and NN O O
rewarm NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
minimum NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
34.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C. NN O O
Cooling NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C/h NN O O
. NN O O

Rewarming NN O I-OUT
took NN O O
place NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C/h NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0.1-1.8 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Hypothermia NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
delay NN O O
emergence NN O O
from NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normothermia NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.45 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
upon NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
admission NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
35.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
37.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
normothermic NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
From NN O O
8 NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
the NN O O
temperatures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
greater NN O O
temperature NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
37.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
vs. NN O O
37.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.4 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.029 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
deliberate NN O O
mild NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
is NN O O
easily NN O O
achieved NN O O
intraoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
complete NN O O
rewarming NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
attain NN O O
during NN O O
craniotomy NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
current NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
determining NN O O
whether NN O O
deliberate NN O O
mild NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
confers NN O O
cerebral NN O O
protection NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
further NN O O
characterized NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8056005)

Evolution NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
stenoses NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
severity NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
quantitative NN O O
angiographic NN O O
analysis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTACT NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

International NN O O
Nifedipine NN O O
Trial NN O O
on NN O O
Antiatherosclerotic NN O O
Therapy NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
correlation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiographic NN O O
evolution NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
stenoses NN O O
( NN O O
stenosis NN O O
diameter NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
morphological NN O O
stenosis NN O O
parameters NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
could NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
progressive NN O I-OUT
stenoses NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prospective NN O O
INTACT NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
International NN O O
Nifedipine NN O O
Trial NN O O
on NN O O
Antiatherosclerotic NN O O
Therapy NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
348 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
standardized NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angiograms NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
taken NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
apart NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
were NN O O
quantitatively NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
1063 NN O O
preexisting NN O O
coronary NN O O
stenoses NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
both NN O O
angiograms NN O O
were NN O O
set NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
minimal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.30 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.28 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
reference NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stenoses NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.14 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
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
stenosis NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
baseline NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
preexisting NN O O
stenoses NN O O
progressing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
occlusions NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
remaining NN O I-OUT
patent NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
stenosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
43 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
39 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11 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

Additional NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
became NN O O
manifest NN O O
through NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
228 NN O O
stenoses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
19 NN O O
occlusions NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
arterial NN O O
sites NN O O
free NN O O
from NN O O
definitive NN O O
stenoses NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
angiograms NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
predominantly NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
mild NN O O
preexisting NN O O
coronary NN O O
stenoses NN O O
and NN O O
developed NN O O
at NN O O
previously NN O O
angiographically NN O O
normal NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
angiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
analysed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
individual NN O O
arterial NN O O
sites NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
progression NN O O
, NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
angiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
or NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
techniques NN O O
seem NN O O
mandatory NN O O
to NN O O
this NN O O
end NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8060436)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
albuterol NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
nebulized NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
breath NN O O
activated NN O O
metered NN O O
dose NN O O
inhaler 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
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
nebulized NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
powdered NN O I-INT
albuterol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
exacerbated NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
May NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
I NN O O
for NN O O
Albuterol NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
inhaled NN O O
q NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
II NN O O
with NN O O
Albuterol NN O I-INT
nebulized NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
inhaled NN O O
q NN O O
4 NN O O
hrs NN O O
. NN O O

Force NN O I-OUT
Vital NN O I-OUT
Capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Force NN O I-OUT
Expiratory NN O I-OUT
Volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
one NN O O
second NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
pressure NN O O
differential NN O O
transducer NN O O
upon NN O O
admission NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
24-hours NN O O
following NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

Absolute NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
calculated NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
student NN O O
's NN O O
T-Test NN O O
and NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
Test NN O O
with NN O O
significance NN O O
established NN O O
at NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.01 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
statistic NN O O
analysis NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
refusal NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
asthma NN O O
exacerbations/year NN O O
, NN O O
smoking NN O O
history NN O O
and NN O O
hospital NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
stay NN O O
. NN O O

FVC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
also NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
improvement NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O O
improvement NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
was NN O O
0.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
lts NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
versus NN O O
0.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
lts NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
Group NN O O
I NN O O
was NN O O
0.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
lts NN O O
versus NN O O
0.30 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.7 NN O O
lts NN O O
in NN O O
Group NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
equivalence NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
delivery NN O O
systems NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
established NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
nebulized NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
dry NN O I-INT
powder NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8063348)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
& NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
& NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
control NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
on NN O O
specific NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
and NN O O
respiratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
college NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5BX NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
working NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
muscles NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
with NN O O
no NN O O
specific NN O O
workout NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
seemed NN O O
inadequate NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
vital NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Isotonic NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
such NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isometric NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
of NN O O
thrice NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
ten NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
requiring NN O O
no NN O O
equipment NN O O
, NN O O
less NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
space NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
promoted NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8063943)

Intracapillary NN O I-OUT
glomerular NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
nephrectomy NN O I-PAR
specimen NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
ipsilateral NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
intraglomerular NN O I-INT
metastases NN O I-INT
observed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
nephrectomy NN O I-PAR
specimen NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
intraglomerular NN O I-INT
metastases NN O I-INT
arose NN O O
by NN O O
dissemination NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O O
cells NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
systemic NN O O
circulation NN O O
via NN O O
invasion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renal NN O O
veins NN O O
. NN O O

Intraglomerular NN O O
metastases NN O O
are NN O O
therefore NN O O
an NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O O
dissemination NN O O
which NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
poor NN O O
prognosis NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
nephrectomies NN O O
undertaken NN O O
for NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
random NN O O
block NN O O
of NN O O
renal NN O O
cortex NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
examined NN O I-INT
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
or NN O O
exclude NN O O
intraglomerular NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8077143)

Milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
endotoxin-induced NN O I-INT
mastitis NN O I-INT
treated NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Milk NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
milkings NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
intramammary NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
endotoxin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
forequarter NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cows NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Saline NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
IV NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
ml/kg NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
endotoxin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mean NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
milk NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
isotonic NN O O
saline NN O O
solution NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
cows NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8090084)

Intestinal NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
fat NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fat NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Beta-carotene NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
populations NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
fat NN O O
malabsorption NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8091822)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
anti-ischemic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
phosphodiesterase NN O O
III NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
enoximone NN O I-INT
is NN O O
acutely NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
angiographically NN O I-PAR
proven NN O I-PAR
relevant NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
stenosis NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
application NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0.75 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
exhibits NN O O
pronounced NN O O
antiischemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
the NN O O
ischemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
provoked NN O O
by NN O O
rapid NN O O
cardiac NN O O
stimulation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
antiischemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ST-depression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
impaired NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
wall NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
decrease NN O O
to NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
pathologically NN O I-OUT
elevated NN O I-OUT
filling NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amelioration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
evidenced NN O O
by NN O O
myocard NN O I-OUT
scintigraphy NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
washout NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
intracoronarily NN O O
injected NN O O
echo-contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
a NN O O
definite NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
ischemia-caused NN O I-OUT
mitral NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Similar NN O O
observations NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
injected NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diseased NN O O
coronary NN O O
arteries NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
0.075 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
present NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
Ca NN O O
( NN O O
++ NN O O
) NN O O
-blocker NN O O
Gallopamil NN O I-INT
the NN O O
antiischemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Enoximone NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
pronounced NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
synergistic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Negative NN O I-OUT
dromotropic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Gallopamil NN O I-INT
could NN O O
be NN O O
abolished NN O O
by NN O O
Enoximone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
With NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
antiischemic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
documented NN O O
with NN O O
Holter NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ST-depression NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
at NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
occurring NN O O
ischemic NN O O
episodes NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
silent NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
under NN O O
study NN O O
proarrhythmic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8094114)

Once NN O O
versus NN O O
thrice NN O O
daily NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aminoglycosides NN O O
are NN O O
usually NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
once-daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
toxic NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
aminoglycoside NN O I-INT
seemed NN O I-PAR
warranted NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
neutropenia NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
123 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
For NN O I-PAR
efficacy NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
aminoglycoside NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
stopped NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
toxicity NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
analysed NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
aminoglycosides NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
h NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
nephrotoxic NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Gentamicin NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
1.33 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
dose-reduction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
case NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
renal NN O I-INT
dysfunction NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
almost NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
was NN O O
also NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-PAR
characteristics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
arms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
good NN O O
clinical NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
32/35 NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
25/32 NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MD NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
difference NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
-6.4 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
+26.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
died NN O O
with NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
insufficient NN O O
bacteriological NN O O
response NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
persistent NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
cultures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
superinfection NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
OD NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
MD NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
7.0 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
1590 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
7.4 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
1672 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
OD NN O O
and NN O O
MD NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
trough/peak NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.6/10.2 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
and NN O O
1.4/5.2 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
. NN O O

Nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
45 NN O I-OUT
mumol/L NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
2/40 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
OD NN O I-INT
and NN O O
11/45 NN O O
( NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
MD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
High-tone NN O I-OUT
audiometry NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
when NN O O
possible NN O O
; NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
hearing NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
3/12 NN O O
and NN O O
3/11 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
prodromal NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
5/12 NN O O
and NN O O
4/11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
gentamicin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
nephrotoxic NN O O
than NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8097925)

Modest NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
epanolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
beta NN O O
1-selective NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
with NN O O
beta NN O O
1 NN O O
agonist NN O O
activity NN O O
: NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
and NN O O
double NN O O
crossover NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
atenolol NN O O
on NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

Beta-blockers NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
cardiodepressive NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
traditional NN O O
nonselective NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
1+2 NN O O
) NN O O
-blocking NN O O
agents NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O O
, NN O O
provided NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
. NN O O

Epanolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O O
beta NN O O
1-receptor NN O O
blocker NN O O
with NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
, NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
intraarterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
sitting NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
100 NN O O
W NN O O
bicycle NN O O
exercise NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
initially NN O O
fell NN O O
by NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
reverted NN O O
towards NN O O
the NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
10 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
epanolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

Cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
still NN O O
reduced NN O O
14-21 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
or NN O O
slightly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
2-10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four NN O I-OUT
hour NN O I-OUT
ambulatory NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
on NN O O
epanolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
on NN O O
atenolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
137/97 NN O O
vs. NN O O
128/91 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
achieved NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
epanolol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
other NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
beta-receptor NN O O
blockade NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
compound NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
angina NN O I-PAR
pectoris NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
arrhythmia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8098276)

Short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
denopamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
short-term NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
denopamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
orally NN O O
available NN O O
beta-stimulant NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
capacity NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
dilated NN O I-PAR
cardiomyopathy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
valvular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
York NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Association NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Symptom-limited NN O O
exercise NN O O
testing NN O O
( NN O O
ramp NN O O
protocol NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
bicycle NN O O
ergometer NN O I-INT
with NN O O
gas NN O O
exchange NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
denopamine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drug NN O O
administration NN O O
sequence NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
between NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
20.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
and NN O O
21.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.1 NN O O
ml/min/kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
administered NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
and NN O O
14.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
ml/min/kg NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
anaerobic NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
denopamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas 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
peak NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Denopamine NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
had NN O O
little NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSION NN O O
Data NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
gas NN O O
exchange NN O O
analysis NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
potentially NN O O
more NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
short-term NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
data NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
either NN O O
exercise NN O O
time NN O O
or NN O O
peak NN O O
work NN O O
rate NN O O
, NN O O
indexes NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild-to-moderate NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
rhythm NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
its NN O I-PAR
frequent NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
good NN O O
candidates NN O O
for NN O O
denopamine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8101194)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
laboratory NN O O
stress NN O O
testing NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
opinion NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
ideal NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
should NN O O
reduce NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
BP NN O O
) NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
during NN O O
stressful NN O O
situations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
1-adrenergic NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
terazosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
standardized NN O O
laboratory NN O O
stressors NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
mental NN O O
arithmetic NN O O
, NN O O
handgrip NN O O
test NN O O
and NN O O
cycle NN O O
ergometry NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
trial NN O O
preceded NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
run-in NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Terazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
resting NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reducing 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
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
159.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.9/101.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.8 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
by NN O O
7.8 NN O O
% NN O O
/6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
/10.2 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
, NN O O
being NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
mental NN O O
arithmetic NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
181.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.8/118.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
11.5 NN O O
% NN O O
/7.9 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
13.6 NN O O
% NN O O
/8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
during NN O O
handgrip NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
207.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.2/142.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
13.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
by NN O O
7.3 NN O O
% NN O O
/8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
terazosin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
by NN O O
7.7 NN O O
% NN O O
/7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
finally NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
cycle NN O O
ergometry NN O O
, NN O O
terazosin NN O O
and NN O O
enalapril NN O O
lowered NN O O
BP NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
/6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
/3.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
value NN O O
of NN O O
215.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.3/127.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.2 NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
stress NN O O
testing 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- (8104273)

Citalopram NN O I-INT
for NN O O
post-stroke NN O O
pathological NN O O
crying NN O O
. NN O O

Post-stroke NN O O
pathological NN O O
crying NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
distressing NN O O
condition NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
episodes NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
minor NN O O
stimuli NN O O
without NN O O
associated NN O O
mood NN O O
changes NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
disturbed NN O O
serotoninergic NN O O
neurotransmission NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
selective NN O I-OUT
serotonin NN O I-OUT
reuptake NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
citalopram NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
uncontrolled NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stroke NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

16 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
58.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
40-83 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
the NN O O
9-week NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
median NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
168 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
range NN O I-INT
6-913 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
post NN O I-INT
stroke NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
citalopram NN O I-INT
10-20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Crying NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
semistructured NN O I-INT
interviews NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
diaries NN O I-INT
kept NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
made NN O O
with 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
HDS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
unwanted NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
UKU NN O I-OUT
side-effect NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
crying NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
during NN O O
citalopram NN O O
treatment NN O O
vs NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
McNemar NN O O
's NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
being NN O O
rapid NN O O
( NN O O
1-3 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
pronounced NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
concomitant NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
HDS NN O O
8.9 NN O O
to NN O O
5.3 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
, NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
's NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Citalopram NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
few NN O O
side-effects NN O O
being NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
serotoninergic NN O O
neurotransmission NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
post-stroke NN O O
pathological NN O O
crying NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
citalopram NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well-tolerated NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8106772)

Primary NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
with NN O O
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
toxoplasmic NN O O
encephalitis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Terry NN O O
Beirn NN O O
Community NN O O
Programs NN O O
for NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Research NN O O
on NN O O
AIDS NN O O
. NN O O

Pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
thrice NN O O
weekly NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
primary NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
toxoplasmic NN O O
encephalitis NN O O
( NN O O
TE NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
absolute NN O I-PAR
CD4 NN O I-PAR
lymphocyte NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
200/microL NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
AIDS-defining NN O I-PAR
opportunistic NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
presence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
serum NN O I-PAR
IgG NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
Toxoplasma NN O I-PAR
gondii NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Leucovorin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
coadministered NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
hematologic NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
pyrimethamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
[ NN O O
RR NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 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
1.3-4.8 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
after NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
factors NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TE NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
218 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
but NN O O
7 NN O O
of NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
aerosolized NN O I-INT
pentamidine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
Pneumocystis NN O O
carinii NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
developed NN O O
TE NN O O
( NN O O
adjusted NN O O
RR NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.16 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.01-1.79 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.14 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O O
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
additional NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
for NN O O
TE NN O O
appears NN O O
unnecessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8115195)

Pain NN O O
relief NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
distressed NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
routine NN O O
treatment NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
opioids NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
instability NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
routine NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
procedures NN O O
in NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
distress NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
and NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Physiological NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O O
, NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
routine NN O O
treatment NN O O
procedures NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
84 NN O I-PAR
mechanically NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
distressed NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
1 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
meperidine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
0.9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
minutes NN O O
before NN O O
tracheal NN O I-INT
suction NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
nursing NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
partial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
6.6 NN O O
kPa NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and/or NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
procedures NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
saline NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
82 NN O O
vs NN O O
36 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
distress NN O O
quantified NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
behavioral NN O O
scoring NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O O
higher NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
beta-endorphin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Newborns NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
difficulties NN O I-PAR
often NN O O
suffer NN O O
from NN O O
hypoxemia NN O O
during NN O O
essential NN O O
treatment NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypoxemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
associated NN O O
distress NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
neonatal NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8123267)

Recovery NN O O
following NN O O
outpatient NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
use NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
recovery NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
propofol-nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
enflurane-N2O NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
center NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
61 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
thiopental NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
67 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
O2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
i.v. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
67 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
O2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
i.v. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
160 NN O I-INT
micrograms/kg/min NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
67 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
N2O NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
O2 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
succinylcholine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

to NN O O
facilitate NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
and NN O O
atracurium NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

to NN O O
provide NN O O
adequate NN O O
relaxation NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
maintenance NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Recovery NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
research NN O O
nurse NN O O
who NN O O
was NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
eye NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
thiopental-enflurane-N2O NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol-propofol-N2O NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.8 NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
respond NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
commands NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
induction NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
prolong NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
arrival NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sitting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerating NN O I-OUT
oral NN O I-OUT
fluids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
judged NN O I-OUT
fit NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
maintenance NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Induction NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
emergence NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
thiopental NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Maintenance NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
with NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
prolong NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
maintenance NN O O
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
increased NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8123947)

Peripheral NN O O
intravenous NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
phlebitis NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
heparin/hydrocortisone NN O O
versus NN O O
in-line NN O O
filters NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
in-line NN O O
filtration NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
heparin/hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
hep/hc NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
infusate NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
phlebitis NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
line NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
peripheral NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

catheters NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
specific NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
courses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
endpoints NN O O
for NN O O
conventional NN O O
short NN O O
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
( NN O O
short NN O O
lines NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
long NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

catheters NN O O
( NN O O
long NN O O
lines NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
their NN O O
drugs NN O O
either NN O O
through NN O O
an NN O O
in-line NN O O
filter NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
drug-free NN O O
infusate NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
filter NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
infusate NN O O
containing NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
units NN O O
and NN O O
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
. NN O O

Infusion NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Both NN O O
the NN O O
hep/hc NN O O
and NN O O
filter NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
phlebitis NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
line NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
analyzed NN O O
separately NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
short NN O O
and NN O O
long NN O O
lines NN O O
. NN O O

Long NN O O
lines NN O O
displayed NN O O
markedly NN O O
prolonged NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
phlebitis NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
short NN O O
lines NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

filters NN O O
in NN O O
excluding NN O O
the NN O O
large NN O O
particle NN O O
load NN O O
introduced NN O O
by NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

antibiotics NN O O
and NN O O
hence NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
phlebitis NN O O
makes NN O O
them NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
hep/hc NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
filters NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
ease NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
hep/hc-related NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Long NN O O
lines NN O O
offer NN O O
practical NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
short NN O O
lines NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
term NN O I-PAR
i.v NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
access NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8126502)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
entacapone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
peripherally NN O O
acting NN O O
catechol-O-methyltransferase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
levodopa NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Catechol-O-methyltransferase NN O O
( NN O O
COMT NN O O
) NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Parkinson NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
by NN O O
improving NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
levodopa NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
prolonging NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Entacapone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OR-611 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
novel NN O I-INT
COMT NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
cross NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
brain NN O O
barrier NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Parkinson NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
motor NN O I-PAR
fluctuations NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnitude NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
levodopa/50 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
carbidopa NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
concomitant NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
200 NN O O
or NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
entacapone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
levodopa NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
when NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
entacapone NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
levodopa/carbidopa NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
levodopa NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
COMT NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
latency NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

Entacapone NN O O
may NN O O
prove NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
prolonging NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
individual NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
levodopa NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8129324)

Topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
during NN O O
infant NN O O
eye NN O O
examinations NN O O
: NN O O
does NN O O
it NN O O
reduce NN O O
stress NN O O
? NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
infant NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
corneal NN O O
haze NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
eye NN O O
examination NN O O
for NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
of NN O O
prematurity NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
55 NN O I-PAR
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1501 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
proparacaine NN O I-INT
HCl NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
corneal NN O O
wetting NN O O
agent NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
eye NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Before NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
infant NN O O
stress NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiration 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
transcutaneous NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Subjective NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
infant NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
cry NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
corneal NN O I-OUT
haze NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Adequate NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
chi-square NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
topical NN O O
anesthetic NN O I-INT
agents NN O O
offer NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8131429)

Videofluoroscopic NN O I-INT
evidence NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
aspiration NN O I-INT
predicts NN O O
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
dehydration NN O O
following NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
pneumonia NN O O
, NN O O
dehydration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
videofluoroscopic NN O I-INT
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
aspiration NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
records NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
aspiration NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
case-matched NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
dysphagic NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
videofluoroscopic NN O I-PAR
evidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
aspiration NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-PAR
reviewed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
videofluoroscopic NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
swallow NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
included NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
ml-thin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
thick NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
pudding NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1/4 NN O I-INT
cookie NN O I-INT
coated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
thin NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
poststroke NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
developing NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7.6 NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
aspirated NN O O
any NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
barium NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
consistency 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
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
developing NN O O
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
5.6 NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
aspirated NN O O
thickened NN O O
liquids NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
solid NN O O
consistencies NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
aspirate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
who NN O O
aspirated NN O O
thin NN O O
liquids NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Dehydration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
or NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
aspiration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
for NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
9.2 NN O O
times NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
aspirating NN O O
thickened NN O O
liquids NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
solid NN O O
consistencies NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
aspirate NN O O
or NN O O
who NN O O
aspirated NN O O
thin NN O O
liquids NN O O
only NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Aspiration NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
modified NN O I-INT
videofluoroscopic NN O I-INT
barium NN O I-INT
swallow NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
death NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
dehydration NN O O
following NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8132701)

Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
coumarin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
or NN O O
delay NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
coumarin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,2-benzopyrone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
warfarin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
4-hydroxycoumarin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Their NN O O
action NN O O
is NN O O
macrophage-dependent NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
dosage NN O O
is NN O O
critical NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
1984 NN O O
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
coumarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
50-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
. NN O O

the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
1.70 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
thick NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
TNM NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
IB NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
date NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
4 NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
coumarin-treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
recurrences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo-treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8133853)

A NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
nosocomial NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
very-low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
National NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Child NN O O
Health NN O O
and NN O O
Human NN O O
Development NN O O
Neonatal NN O O
Research NN O O
Network NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Nosocomial NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
premature NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
As NN O O
a NN O O
rule NN O O
, NN O O
their NN O O
low NN O O
serum NN O O
gamma NN O O
globulin NN O O
levels NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
subsequently NN O O
decline NN O O
to NN O O
hypogammaglobulinemic NN O O
values NN O O
; NN O O
hence NN O O
, NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
hospital-acquired NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
two-phase NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
2416 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
501 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1001 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1204 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1212 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O O
infusions NN O O
during NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
623 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
given NN O O
any NN O O
infusions NN O O
during NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
589 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Infants NN O I-PAR
weighing NN O I-PAR
501 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
900 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
infants NN O O
weighing NN O O
1001 NN O O
to NN O O
1500 NN O O
g NN O O
at NN O O
birth NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
700 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
kilogram NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
immune NN O I-INT
globulin NN O I-INT
infusions NN O O
were NN O O
repeated NN O O
every NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
weighed NN O O
1800 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
transferred NN O O
to NN O O
another NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
died NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
were NN O O
sent NN O O
home NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nosocomial NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
meninges NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
439 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2416 NN O O
infants NN O O
( NN O O
18.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
208 NN O O
( NN O O
17.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
231 NN O O
( NN O O
19.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
, NN O O
0.91 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.77 NN O O
to NN O O
1.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Septicemia NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
17.2 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
phase NN O O
1 NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
nosocomial NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
17.8 NN O O
percent 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
respective NN O O
rates NN O O
during NN O O
phase NN O O
2 NN O O
were NN O O
21.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
20.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
predominant NN O O
organisms NN O O
included NN O O
gram-positive NN O O
cocci NN O O
( NN O O
53.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
gram-negative NN O O
bacilli NN O O
( NN O O
22.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
candida NN O O
species NN O O
( NN O O
16.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
rarely NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
infusions NN O O
. NN O O

Immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bronchopulmonary NN O I-OUT
dysplasia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
intracranial NN O I-OUT
hemorrhage NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
necrotizing NN O I-OUT
enterocolitis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12.0 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
9.5 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prophylactic NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
immune NN O O
globulin NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
hospital-acquired NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
very-low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8137583)

Intraperitoneal NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
imaging NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
chromic NN O O
phosphate NN O O
( NN O O
P-32 NN O O
) NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
addressed NN O O
the NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
intraperitoneal NN O I-INT
distribution NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
IDI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
literature NN O O
search NN O O
( NN O O
MEDLINE NN O O
database NN O O
) NN O O
revealed NN O O
wide NN O O
variations NN O O
in NN O O
IDI NN O I-INT
techniques NN O O
without NN O O
a NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
comparison NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
April NN O O
1990 NN O O
to NN O O
September NN O O
1992 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
studied NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
43-65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1000 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mCi NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Tc-99m NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
infused NN O O
intraperitoneally NN O O
for NN O O
IDI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
loculation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
250 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
infused NN O O
with NN O O
Tc-99m NN O I-INT
SC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
repeat NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
our NN O O
standard NN O O
technique NN O O
rendered NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
intraperitoneal NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
seven NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
investigators NN O O
recommend NN O O
low NN O O
volumes NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
this NN O O
produced NN O O
the NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
pseudoloculation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
change NN O O
treatment NN O O
inappropriately NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
studied NN O O
at NN O O
our NN O O
institution NN O O
was NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
liter NN O O
intraperitoneally NN O O
provided NN O O
consistent NN O O
IDI NN O I-OUT
results NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (813984)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
haemophilia NN O O
A NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
out-patient NN O O
basis 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

For NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
36 NN O I-INT
U NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
concentrates NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kg NN O O
bodyweight NN O O
and NN O O
week NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
out-patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
haemophilia NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
injection NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
every NN O O
patient NN O O
every NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
36 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
once NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
twice NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
, NN O O
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
six NN O O
possible NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
dosage NN O O
schedules NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
strictly NN O O
randomised NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
pre-trial NN O O
period NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
needed NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
bleedings NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
two NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
continual NN O O
treatment NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
21 NN O O
bleedings NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
weekly NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
36 NN O O
U NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
VIII NN O I-INT
per NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
on NN O O
twice NN O O
weekly NN O O
18 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
and NN O O
none NN O O
on NN O O
12 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
weekly NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
are NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
dosage NN O O
schedule NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
during NN O O
normal NN O O
working NN O O
. NN O O

Days NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
zero NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
12 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
, NN O O
0.4 NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
twice NN O O
18 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
and NN O O
once NN O O
36 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
five NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pre-trial NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
lost NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
work NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
increased NN O O
mobility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8141163)

Sodium NN O O
kinetics NN O O
in NN O O
white NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
possible NN O O
relevance NN O O
to NN O O
salt-sensitive NN O O
hypertension NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Na NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
kinetics NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
order NN O O
process NN O O
was NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
black NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
400 NN O I-INT
mmol/d NN O I-INT
Na NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
chloride NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
urine NN O O
made NN O O
was NN O O
collected NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
Na NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identified NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
whites NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
blacks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
half-life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
T1/2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
decreasing NN O O
Na NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
mmol/d NN O O
was NN O O
1.08 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
whites NN O O
and NN O O
1.65 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
blacks NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
[ NN O O
NS NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
increasing NN O O
Na NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
, NN O O
T1/2 NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
whites NN O O
and NN O O
blacks NN O O
; NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
400 NN O O
mmol/d NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
T1/2 NN O O
for NN O O
whites NN O O
was NN O O
2.88 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
blacks NN O O
was NN O O
5.81 NN O O
days NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
that NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
whites NN O O
accumulated NN O I-OUT
385 NN O O
+/- NN O O
153 NN O O
mmol NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
909 NN O O
+/- NN O O
153 NN O O
mmol NN O O
for NN O O
blacks 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
data NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
T1/2 NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
Na NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
or NN O O
zero NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dose NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
prominent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blacks NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
in NN O O
whites NN O O
; NN O O
blacks NN O O
accumulate NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
Na NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
Na NN O I-INT
intake NN O O
than NN O O
whites NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
relevance NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
salt-sensitive NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
blacks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8141223)

Maternal NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
singleton NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
hematinic NN O O
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hematinic NN O O
supplementation NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
singleton NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
97 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
first-trimester NN O I-PAR
hemoglobin NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
14.0 NN O I-PAR
gm/dl NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
iron NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
hematinic NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serial NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
maternal NN O O
blood NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
cord NN O O
blood NN O O
on NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
cord NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
40 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
than NN O O
when NN O O
first NN O O
examined NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
serum NN O O
erythropoietin NN O O
was NN O O
higher 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
mean NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ferritin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
presentation NN O O
but NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hematinic NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hematocrit 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
until NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
trimester NN O O
but NN O O
thereafter NN O O
were NN O O
higher 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
hematinic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher 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
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hematinic NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
hematologic NN O I-OUT
values 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

CONCLUSION NN O O
Maternal NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
erythropoietin NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
trimester NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hematinic-supplemented NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8155449)

Risk NN O O
of NN O O
aspiration NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
mask NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
mask NN O O
airway NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
gastric NN O O
regurgitation NN O O
during NN O O
mechanical NN O O
ventilation NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
artificial NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
atracurium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
spontaneous NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
a NN O O
laryngeal NN O O
mask NN O O
airway NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

Regurgitation NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
ingesting NN O O
a NN O O
methylene NN O I-INT
blue NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
and NN O O
examining NN O O
the NN O O
oropharynx NN O O
by NN O O
direct NN O O
laryngoscopy 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

In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
staining NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
oropharynx NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
blue NN O O
dye 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

In NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
dye NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
trachea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bronchi NN O I-OUT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8156515)

Antifungal NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
during NN O O
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
fluconazole NN O O
versus NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Fungal NN O O
infection NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
and NN O O
often NN O O
fatal NN O O
complication NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Although NN O O
candidiasis NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
infection NN O O
, NN O O
mold NN O O
infections NN O O
are NN O O
increasing NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O

Fluconazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FLU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
antifungal NN O O
agent NN O O
that NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
successfully NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
Candida NN O O
infections NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
modest NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
aspergillosis NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Subtherapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AMB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
considered NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
as NN O O
antifungal NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
antifungal NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
AMB NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
FLU NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
antibacterial NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prophylaxis NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
continued NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
achieved NN O I-INT
complete NN O I-INT
remission NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
antileukemic NN O I-INT
response NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prophylaxis NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
or NN O O
proven NN O O
fungal NN O O
infection NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
AMB NN O I-INT
successfully NN O O
completed NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
FLU NN O I-INT
( NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Proven NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
probable NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
possible NN O I-OUT
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
fungal NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
for NN O O
AMB NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
At NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
AMB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
FLU NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
fungal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
remission NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8159300)

Cyclosporin NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O I-PAR
relapsing NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
nephrotic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentre NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-dependent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O I-PAR
relapsing NN O I-PAR
nephrotic NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Open NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
parallel NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
stratified NN O O
for NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
setting NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
nephrological NN O O
departments NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
Italy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
AND NN O O
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Seventy-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroid-sensitive NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
NS NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
9 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
tapered NN O O
off NN O O
by NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
every NN O O
month NN O O
until NN O O
complete NN O O
discontinuation NN O O
at NN O O
month NN O O
12 NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
patients NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
remaining NN O O
66 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
3-24 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
N.S NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
relapses/patient/year NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prednisone/patient NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
laboratory NN O I-OUT
investigations NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
kidney NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haematological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
month NN O O
9 NN O O
, NN O O
26 NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
CsA-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
five NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
18 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
cyclophosphamide-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
partial NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
children NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
frequent NN O O
relapsers NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
steroid-dependent NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
given NN O O
CsA NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
dose NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
prednisone NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly 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
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
year NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
year NN O O
before NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
CsA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
children NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
adults NN O O
and NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
children NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
had NN O O
any NN O O
relapse NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
NS NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
generally NN O O
good NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CsA-related NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
disappeared NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
discontinuation 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
both NN O O
treatments NN O O
are NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
; NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
had NN O O
stable NN O I-OUT
remissions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8162628)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
on NN O O
venous NN O O
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
, NN O O
asymmetric NN O O
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Asymmetric NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimes NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
introduced NN O O
to NN O O
circumvent NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
nitrate NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
assessed NN O O
invasively NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
during NN O O
supine NN O O
rest NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
isosorbide NN O I-INT
dinitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISDN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
asymmetrically NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
possible NN O O
nitrate NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
, NN O O
medication-free NN O O
exercise NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
increased NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
wedge NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PAWP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
31.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.56 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
impaired NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
function NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
from NN O O
112 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16.3 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
at NN O O
rest NN O O
to NN O O
141 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15.9 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
during NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
PAWP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
22.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.09 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
127 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
the NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
exercise NN O O
PAWP NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
13.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.27 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
and NN O O
MAP NN O O
to NN O O
119 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
GTN NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
exercise NN O O
PAWP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
low NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
applied NN O O
ISDN NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamics NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
definite NN O O
, NN O O
partial NN O O
nitrate NN O O
tolerance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8169405)

Multidose NN O O
, NN O O
live NN O O
attenuated NN O O
, NN O O
cold-recombinant NN O O
, NN O O
trivalent NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
cold-recombinant NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trivalent NN O I-INT
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
three-dose NN O O
vaccine NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
vaccine NN O O
were NN O O
seronegative NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
strains NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
TCID50/dose NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
A/Kawasaki/9/86 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H1N1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
A/Los NN O I-INT
Angeles/2/87 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
H3N2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
B/Yamagata/16/88 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
intranasally NN O O
at NN O O
time NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multidose NN O O
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
stimulated NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
H1 NN O O
, NN O O
H3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
in NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
94 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
hemagglutination NN O O
inhibition NN O O
( NN O O
HAI NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ELISA NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
antibody NN O O
by NN O O
HAI NN O O
or NN O O
ELISA NN O O
to NN O O
H1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
H3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
( NN O O
67 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
viruses NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
third NN O O
dose NN O O
contributed NN O O
little NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Multidose NN O O
trivalent NN O O
influenza NN O O
vaccine NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
induces NN O O
an NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
most NN O O
vaccinees NN O O
after NN O O
two NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8197064)

[ NN O O
Effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
behaviorally NN O I-PAR
disordered NN O I-PAR
mentally NN O I-PAR
handicapped NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
personnel NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
residential NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
designed NN O O
for NN O O
mentally NN O I-PAR
handicapped NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
disturbed NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
staff NN O I-PAR
personal NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
role NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
staff NN O O
members NN O O
rated NN O O
their NN O O
professional NN O O
competence NN O O
, NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
interaction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
client NN O O
, NN O O
team NN O O
culture NN O O
and NN O O
work NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
being NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
personal NN O O
aims NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
sets NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
being NN O O
conducted NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
row NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
testings NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
related NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
samples NN O O
show NN O O
differentiated NN O O
program NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
professional NN O I-OUT
competence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
interaction NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
especially NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
qualified NN O O
staff NN O O
members NN O O
. NN O O

Trainees NN O O
put NN O O
emphasis NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
personal NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
client NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
learning NN O O
processes NN O O
specific NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
roles NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
staff NN O O
members NN O O
and NN O O
motivational NN O O
factors NN O O
on NN O O
learning NN O O
and NN O O
therapy NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
along NN O O
with NN O O
institutional NN O O
conditions NN O O
influencing NN O O
successful NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
facilitates NN O O
the NN O O
professional NN O O
and NN O O
interpersonal NN O O
learning NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
staff NN O O
members NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
way NN O O
with NN O O
success NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
with NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8198938)

Trimetazidine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
new NN O O
concept NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
angina NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Trimetazidine NN O O
European NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
. NN O O

Trimetazidine NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
anti-ischaemic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
myocardium NN O O
without NN O O
altering NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
2 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
149 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
angina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
3 NN O O
. NN O O

Reproducibility NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
verified NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
3 NN O O
week NN O O
run-in NN O O
placebo NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
> NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
ST-depression NN O O
on NN O O
exercise NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
similar NN O O
anti-anginal NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
71 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
78 NN O O
) NN O O
groups 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
between NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
as NN O O
regards NN O O
anginal NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
week NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
P-TMZ NN O O
: NN O O
2 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-4.4 NN O O
, NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
exercise NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
P-TMZ NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-33 NN O O
, NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
mm NN O O
ST NN O I-OUT
segment NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
P-TMZ NN O O
: NN O O
13 NN O O
s NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
-24 NN O O
, NN O O
51 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
x NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
product NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
rest NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
at NN O O
peak NN O O
exercise NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
to NN O O
decreased NN O O
ischaemic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
experienced NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
on NN O O
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
patients NN O O
stopped NN O O
trimetazidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
12 NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
deterioration NN O O
in NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
status NN O O
. NN O O

5 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
trimetazidine NN O O
and NN O O
propranolol NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
studied NN O O
have NN O O
similar NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stable NN O O
angina NN O O
pectoris 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- (8208469)

[ NN O O
Perioperative NN O O
teicoplanin NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
case-control NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
report NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
infection NN O O
following NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
reconstruction NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
transposition NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
rectus NN O I-PAR
abdominis NN O I-PAR
myocutaneous NN O I-PAR
flap NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
TRAMF NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O O
parenteral NN O I-INT
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Teicoplanin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
end-point NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
wound NN O O
contamination NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
microbiologic NN O O
culture NN O O
of NN O O
drainage NN O O
fluid NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
October NN O I-PAR
1990 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
March NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
antibiotic NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
drainage NN O O
fluids NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
contamination NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
15/18 NN O O
= NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
arm NN O O
( NN O O
2/20 NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
arm NN O O
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
fever NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
37.5 NN O I-OUT
degrees NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
13.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.3 NN O O
and NN O O
9.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
arm NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evidenced NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
parenteral NN O O
short-term NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
infection NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
clean NN O O
operative NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8208874)

Lithium NN O I-INT
sustains NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
preliminary NN O O
findings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O I-PAR
morning NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
deprivation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
awake NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
0200 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2200 NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
produces NN O O
a NN O O
same-day NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
approximately NN O O
one-half NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Unfortunately NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
short-lived NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
usually NN O O
relapse NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
depression NN O O
levels NN O O
within NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
work NN O O
suggests NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
with NN O O
early NN O O
morning NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
sustains NN O O
this NN O O
rapid NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
makes NN O O
it NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
30-day NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
abilities NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
procedure NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
manipulations NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
induce NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
( NN O O
next-day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
antidepressant NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
16 NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lithium NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
a NN O O
quicker NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
lithium NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
sustained NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
30 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
lithium/early NN O O
morning NN O O
sleep NN O O
deprivation NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
desipramine/sleep NN O I-INT
deprivation NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
in NN O O
inducing NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
previous NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
suggest NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
novel NN O O
sleep/pharmacologic NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
is NN O O
warranted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8210831)

How NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
equivalence NN O O
when NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
censored NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatments NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Interest NN O O
in NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trials NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
increasing NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
methodology NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
trials NN O O
is NN O O
mainly NN O O
for NN O O
uncensored NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cancer NN O O
research NN O O
we NN O O
are NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
concerned NN O O
with NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
an NN O O
efficacy NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
specifies NN O O
equality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
survival NN O O
distributions NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
null NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
of NN O O
inequivalence NN O O
H0 NN O O
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tested NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
usual NN O O
logrank NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
has NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
modified NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
value NN O O
r NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
hazard NN O O
rates NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
limit NN O O
value NN O O
r0 NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Cox NN O O
model NN O O
provides NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
Ho NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O O
relative NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
regression NN O O
parameter NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
indicator NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
equivalence NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
maintenance NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
serves NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
illustration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8213019)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
postural NN O I-OUT
stability NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
computerised NN O I-INT
posturography NN O I-INT
following NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
paediatric NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
propofol/alfentanil/N2O NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
thiopentone/halothane/N2O NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Simple NN O O
clinical NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
like NN O O
Romberg NN O O
's NN O O
test NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
walking NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
proved NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
inadequate NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
outpatient NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
therefore NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
postural NN O O
stability NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
computerised NN O O
posturography NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-INT
midazolam-atropine NN O I-INT
premedicated NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6.9 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
s.e NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
0.4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
anaesthetised NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
propofol/alfentanil/N2O NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
thiopentone/halothane/N2O NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
sway NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
premedication NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
sway NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
propofol/alfentanil/N2O NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
thiopentone/halothane/N2O NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
quantified NN O O
version NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Romberg NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performed NN O O
with NN O O
eyes NN O O
open NN O O
or NN O O
closed NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
impaired NN O O
after NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
poor NN O O
equilibrium NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
compensated NN O O
by NN O O
vision NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
recovery NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
eye NN O I-OUT
opening NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
responding NN O O
to NN O O
command NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
being NN O O
fully NN O O
awake NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
recovery NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
postural NN O O
stability NN O O
, NN O O
propofol/alfentanil/N2O NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
preferable NN O O
to NN O O
thiopentone/halothane/N2O NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
after NN O O
minor NN O O
paediatric NN O O
otolaryngological NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8222739)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
'controlled NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
and NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
special NN O I-PAR
regard NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
morning NN O I-PAR
stiffness NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
awakening NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O I-PAR
centres NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
'controlled-release NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
suppositories NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
out-patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
classical NN O I-PAR
rheumatoid NN O I-PAR
arthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
bedtime NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
1 NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
tablet NN O O
or NN O O
1 NN O O
indomethacin NN O I-INT
suppository NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
the NN O O
dummy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
formulation NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Daily NN O O
diary NN O O
records NN O O
were NN O O
kept NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
night-time NN O O
awakenings NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
severity NN O O
at NN O O
awakening NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
morning NN O O
stiffness NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
trial NN O O
period NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
articular NN O O
index NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
overall NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
mentioned NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
or NN O O
elicited NN O O
by NN O O
direct NN O O
questioning NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
symptom NN O O
check-list NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
'controlled-release NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
tablet NN O I-OUT
formulation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
200 NN O I-OUT
mg NN O I-OUT
ketoprofen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
equally NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
100 NN O I-OUT
mg NN O I-OUT
indomethacin NN O I-OUT
suppository NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
rheumatoid NN O O
arthritis NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
awakening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Side-effects NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
those NN O O
commonly NN O O
seen NN O O
with NN O O
non-steroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
gastro-intestinal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CNS NN O I-OUT
disturbances NN O I-OUT
predominated NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
fewer NN O O
with NN O O
ketoprofen NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
indomethacin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8238214)

Relaxing NN O I-INT
retinotomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
vitreoretinopathy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
Report NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
, NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
404 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
vitreoretinopathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
C-3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
full-thickness NN O I-PAR
retinal NN O I-PAR
folds NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
quadrants NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
vitrectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
relaxing NN O I-INT
retinotomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
undergone NN O O
no NN O O
previous NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
71 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
undergone NN O O
previous NN O O
vitrectomy NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
intraocular NN O O
gas NN O O
tamponade NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
eyes NN O O
not NN O O
undergoing NN O O
retinotomy NN O O
had NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
anatomic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
hypotony NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
eyes NN O O
that NN O O
did NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
tamponade NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
eyes NN O O
undergoing NN O O
retinotomy NN O O
, NN O O
silicone NN O O
oil NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
likelihood NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypotony NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
months 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
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
eyes NN O O
undergoing NN O O
a NN O O
vitreous NN O O
operation NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
time NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
proliferative NN O I-OUT
vitreoretinopathy NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
instances NN O O
be NN O O
successfully NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
conventional NN O O
techniques NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
relaxing NN O O
retinotomy NN O O
. NN O O

Retinotomy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
required NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
repeat NN O O
vitreous NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
proliferative NN O O
vitreoretinopathy NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
case NN O O
both NN O O
silicone NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
long-acting NN O O
perflouropropane NN O I-INT
gas NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
equally NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8245359)

Femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
enhances NN O O
transthoracic NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
postulated NN O O
that NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
streaming NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
enhance NN O O
precordial NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
detection NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patent NN O O
foramen NN O O
ovale NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
precordial NN O O
contrast NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
diagnose NN O O
patent NN O O
foramen NN O O
ovale NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
limited NN O O
by NN O O
poor NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
investigators NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
enhanced NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
dye-dilution NN O O
technique NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
inferior NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
vena NN O O
cava NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Transthoracic NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
examinations NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomly NN O O
selected NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
embolus NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
catheterization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Paired NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
dextrose NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
water/0.25 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
air NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
from NN O O
an NN O O
upper NN O O
extremity NN O O
vein NN O O
and NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
during NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
respiration NN O O
, NN O O
cough NN O O
and NN O O
Valsalva NN O O
maneuvers NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
were NN O O
interpreted NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
experienced NN O O
echocardiographer NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sequence NN O O
and NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

Positive NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
semiquantitatively NN O O
graded NN O O
from NN O O
+1 NN O O
( NN O O
minimal NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
opacification NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
+4 NN O O
( NN O O
intense NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
opacification NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Catheterization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
echocardiographic NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
21 NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
during NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
versus NN O O
upper NN O O
extremity NN O O
contrast NN O O
delivery NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
prevalence NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
vs. NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
70 NN O O
patients NN O O
[ NN O O
prevalence NN O O
13 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
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
opacification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
greater NN O O
during NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
contrast NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Precordial NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
femoral NN O O
contrast NN O O
delivery NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
cardiac NN O O
catheterization NN O O
for NN O O
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
precordial NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
echocardiography NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
diagnose NN O I-OUT
patent NN O I-OUT
foramen NN O I-OUT
ovale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physiologic NN O O
patency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
foramen NN O O
ovale NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
common NN O O
( NN O O
prevalence NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
previously NN O O
documented NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8255984)

A NN O O
preliminary NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
as NN O O
supplemental NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
1 NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
30-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
exploring NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8g/70kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
supplemental NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
residential NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
2 NN O O
. NN O O

Residential NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
ascorbate-ascorbate-placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ascorbate-placebo-ascorbate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
order NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
treatment NN O O
phase NN O O
lasted NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
behaviors NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
weekly NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Ritvo-Freeman NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

3 NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
group NN O O
by NN O O
phase NN O O
interactions NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
also NN O O
sensory NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
indicating NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
4 NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
dopaminergic NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
of NN O O
ascorbic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8259746)

Comparison NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
hydralazine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ninety-seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
preeclampsia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
labetalol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hydralazine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
PE NN O I-PAR
gave NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
neonates NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
VLBW NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
very NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1500 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seven NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
labetalol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
hydralazine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
seven NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
due NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
poor NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
cesarean NN O I-OUT
section NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
indication NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
operative NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

Gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
29.9 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
25.4-32.5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
28.6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26.6-33.4 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
27.3 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26.7-31.1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
Group NN O O
C NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
and NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Birth NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
weighed NN O I-PAR
below NN O I-PAR
1000 NN O I-PAR
g. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
five NN O O
minutes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hydralazine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
11 NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
( NN O O
GA NN O O
) NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
weeks NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
neonates NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
GA NN O O
29-30 NN O O
weeks NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Neither NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
intermittent NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
O2- NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infants NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
find NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
VLBW NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
mother NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
hydralazine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
labetalol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8268649)

Deficiency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
ionized NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
peritoneal NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O O
total NN O O
magnesium NN O O
( NN O O
TMg NN O O
) NN O O
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
dialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
variable NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
some NN O O
groups NN O O
reporting NN O O
hypermagnesemia NN O O
and NN O O
some NN O O
hypomagnesemia NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
possible NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
biologically NN O O
active NN O O
fraction NN O O
, NN O O
ionized NN O O
magnesium NN O O
( NN O O
IMg2+ NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
utilized NN O O
an NN O O
ion-selective NN O O
electrode NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
IMg NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 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
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Dialysate NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.375 NN O O
mM/L NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
and NN O O
0.25 NN O O
mM/L NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
CAPD NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
and NN O O
CAPD NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
IMg2+ NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.55 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
and NN O O
0.50 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.004 NN O O
mM/L 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
greater NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
TMg NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.99 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
, NN O O
different NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.85 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.84 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ionized NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ICa2+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
1.15 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
and NN O O
1.21 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.04 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.17 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
mean NN O O
ICa2+/IMg2+ NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2.14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.07 NN O O
and NN O O
2.42 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.06 NN O O
vs. NN O O
1.95 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.02 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
subjects 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
percent NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
was NN O O
ionized NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
IMg2+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
low NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
and NN O O
CAPD NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
55.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.93 NN O O
and NN O O
59.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.05 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.61 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

IMg2+ NN O O
values NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
TMg NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
hemodialysis NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.93 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
CAPD NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.92 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
time NN O O
on NN O O
dialysis NN O O
, NN O O
weight NN O O
, NN O O
fasting NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
or NN O O
triglyceride NN O O
, NN O O
albumin NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
urea NN O O
nitrogen NN O O
( NN O O
BUN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
creatinine NN O O
, NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
, NN O O
phosphate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
PTH NN O O
values 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- (8272303)

Ovulation NN O O
and NN O O
follicular NN O O
development NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
three NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
address NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OCs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
increase NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
ovarian NN O I-OUT
cysts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
single-center NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lower-dose NN O I-INT
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
higher-dose NN O I-INT
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
During NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
follicular NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
vaginal NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
and NN O O
ovulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
serum NN O O
progesterone NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
structure NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
30 NN O I-OUT
mm NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
diameter NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
a NN O O
cycle NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
higher-dose NN O O
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.5 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
0.1-1.9 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.49 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
multiphasic NN O O
pill NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lower-dose NN O I-OUT
monophasic NN O I-OUT
pill NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.5-3.6 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.56 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
ovulation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
60 NN O O
cycles NN O O
was NN O O
1.7 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
cycles NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
0.0-8.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
This NN O O
multiphasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
more NN O O
closely NN O O
resembled NN O O
the NN O O
lower-dose NN O O
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O O
higher-dose NN O O
monophasic NN O I-INT
pill NN O I-INT
in NN O O
its NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
follicular NN O I-OUT
development NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8274583)

Noradrenergic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
yohimbine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
comorbidity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Adrenergic NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
infusions NN O O
of NN O O
yohimbine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depressive NN O I-PAR
episode NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
concurrent NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
panic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MDE NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
P NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
was NN O O
drawn NN O O
at NN O O
-20 NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
min NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
assayed NN O O
for NN O O
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3-methoxy-4-hydroxy-phenyl NN O I-OUT
glycol NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MHPG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
groups NN O O
exhibited NN O O
higher NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
NE NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
AUC0-90 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
yohimbine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
NE NN O I-OUT
AUC0-90 NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
NE NN O O
system NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
dysregulated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MDE NN O O
and NN O O
MDE NN O O
+ NN O O
P NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
NE NN O O
system NN O O
still NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
somewhat NN O O
predictably NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
actual NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
may NN O O
vary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8275152)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
tidal NN O O
volumes NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
one-handed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
two-handed NN O I-INT
ventilation NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
tidal NN O O
volumes NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
one- NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
two-handed NN O I-INT
compressions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
manual NN O I-INT
resuscitation NN O I-INT
bag NN O I-INT
and NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
subject NN O O
characteristics NN O O
on NN O O
those NN O O
tidal NN O O
volumes NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
108 NN O I-PAR
healthcare NN O I-PAR
providers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
500-bed NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
procedures NN O O
: NN O O
one- NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
two-handed NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
two- NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
one-handed NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
1-liter NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
bag NN O O
, NN O O
lung NN O O
performance NN O O
analyzer NN O O
and NN O O
Wright NN O O
spirometer NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
tidal NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
collection NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
simulated NN O I-PAR
situation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS 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
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
one-handed NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
694 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
111 NN O O
) NN O O
vs NN O O
two-handed NN O I-INT
compressions NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
= NN O O
827 NN O O
mL NN O O
, NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
113 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hand NN O O
size NN O O
, NN O O
grip NN O O
strength NN O O
, NN O O
height NN O O
and NN O O
weight NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
tidal NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
generated NN O O
by NN O O
one-handed NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two-handed NN O I-INT
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
subject NN O O
characteristics NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
tidal NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tidal NN O I-OUT
volumes NN O I-OUT
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
healthcare NN O O
providers NN O O
using NN O O
one- NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
two-handed NN O I-INT
compressions NN O I-INT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O I-INT
hands NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O I-INT
hand NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Strength NN O O
of NN O O
hand NN O O
grip NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
volume NN O O
delivered NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
strongly NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
volumes NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O I-INT
rather NN O O
than NN O O
two NN O I-INT
hands NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8275903)

[ NN O O
Opiate NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
? NN O O
Therapeutic NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
opioid NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
childhood NN O O
autism NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
excessive NN O O
brain NN O O
opioid NN O O
activity NN O O
during NN O O
neonatal NN O O
period NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
constitutionally NN O O
inhibit NN O O
social NN O O
motivation NN O O
, NN O O
yielding NN O O
autistic NN O O
isolation NN O O
and NN O O
aloofness NN O O
( NN O O
Panksepp NN O O
, NN O O
1979 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
has NN O O
now NN O O
received NN O O
strong NN O O
support NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
arguments NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
similarity NN O O
between NN O O
autistic NN O O
symptomatology NN O O
and NN O O
abnormal NN O O
behaviors NN O O
induced NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
animals NN O O
by NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
exogenous NN O O
opioids NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
increasing NN O O
social NN O O
aloofness NN O O
and NN O O
decreasing NN O O
social NN O O
vocalization NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
direct NN O O
biochemical NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O O
endogenous NN O O
opioids NN O O
being NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
long NN O O
lasting NN O O
opioid NN O O
receptor NN O O
blocking NN O O
agent NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
give NN O O
description NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
tested NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
open NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
displaying NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
reduced NN O I-PAR
crying NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
marked NN O I-PAR
preference NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
salty NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
spicy NN O I-PAR
foods NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
opioid NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
an NN O O
immediate NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
aggressiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
smiling NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
seeking NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
play NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
Leboyer NN O O
, NN O O
Bouvard NN O O
et NN O O
Dugas NN O O
, NN O O
1988 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Campbell NN O O
et NN O O
al NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
1988 NN O O
) NN O O
has NN O O
also NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
tranquilizing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
stimulating NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
6 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
confirm NN O O
these NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/kg/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
compared 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- (8276557)

Enoxaparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
major NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
multicentric NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Italian NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DVT NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
very NN O O
frequent NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
general NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
recently NN O O
, NN O O
LMWHs NN O I-INT
can NN O O
successfully NN O O
prevent NN O O
post NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
thromboembolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
thousand NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twenty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
533 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
589 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
62.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
11.4 NN O I-PAR
yrs NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DVT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
general NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
received NN O O
1 NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
2000 NN O O
I.U NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
0.2 NN O O
ml NN O O
( NN O O
5000 NN O O
I.U NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
starting NN O O
2 NN O O
hours NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
by NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
route NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
Doppler NN O O
or NN O O
Duplex NN O O
Scan NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
DVT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
made NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
cases NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
cases NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
bilateral NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
ascertained NN O O
by NN O O
angiography NN O O
in NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
0.18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
0.36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
one NN O O
. NN O O

Hemorrhagic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
5.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
34 NN O O
( NN O O
6.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Haematomas NN O I-OUT
located NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
16.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
25.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Local NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
injection NN O O
site NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
5th NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
8.4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
16.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O O
and NN O O
calcium NN O O
heparin NN O O
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

( 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- (8277075)

Altered NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
vasodilator NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine 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
short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
peripheral NN O O
arteries NN O O
, NN O O
veins NN O O
and NN O O
microcirculation NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
thiol NN O O
donor NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
may NN O O
potentiate NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
nitrates NN O O
in NN O O
nitrate-tolerant NN O O
and NN O O
nontolerant NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vascular NN O O
changes NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
microgram/kg NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
g NN O O
intravenously NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
per NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
23 NN O O
h NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Venous NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
diameter NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
radial NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calf NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Prolonged NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
potentiated NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
venodilator NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
as NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
4.45 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
; NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
3.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.46 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM 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
prevented NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
seen NN O O
after NN O O
23 NN O O
h NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O O
plus NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
4.35 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.25 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.41 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
nitroglycerin-induced NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
microcirculatory NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
6.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
per NN O O
min NN O O
vs. NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
3.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
per 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
and NN O O
after NN O O
23 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
4.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
3.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.5 NN O O
ml/100 NN O O
g NN O O
per 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

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
coadministration NN O O
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
potentiates NN O O
and NN O O
preserves NN O O
nitroglycerin-induced NN O I-OUT
venodilation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
augments NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
small NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
vessels NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
regulating NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
affecting NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
nitroglycerin NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
middle-sized NN O I-OUT
arteries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
nitrate NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
vasodilator NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8279616)

A NN O O
workplace NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
outdoor NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
use NN O O
of NN O O
solar NN O O
protection NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
Outdoor NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
prevention NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
can NN O O
potentially NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
skin NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
also NN O O
potentiates NN O O
the NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
remission NN O O
of NN O O
existing NN O O
solar NN O O
keratoses NN O O
. 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
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
solar NN O I-INT
protection NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
targeting NN O O
outdoor NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Outdoor NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
77 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
individual NN O I-INT
skin NN O I-INT
screening NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dermatologist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
participated NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
education NN O I-INT
session NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pre- NN O O
and NN O O
posttest NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
included NN O O
solar NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
diary NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
outdoor NN O O
workers NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
solar NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttest NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
pretest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention 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 I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
showed NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
posttest NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
attitudes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
detected NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
solar NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
achievable NN O O
with NN O O
outdoor NN O I-PAR
workers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8281875)

Omeprazole NN O I-INT
ameliorates NN O O
aspirin-induced NN O O
gastroduodenal NN O I-PAR
injury NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
antiinflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
damage NN O O
the NN O O
gastroduodenal NN O O
epithelium NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
: NN O O
direct NN O O
toxic NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
effects NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
depletion NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
prostaglandins NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prostaglandin-depleted NN O O
mucosa NN O O
has NN O O
increased NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
to NN O O
luminal NN O O
aggressive NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
yet NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NSAID NN O I-INT
ulcer NN O O
is NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
H2-receptor NN O O
antagonists NN O O
prevent NN O O
only NN O O
duodenal NN O O
injury NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
no NN O O
protection NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
mucosa NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
more NN O O
potent NN O O
suppression NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
NSAID NN O O
damage NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
prevents NN O O
gastroduodenal NN O O
injury NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O O
650 NN O O
mg NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
quantitated NN O O
by NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
and NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
scale NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O O
normal NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
ulcer NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
less NN O O
gastric NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
cotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
difference NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
aspirin NN O O
plus NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Omeprazole NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreased NN O O
aspirin-induced NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
mucosal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
, NN O O
Wilcoxon NN O O
signed-rank NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Omeprazole NN O I-INT
protected NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
from NN O O
extensive NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
erosions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
often NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
intraluminal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
ulceration NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
developed NN O O
aspirin-induced NN O I-OUT
grades NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
4 NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
by NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
subject NN O O
taking NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
duodenal NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
while NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
taking NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
developed NN O O
erosions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
had NN O O
ulcer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Medication NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
subjects 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- (8282676)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
attentional NN O O
learning NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
critically NN O O
the NN O O
short-term NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
discrimination NN O O
learning NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
placebo NN O O
baseline NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
one-week NN O O
posttreatment NN O O
placebo NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Multiple NN O O
raters NN O O
and NN O O
rating NN O O
scales NN O O
were NN O O
employed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-one NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2.9 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
7.8 NN O I-PAR
years 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
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
discrimination NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
laboratory NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
suggestion NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
decreasing NN O O
self-injurious NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Untoward NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
and NN O O
transient NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
naltrexone NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
only NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
untoward NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
and NN O O
self-injurious NN O O
behavior NN O O
requires NN O O
additional NN O O
assessment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
self-injurious NN O I-PAR
behavior NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8292465)

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
first-dose NN O O
hypotension NN O O
with NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2242 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
95-120 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
basis NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
first-dose NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
sitting NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
standing NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fall NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mmHg NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
standing NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
b NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
suggestive NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
hypotension NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
c NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
classifications 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
incidences NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
combined NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
between NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
quinapril NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
associated NN O I-OUT
serious NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
low-risk NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
studied NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
appear NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
first-dose NN O O
hypotension NN O O
with NN O O
quinapril NN O O
is NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
dose-related NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8296409)

[ NN O O
Hemostatic NN O O
balance NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
newest NN O O
contraceptives NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-four NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
consecutive NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
monophasic NN O I-INT
combinations NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
desogestrel NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
gestodene NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
VII NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
coagulation NN O O
inhibition NN O O
was NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
C NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
protein NN O I-OUT
S NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Increased NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
elevated NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
antigen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
activity NN O O
and NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tissue NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
thrombin-antithrombin-III-complexes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrin NN O I-OUT
degradation NN O I-OUT
products NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
unchanged NN O I-OUT
signifying NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
hormonal NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
thrombin NN O O
formation NN O O
and NN O O
fibrin NN O O
resolution NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
generation NN O O
and NN O O
resolution NN O O
of NN O O
fibrin NN O O
was NN O O
undisturbed NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
hormonal NN O O
compounds NN O O
and NN O O
our NN O O
findings NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
provide NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8297739)

Granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
allows NN O O
acceleration NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
62 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O O
colony-stimulating NN O O
factor NN O O
( NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
would NN O O
yield NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
standard-dose NN O I-INT
CEF NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
through NN O O
an NN O O
acceleration NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m-2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epidoxorubicin NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m-2 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
m-2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
plus NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
micrograms NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
s.c. NN O O
starting NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
repeated NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
haematopoietic NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
nadir NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
intensity NN O O
actually NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
, NN O O
fourth NN O O
and NN O O
sixth NN O O
cycles NN O O
: NN O O
+28 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
+25 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
+20 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Non-haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

GM-CSF NN O I-INT
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
or NN O O
suspended NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Haematological NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
anaemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
manageable NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
measurable NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
of NN O O
borderline NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.088 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
for NN O O
trend NN O O
= NN O O
0.018 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
to NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
is NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
acceleration NN O O
. NN O O

Accelerated NN O O
CEF NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
moderately NN O O
dose-intensive NN O O
regimen NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
outpatient NN O O
clinic NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
objective NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8305277)

MR NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
pituitary NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
pituitary NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
MR NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
with NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
0.3 NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
mM/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
studied NN O O
with NN O O
0.1 NN O I-INT
mM/kg NN O I-INT
gadopentetate NN O I-INT
dimeglumine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
reports NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O O
medium NN O O
for NN O O
MR NN O O
imaging NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pituitary NN O O
region NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
additional NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
information NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mM/kg NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
0.1 NN O O
mM/kg NN O O
gadopentate NN O O
dimeglumine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mM/kg NN O O
) NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
shorten NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
T2 NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
sufficiently NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
overwhelm NN O O
the NN O O
T1 NN O I-OUT
shortening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
pathologic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
hypointense NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
precontrast NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
comparable NN O O
relaxivities NN O O
of NN O O
gadodiamide NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
and NN O O
gadopentetate NN O I-INT
dimeglumine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
similarities NN O O
in NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
media NN O O
for NN O O
MR NN O O
image NN O O
enhancement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8311760)

Does NN O O
wavelength NN O O
matter NN O O
when NN O O
photocoagulating NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
or NN O O
diabetic NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (8318411)

Continuous NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
responsive NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
tumour NN O O
markers NN O O
? NN O O
A NN O O
biochemical NN O O
response NN O O
index NN O O
comprising NN O O
ESR NN O O
, NN O O
CEA NN O O
and NN O O
CA NN O O
15.3 NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
67 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
UICC NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
index NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
96 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
UICC NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Marker NN O O
changes NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
correlation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
UICC NN O O
assessed NN O O
response NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
specificity NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
positive NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
select NN O O
out NN O O
truly NN O O
responsive NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
prospectively NN O O
direct NN O O
their NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty-six NN O O
responding NN O O
( NN O O
biochemical/clinical NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O I-INT
cytotoxics NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
move NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
hormones NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
continue NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
whilst NN O O
the NN O O
biochemical NN O O
markers NN O O
kept NN O O
falling NN O O
or NN O O
remained NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Biochemical NN O O
progression NN O O
prompted NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Continuous NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
biochemically NN O O
defined NN O O
responders NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
lengthening NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
are NN O O
now NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
to NN O O
routinely NN O O
direct NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
select NN O O
out NN O O
true NN O O
responders NN O O
for NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8323420)

A NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
screening NN O O
and NN O O
prompting NN O O
improves NN O O
short-term NN O O
physician NN O O
counseling NN O O
of NN O O
dependent NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nondependent NN O I-PAR
harmful NN O I-PAR
drinkers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Physicians NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
medical NN O O
setting NN O O
commonly NN O O
encounter NN O O
but NN O O
rarely NN O O
counsel NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dependent NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
harmful NN O I-PAR
drinking NN O I-PAR
behaviors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
tested NN O O
whether NN O O
providing NN O O
physicians NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
results NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
alcohol NN O O
module NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Interview NN O O
Schedule NN O O
and NN O O
counseling NN O O
directives NN O O
would NN O O
prompt NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
counsel NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
83 NN O I-PAR
first- NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
second- NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
third-year NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
residents NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O I-INT
information NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
directives NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
214 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
reported NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
symptom NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diagnostic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Statistical NN O I-PAR
Manual NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Mental NN O I-PAR
Disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Third NN O I-PAR
Edition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
binary NN O I-INT
logistic NN O I-INT
regression NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
specific NN O O
covariables NN O O
on NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O O
counseling NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
physician NN O O
information NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O O
gender NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
drinking NN O O
disorder NN O O
severity NN O O
and NN O O
recency NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
also NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O O
prompting NN O O
on NN O O
counseling NN O O
of NN O O
female NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inactive NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nondependent NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
harmful NN O I-PAR
drinkers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
determined NN O O
counseling NN O O
by NN O O
post-visit NN O O
patient NN O O
interviews NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Physician NN O I-OUT
prompting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dependent NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recent NN O I-OUT
disorder NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significant NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O O
counseling NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
male NN O O
gender NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
marginally NN O O
significant NN O O
correlate NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Informed NN O O
physicians NN O O
counseled NN O O
female NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
harmful NN O O
but NN O O
nondependent NN O O
drinkers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
inactive NN O O
disorders NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
than NN O O
their NN O O
uninformed NN O O
colleagues NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
variable NN O O
achieved NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Providing NN O O
physicians NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Diagnostic NN O O
Interview NN O O
Schedule NN O O
and NN O O
counseling NN O O
directives NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
counseling NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
dependent NN O O
or NN O O
nondependent NN O O
but NN O O
harmful NN O O
drinking NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
research NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
long-term NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
improvements NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8331682)

Low-dose NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O O
tumors NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
recently NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
regular NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
incidence NN O O
or NN O O
mortality NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
observational NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
analyses NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
limited NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
for NN O O
confounding NN O O
bias NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
specify NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
regular NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
invasive NN O O
and NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
colorectal NN O O
tumors NN O O
by NN O O
utilizing NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Physicians NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
Health NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beta NN O I-INT
carotene NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
also NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
invasive NN O O
cancers NN O O
among NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
users NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
rectal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Physicians NN O O
' NN O O
Health NN O O
Study NN O O
includes NN O O
22071 NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aspirin NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
terminated NN O O
in NN O O
1988 NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
and NN O O
signs NN O O
and/or NN O O
symptoms NN O O
during NN O O
presentation NN O O
were NN O O
abstracted NN O O
from NN O O
medical NN O O
records NN O O
. NN O O

Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
models NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
RR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CIs NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
aspirin NN O O
and NN O O
bleeding NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
between NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
in NN O O
tumor NN O O
risk NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
were NN O O
visualized NN O O
with NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
curves NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
aspirin NN O O
and NN O O
stage NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
rank NN O O
sum NN O O
statistic NN O O
for NN O O
non-parametric NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
ordinal NN O O
distributions NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
RR NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
for NN O O
aspirin NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
was NN O O
1.15 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.80-1.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
in NN O O
situ NN O O
cancers NN O O
and NN O O
polyps NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
RR NN O O
was NN O O
0.86 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
= NN O O
0.68-1.10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
decreasing NN O O
RR NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
year NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
invasive NN O O
cancers NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.09 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
tumors NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.96 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
or NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Regular NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
use NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
adequate NN O O
for NN O O
preventing NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
colorectal NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
small NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
polyps NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
aspirin NN O O
group NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
reliably NN O O
distinguished NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
chance NN O O
association NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
among NN O O
low-dose NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
users NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
mortality NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
earlier NN O O
detection NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
incidence NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
increased NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
aspirin-induced NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
bleeding NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
The NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O O
or NN O O
longer NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
addressed NN O O
by NN O O
more NN O O
detailed NN O O
observational NN O O
epidemiologic NN O O
studies NN O O
and NN O O
prevention NN O O
trials NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8332150)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Electrophysiologic NN O O
Study NN O O
versus NN O O
Electrocardiographic NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacies NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachyarrhythmias NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
imipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mexiletine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pirmenol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procainamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
propafenone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
quinidine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sotalol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachyarrhythmias NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Electrophysiologic NN O O
Study NN O O
versus NN O O
Electrocardiographic NN O O
Monitoring NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
serial NN O O
testing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drugs NN O O
by NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
strategies NN O O
: NN O O
electrophysiologic NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Holter NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
together NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
testing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
seven NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
tested NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O O
of NN O O
predictions NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
drug NN O O
titration NN O O
were NN O O
tabulated NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
486 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

Recurrences NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmia NN O O
, NN O O
deaths NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
drug NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
296 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
whom NN O O
an NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
electrophysiologic-study NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
predictions NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
sotalol NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Holter-monitoring NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lowest NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
sotalol NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
a NN O O
prediction NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
efficacy NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
strategy NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
sotalol NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.43 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.29 NN O O
to NN O O
0.62 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
sotalol NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
combined NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
risks NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
any NN O O
cause NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.50 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.30 NN O O
to NN O O
0.80 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
death NN O O
from NN O O
cardiac NN O O
causes NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
0.50 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.50 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
it NN O O
remained NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
sotalol NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Sotalol NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
six NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
drugs NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
arrhythmia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
patients NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
antiarrhythmic-drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
recurrences NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachyarrhythmias NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
sotalol NN O O
and NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
potential NN O O
efficacy NN O O
by NN O O
Holter NN O O
monitoring NN O O
are NN O O
a NN O O
reasonable NN O O
initial NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8333941)

Fusidic NN O O
acid NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
before NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
self-administration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
authors NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
patient-administered NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
fusidic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
viscous NN O I-INT
eye NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
in NN O O
clearing NN O O
the NN O O
commonest NN O O
organisms NN O O
causing NN O O
pseudophakic NN O O
endophthalmitis NN O O
( NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
epidermidis NN O O
and NN O O
aureus NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
lids NN O O
and NN O O
conjunctivae NN O O
of NN O O
79 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
self-administered NN O O
fusidic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
viscous NN O O
eye NN O O
drops NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
inert NN O I-INT
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fellow NN O O
eyes NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
remained NN O O
untreated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
natural NN O O
control NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O O
fornix NN O O
and NN O O
lid NN O O
margin NN O O
cultures NN O O
were NN O O
taken NN O O
from NN O O
both NN O O
eyes NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
organism NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
eyes NN O O
receiving NN O O
fusidic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
free NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
spp NN O O
. NN O O

than NN O O
all NN O O
pre-treatment NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
for NN O O
lids NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
; NN O O
conjunctivae NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lid NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
rendered NN O O
'clinically NN O O
clean NN O O
' NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
0-49 NN O O
organisms/swab NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
fusidic NN O O
acid NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
untreated NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
also NN O O
effectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bacteria NN O I-OUT
isolated NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
conjunctivae NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
spp 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
non-Staphylococcus NN O O
spp 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
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
sterile NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
operation NN O O
gained NN O O
by NN O O
patient NN O O
self-administration NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
fusidic NN O O
acid NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
seven NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8338088)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sodium NN O O
phosphate NN O O
, NN O O
castor NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
standard NN O O
electrolyte NN O O
lavage NN O O
for NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-PAR
preparation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Fleet NN O I-INT
Phospho-Soda NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
lemon-flavored NN O I-INT
castor NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Purge NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol-based NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GoLYTELY NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
before NN O O
elective NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
extend NN O O
observations NN O O
to NN O O
include NN O O
castor NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
that NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
castor NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
were NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
complete NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
cleansing NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
entire NN O I-OUT
colon NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
endoscopists NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cathartic NN O O
agent NN O O
were NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
left-colon NN O I-OUT
cleansing NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
flexible NN O I-OUT
sigmoidoscopy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
equally NN O O
high NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
methods NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
taste NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
preparation NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
recognized NN O O
signs NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypocalcemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
sodium NN O O
phosphate NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
repeat NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
rate NN O O
for NN O O
inadequate NN O O
cleansing NN O O
, NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
savings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
projected NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
$ NN O O
5000 NN O O
per NN O O
100 NN O O
patients NN O O
at NN O O
this NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
sodium NN O I-INT
phosphate NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
preparation NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
polyethylene NN O I-INT
glycol-electrolyte NN O I-INT
lavage NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
castor NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8338943)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
regimen-related NN O O
toxicities NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor NN O O
alpha NN O O
( NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
) NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
transplant-related NN O O
complications NN O O
after NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
recent NN O O
phase NN O O
I-II NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTX NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
xanthine NN O O
derivative NN O O
capable NN O O
of NN O O
downregulating NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
production NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
PTX NN O O
therapy NN O O
among NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
allogeneic NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
51 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
70 NN O O
) NN O O
oral NN O O
PTX NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1,600 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
divided NN O O
doses NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
-8 NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
+ NN O O
100 NN O O
post-BMT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mucositis NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
sulfate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSO4 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
42.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
MSO4 NN O O
being NN O O
7.8 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PTX NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
8.2 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
3.4 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
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
insufficiency NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
PTX NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
( NN O O
15.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PTX NN O O
group NN O O
v NN O O
21.4 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
NS NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
100 NN O O
days NN O O
post-BMT NN O O
was NN O O
119 NN O O
mumol/L NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
82.4 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PTX NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
103.9 NN O O
mumol/L NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
= NN O O
57 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
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
grade NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
graft-versus-host NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
11/25 NN O O
[ NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PTX NN O I-INT
group NN O O
v NN O O
12/26 NN O O
[ NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
PTX NN O I-INT
in NN O O
transplant-related NN O O
toxicities NN O O
after NN O O
BMT NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
that NN O O
PTX NN O I-INT
be NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
morbidity NN O O
prevention NN O O
programs NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
BMT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8363113)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
charcoal NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
simulated NN O O
poisoning NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acetaminophen NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
new NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
for NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
? NN O O
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
supranormal NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
to NN O O
overcome NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
charcoal NN O O
on NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
activated NN O O
charcoal NN O O
on NN O O
serum NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
, NN O O
SETTING NN O O
, NN O O
AND NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
cross-over NN O O
experiment NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
ingested NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
one NN O I-INT
hour NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
140 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
charcoal NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
ingested NN O O
3 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
later NN O O
by NN O O
60 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
activated NN O I-INT
charcoal NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
supranormal NN O I-INT
loading NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
235 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
every NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
for NN O O
six NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
acetaminophen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
paired NN O O
t-test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
four-hour NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
acetaminophen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
than NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
, NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
paired NN O O
t-test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Diarrhea NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
during NN O O
both NN O O
phases NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
otherwise NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
activated NN O O
charcoal NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
safely NN O O
for NN O O
victims NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
acetaminophen NN O I-PAR
overdose NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
absorption NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
if NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
given NN O O
within NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
needed NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
toxic NN O O
serum NN O O
acetaminophen NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
ensured NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
N-acetylcysteine NN O I-INT
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
from NN O O
140 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
to NN O O
235 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8367775)

Early NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
autotransfused NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elective NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
and NN O O
extremely NN O O
popular NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
necessity NN O O
for NN O O
homologous NN O O
transfusions NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
attendant NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
hepatitis NN O O
, NN O O
HIV NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
HTLV NN O O
-- NN O O
I/II NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
beneficial NN O O
timing NN O O
for NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O O
of NN O O
predonated NN O O
blood NN O O
remains NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
timing NN O O
of NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
elective NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
individually NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
into NN O O
early NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
by NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
surgeon NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
surgical NN O O
subgroups NN O O
were NN O O
entered NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
: NN O O
anterior/posterior NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
A/P NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
fusion NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
thoracolumbar NN O I-PAR
scoliosis NN O I-PAR
fusion NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PSF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
degenerative NN O I-PAR
posterior NN O I-PAR
lumbar NN O I-PAR
fusion NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
successful NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
three NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O O
to NN O O
female NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
preoperative NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
units NN O O
predonated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
details NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
operative NN O O
procedure NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
versus NN O O
delayed NN O O
reinfusion NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O I-OUT
# NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
# NN O O
7 NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
delayed NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
group 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
surgical NN O O
grouping NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
significant NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

Earlier NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
mobilization NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O I-INT
reinfusion NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
A/P NN O O
and NN O O
PSF NN O O
groups 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
patients NN O O
' NN O O
subjective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
and NN O O
discomfort NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
or NN O O
delayed NN O O
reinfusion NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
blinded NN O O
interview 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
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
postoperatively 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- (8374255)

Torasemide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
long-term NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
long-term NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
loop NN O O
diuretic NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
spironolactone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
nonazotemic NN O I-PAR
cirrhotic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
treatments NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
modify NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
exhibited NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chloride NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
fractional NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Torasemide NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
higher NN O O
sparing NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
on NN O O
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
inorganic NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
stronger NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
encephalopathy NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
sodium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
water NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O I-OUT
other NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
can NN O O
represent NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
tool NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8376441)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O I-INT
hip NN O I-INT
screw NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
gamma NN O I-INT
locking NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
made NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Dynamic NN O I-INT
Hip NN O I-INT
Screw NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Gamma NN O I-INT
locking NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
internal NN O O
fixation NN O O
of NN O O
200 NN O I-PAR
petrochanteric NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
fractures NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Gamma NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
They NN O O
had NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
shaft NN O I-OUT
fracture NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
we NN O O
relate NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
to NN O O
implant NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Gamma NN O I-INT
nail NN O I-INT
for NN O O
these NN O O
fractures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8376638)

Coping NN O O
with NN O O
distress NN O O
and NN O O
self NN O O
harm NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
among NN O O
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
school-based NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
prevention NN O I-INT
psychological NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
is NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
improve NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
distress-coping NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
prepare NN O O
them NN O O
as NN O O
gatekeepers NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
self-destructive NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peers NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
's NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
program NN O O
was NN O O
primarily NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O O
modification NN O O
principles NN O O
, NN O O
procedures NN O O
and NN O O
techniques NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
thirty-seven NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
drawn NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
homeroom NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
classes NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
program NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
units NN O O
passed NN O O
during NN O O
twelve NN O O
weekly NN O O
one-hour NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
program NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
attitudes NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
emotions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
awareness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distress NN O I-OUT
coping NN O I-OUT
skills NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
had NN O O
some NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
face NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
validity NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
vantage NN O O
point NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
lend NN O O
support NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
school-based NN O I-OUT
prevention NN O I-OUT
program NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
students NN O O
' NN O O
distress-coping NN O O
enhancement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8383874)

Sodium-potassium NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
in NN O O
white NN O O
blood NN O O
cells NN O O
from NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
increased NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
developing NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Odense NN O O
Schoolchild NN O O
Study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sodium-potassium NN O I-INT
pump NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
86rubidium NN O O
uptake NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
[ NN O O
3H NN O O
] NN O O
-ouabain NN O O
binding NN O O
sites NN O O
on NN O O
white NN O O
blood NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
9-11 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
partly NN O I-PAR
cross-sectionally NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
partly NN O I-PAR
longitudinally NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
comprising NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
distribution NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cross-sectional NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
86rubidium NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
boys NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
girls NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O O
maturation NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
disappeared NN O O
. NN O O

Important NN O O
correlates NN O O
of NN O O
pump NN O I-INT
activity NN O I-INT
were NN O O
height NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
fitness NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
study NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
subgroup NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
after NN O O
eight NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
physical NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
86rubidium NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
examined NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
reflect NN O O
some NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
cation NN O I-OUT
handling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
maturation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sodium-potassium NN O I-OUT
pump NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8387067)

Radiation-induced NN O O
brachial NN O O
plexopathy NN O O
: NN O O
neurological NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
161 NN O I-PAR
recurrence-free NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
manifestations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
radiation-induced NN O O
brachial NN O O
plexopathy NN O O
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Danish NN O I-PAR
Breast NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
protocols NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sixty-one NN O I-PAR
recurrence-free NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
examined NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
radiation-induced NN O I-PAR
brachial NN O I-PAR
plexopathy NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
13-99 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
total NN O O
mastectomy NN O O
and NN O O
axillary NN O O
node NN O O
sampling NN O O
, NN O O
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O O
hundred NN O O
twenty-eight NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
postoperative NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
25 NN O O
daily NN O O
fractions NN O O
over NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
46 NN O O
received NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Five NN O O
percent NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
had NN O O
disabling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
plexopathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Radiation-induced NN O I-OUT
brachial NN O I-OUT
plexopathy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
cytotoxic NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
manifestations NN O O
were NN O O
paraesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
hypaesthesia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
weakness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
stretch NN O I-OUT
reflexes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
brachial NN O O
plexus NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
to NN O O
large NN O O
fraction NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Fractions NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
Gy NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
are NN O O
advisable NN O O
. NN O O

Cytotoxic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
adds NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
damaging NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Peripheral NN O O
nerves NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
seems NN O O
more NN O O
vulnerable NN O O
. NN O O

Radiation-induced NN O O
brachial NN O O
plexopathy NN O O
occurs NN O O
mainly NN O O
as NN O O
diffuse NN O O
damage NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
brachial NN O O
plexus NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8391792)

Subcutaneous NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
unfractionated NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
proximal NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
enoxaparin NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
established NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
compared NN O O
fixed-dose NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
adjusted-dose NN O O
intravenous NN O O
unfractionated NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UFH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
proximal NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
thrombus NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
repeated NN O O
venograms NN O O
between NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
safety NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
67 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 I-PAR
Venographic NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
clot NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
evolution NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
day NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
superiority NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
reference NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
thromboembolic NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
67 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
serious NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Enoxaparin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
as NN O O
UFH NN O I-INT
under NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
comfortable NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
less NN O O
time-consuming NN O O
for NN O O
nurses NN O O
and NN O O
laboratories NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
confirmed NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
enoxaparin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
other NN O O
observations NN O O
that NN O O
low-molecular-weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
advance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
thrombosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8392359)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
extradural NN O I-INT
analgesia NN O I-INT
on NN O O
stress NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
studied NN O O
40 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
younger NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-INT
opioids NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
extradural NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Venous NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
before NN O O
tracheal NN O O
intubation NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
baseline NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Additional NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
, 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
1 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bupivacaine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
also NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extradural NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
sampling NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
techniques NN O O
provided NN O O
acceptable NN O O
analgesia NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
adrenaline NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ACTH NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Noradrenaline NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
extradural NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
opioid NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
perioperative NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
ACTH NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
responses NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
within NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
bupivacaine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
within NN O O
safe NN O O
limits NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
during NN O O
postoperative NN O O
infusion NN O O
with NN O O
0.125 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (839327)

Milk NN O O
protein NN O O
quantity NN O O
and NN O O
quality NN O O
in NN O O
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
IV NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
on NN O O
tyrosine NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
phenylalanine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Well NN O O
, NN O O
appropriate-for-gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
low-birth-weight NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
three NN O O
gestational NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
age NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
feeding NN O O
regimens NN O O
: NN O O
pooled NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
milk NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
F1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
gm/dl NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
parts NN O I-INT
bovine NN O I-INT
whey NN O I-INT
proteins NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
parts NN O I-INT
bovine NN O I-INT
caseins NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
gm/dl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60:40 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
F3 NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
gm/dl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
18:82 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
F4 NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
3.0 NN O I-INT
gm/dl NN O I-INT
, NN O O
18:82 NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tyrosine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
phenylalanine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
far NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
fed NN O O
F1 NN O O
to NN O O
F4 NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
F2 NN O O
and NN O O
F4 NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O O
fed NN O O
BM NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
offer NN O O
further NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
limited NN O O
capacity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
low-birth-weight NN O O
infant NN O O
to NN O O
catabolize NN O I-OUT
tyrosine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Infants NN O O
fed NN O O
F3 NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
tyrosine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
infants NN O O
fed NN O O
F1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
fed NN O O
F4 NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
concentrations NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
fed NN O O
F2 NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
tyrosine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
low-birth-weight NN O O
infants NN O O
are NN O O
related NN O O
directly NN O O
both NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
quantity NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
protein NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
diets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8394956)

The NN O O
relative NN O O
contributions NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O I-INT
adherence NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
AA NN O I-INT
meeting NN O I-INT
attendance NN O I-INT
to NN O O
abstinent NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
preliminary NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
lithium NN O I-INT
carbonate NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
alcoholism NN O O
under NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
conditions NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
lithium NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
discharge NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inpatient NN O I-PAR
rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
program NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
abstain NN O O
from NN O O
any NN O O
alcohol NN O O
use NN O O
for NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
discharge NN O O
than NN O O
were NN O O
alcoholics NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
took NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
medication NN O I-PAR
erratically NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Attendance NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Alcoholics NN O I-PAR
Anonymous NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
meetings NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
also NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
applied NN O O
a NN O O
structural NN O O
equation NN O O
model NN O O
to NN O O
data NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
relationships NN O O
between NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
, NN O O
AA NN O O
meeting NN O O
attendance NN O O
and NN O O
abstinent NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
clarify NN O O
whether NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
or NN O O
AA NN O O
meeting NN O O
attendance NN O O
better NN O O
explains NN O O
the NN O O
positive-outcome NN O O
adherence NN O I-OUT
effect NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
and NN O O
AA NN O O
meeting NN O O
attendance NN O O
evidenced NN O O
direct NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
influences NN O O
on NN O O
abstinent NN O O
outcome NN O O
: NN O O
medication NN O O
adherence NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
direct NN O O
influence NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
AA NN O O
meeting NN O O
attendance NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
larger NN O O
, NN O O
independent NN O O
influence NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8396304)

Cimetidine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
infectious NN O I-PAR
mononucleosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8403910)

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O I-INT
486 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
metabolites NN O O
after NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
single NN O O
doses NN O O
to NN O O
pregnant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RU NN O I-INT
486 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
metabolites NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RU NN O I-INT
42633-monodemethyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
RU NN O I-INT
42848-didemethyl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
RU NN O I-INT
42698-hydroxymetabolite NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
from NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
non-pregnant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
non-pregnant NN O O
subject NN O O
took NN O O
an NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O I-INT
486 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
consecutively NN O O
) NN O O
once NN O O
per NN O O
menstrual NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nine NN O O
women NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
or NN O O
600 NN O O
mg NN O O
RU NN O O
486 NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
taken NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

Peak NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RU NN O I-OUT
486 NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
on NN O O
most NN O O
occasions NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
h. NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
proportion NN O O
to NN O O
log NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
variability NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
ten-fold NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RU NN O I-OUT
42633 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O O
486 NN O O
but NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O O
42848 NN O O
and NN O O
RU NN O O
42698 NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
with NN O O
RU NN O O
486 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
48-72 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
dosing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O I-OUT
486 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
RU NN O I-OUT
42633 NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
methyl NN O O
group NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
RU NN O O
42698 NN O O
occurred NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
slowly NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
much NN O O
less NN O O
extent NN O O
than NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
non-pregnant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
or NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
RU NN O I-INT
486 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
metabolites NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8403942)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
on NN O O
aortocoronary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
patency NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
antiaggregation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ASA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
aortocoronary NN O I-PAR
bypass NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ACB NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patency NN O O
of NN O O
venous NN O O
ACB NN O O
using NN O O
coronary NN O O
DSA NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
only NN O O
ACB NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intraoperative NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
flow NN O I-PAR
rates NN O I-PAR
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
40 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
just NN O O
these NN O O
ACB NN O O
's NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
occlusions NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
dipyridamole-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
occlusions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
39 NN O O
reconstructions NN O O
( NN O O
28.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
was NN O O
nine NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O O
procedures NN O O
( NN O O
24.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
occlusion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
ACB NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
43.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASA NN O O
plus NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
occlusions NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O O
ACB NN O O
's NN O O
( NN O O
45.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
indobufen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
occlusions NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
indobufen NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
ASA NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
shorter NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ulceration NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
drug NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
for NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
indicated NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8411891)

[ NN O O
Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
intra- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
extracapsular NN O I-INT
cataract NN O I-INT
extraction NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
lens NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ICCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
are NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
ECCE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PCL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Our NN O O
clinical NN O O
experience NN O O
with NN O O
ICCE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
implantation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
not NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
widespread NN O O
rejection NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHOD NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
participation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
statisticians NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
190 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ICCE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
170 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ECCE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PCL NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
up NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
follow-up NN O O
examinations NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
upon NN O O
dismission NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
compiled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
computer NN O O
program NN O O
designed NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
statisticians NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
surgeons NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
recruitment NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
ICCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
shows NN O O
much NN O O
less NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
usually NN O O
emphasized NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
only NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
corneal NN O I-OUT
decompensation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cystoid NN O I-OUT
macular NN O I-OUT
edema NN O I-OUT
8 NN O O
( NN O O
4.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
vitreous NN O I-OUT
prolaps NN O I-OUT
into NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
chamber NN O I-OUT
4 NN O O
( NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
spontaneous NN O I-OUT
complaints NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
16 NN O O
( NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
percentage NN O O
after NN O O
ICCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
complications NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
after NN O O
ECCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
PCL NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ECCE NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PCL NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
capsular NN O I-OUT
fibrosis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
making NN O O
it NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
frequent NN O O
complication NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

33 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
YAG-laser NN O I-INT
capsulotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Since NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachment NN O O
occurs NN O O
in NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
YAG-laser NN O I-INT
capsulotomy NN O I-INT
we NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
regard NN O O
capsular NN O O
fibrosis NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
totally NN O O
harmless NN O O
complication NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
noteworthy NN O O
that NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
methods 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
show NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
ICCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ACL NN O I-INT
is NN O O
too NN O O
negative NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
method NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
difficult NN O O
. NN O O

ECCE NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
PCL NN O I-INT
is NN O O
burdened NN O O
by NN O O
frequent NN O I-OUT
capsular NN O I-OUT
fibrosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O O
acuity NN O O
is NN O O
almost NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
1 NN O O
years NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

ACL-implantation NN O I-INT
remains NN O O
our NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
secondary NN O O
implantation NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intact NN O I-PAR
iris NN O I-PAR
diaphragm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8419816)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
duodenal NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Persistent NN O O
infection NN O O
with NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
bismuth NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
is NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
protective NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mucosa NN O O
is NN O O
still NN O O
a NN O O
matter NN O O
of NN O O
debate NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
treated NN O O
104 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
either NN O O
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
identical-appearing NN O I-INT
placebos NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
also NN O O
received NN O O
ranitidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
each NN O O
night NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
or NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Endoscopy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
periodically NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
healing NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O O
the NN O O
52 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
eradicated NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
46 NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
52 NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
89 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
2 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
six NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ulcers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
healed NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
48 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
and NN O O
39 NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
92 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
75 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
mainly NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
duodenal NN O I-OUT
ulcers NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
and NN O O
42 NN O O
of NN O O
49 NN O O
given NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
86 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ulcers NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
46 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
eradicated NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
45 NN O O
of NN O O
53 NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
persisted NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
percent NN O O
vs. NN O O
85 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
regimen NN O O
that NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
any NN O O
direct NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
mucosa NN O O
is NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
marked NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
a NN O O
causal NN O O
role NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
recurrent NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8421029)

Timing NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
knee NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
tourniquet NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cephamandole NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
operations NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
tourniquet NN O O
deflation NN O O
. NN O O

Concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
cephamandole NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
directly NN O O
proportional NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
concentration NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
tourniquet NN O O
release NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
'tourniquet-release NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
threefold NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8428787)

Effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consumption NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
untreated NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-four NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mildly NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
daily NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
consumption NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
ml NN O I-PAR
ethanol NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
drank NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
times NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
week NN O I-PAR
took NN O O
part NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
alcohol NN O O
reduction NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
2-week NN O I-INT
familiarization NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
drinking NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
usual NN O I-INT
drinking NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
situation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
then NN O I-INT
reversed NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
next NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
experimental NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
participants NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
requested NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
limit NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
zero NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
reduce NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
much NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
self-reported NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
56.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.6 NN O O
( NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
ml/day NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
alcohol NN O O
drinking NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
26.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
ml/day NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consumption NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
2.6-4.8 NN O O
and NN O O
2.2-3.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
during NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
2 NN O O
for NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
experimental NN O O
period NN O O
1 NN O O
for NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significant NN O O
( NN O O
3.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
( NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
decreases NN O O
in 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
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
Hills NN O O
and NN O O
Armitage NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
reducing NN O O
ethanol NN O O
in NN O O
daily NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consumption NN O O
by NN O O
28 NN O O
ml NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lowering NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
reduced NN O O
alcohol NN O O
consumption NN O O
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
salt NN O O
consumption NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
estimated NN O O
by NN O O
24-hour NN O O
urine NN O O
collection NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
weight 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- (8434135)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
K+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cl- NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
SO4= NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
by NN O O
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
parturition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
feeding NN O O
diets NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
milliequivalents NN O O
( NN O O
meq NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
K+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cl- NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
SO4= NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
to NN O O
dairy NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
their NN O O
acid-base NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
calcium NN O O
mobilisation NN O O
rate NN O O
around NN O O
parturition NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
monozygotic NN O I-PAR
twin NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
pregnant NN O I-PAR
cows NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parity NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
parity NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
diets NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
formulated NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
either NN O O
-4 NN O I-INT
meq NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
anion NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
+572.5 NN O I-INT
meq NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cation NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Na+ NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
K+ NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cl- NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
SO4= NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
dietary NN O I-INT
dry NN O I-INT
matter NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
daily NN O O
rations NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
kg NN O O
grass NN O I-INT
hay NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
7 NN O O
kg NN O O
concentrates NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
meq NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Na+ NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
K+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
- NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cl- NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
SO4= NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
KCl NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
K2SO4 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NH4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
2SO4 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
anion NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
K2CO3 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cation NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O O
basal NN O O
concentrates NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
acid-base NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
dietary NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
markedly NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bicarbonate NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
anion NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
cows NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cation NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
hypocalcaemia NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
EDTA NN O O
solution NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
cows NN O O
fed NN O O
either NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8435259)

Neostigmine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
edrophonium NN O I-INT
antagonism NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
block NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
pancuronium NN O O
or NN O O
tubocurarine NN O O
. NN O O

Edrophonium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
are NN O O
anticholinesterase NN O O
drugs NN O O
used NN O O
commonly NN O O
to NN O O
antagonize NN O O
competitive NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
faster NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
than NN O O
neostigmine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
edrophonium NN O I-INT
is NN O O
unreliable NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
antagonize NN O O
deep NN O O
neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
have NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
antagonist NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
antagonize NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
pancuronium- NN O O
or NN O O
tubocurarine-induced NN O O
neuromuscular NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Forty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O I-INT
randomly NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
pancuronium NN O I-INT
70 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
tubocurarine NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
edrophonium NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
neostigmine NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
kg-1 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Antagonism NN O O
was NN O O
attempted NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
train-of-four NN O O
( NN O O
TOF NN O O
) NN O O
stimulation NN O O
recovered NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
height NN O O
. NN O O

Neuromuscular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
monitored NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
evoked NN O I-OUT
integrated NN O I-OUT
electromyogram NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dorsal NN O O
interosseous NN O O
muscle NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hand NN O O
. NN O O

Adequate NN O O
recovery NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
achievement NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
TOF NN O O
ratio NN O O
of NN O O
0.70 NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
seven NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
edrophonium NN O I-PAR
demonstrated NN O O
adequate NN O O
recovery NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
antagonism NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
the NN O O
conditions NN O O
described NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
edrophonium NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
antagonist NN O O
than NN O O
neostigmine NN O O
0.05 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8435382)

Torasemide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
given NN O O
over NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tense NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
low-sodium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mmol/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
aldosterone NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
potassium NN O I-INT
canrenoate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d. NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Torasemide NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
remarkably NN O O
higher NN O O
natriuretic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
120 NN O O
+/- NN O O
15 NN O O
vs. NN O O
33 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
mmol/day NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diuretic NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1450 NN O O
+/- NN O O
63 NN O O
vs. NN O O
900 NN O O
+/- NN O O
58 NN O O
ml NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
effect NN O O
than NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
vs. NN O O
0.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
period NN O O
. NN O O

Kaliuresis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
striking NN O O
differences NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
natriuresis NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
furosemide NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
ammonia NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
torasemide NN O I-INT
is NN O O
suitable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
sodium NN O O
retention NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ascites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8436638)

Metronidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
periodontitis NN O I-INT
( NN O O
IV NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
prescription NN O O
medication NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
poor NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
periodontal NN O I-PAR
infections NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
antimicrobial NN O I-PAR
agents NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
situations NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antimicrobial NN O O
agent NN O O
is NN O O
being NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
non-compliance NN O O
could NN O O
underestimate NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Metronidazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
an NN O O
agent NN O O
with NN O O
reported NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
anaerobic NN O O
periodontal NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

Metronidazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
particularly NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
against NN O O
spirochetes NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
measuring NN O O
patient NN O O
compliance NN O O
with NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
usage NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
proportions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
spirochetes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
i.e. NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
> NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
plaques NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
diseased NN O I-PAR
periodontal NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
bid NN O O
) NN O O
under NN O O
supervision NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
all NN O O
individuals NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
rapid NN O I-OUT
decline NN O I-OUT
and/or NN O I-OUT
disappearance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
spirochetes NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
that NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
was NN O O
detectable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
saliva NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
observed NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
spirochetes NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
compliant NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
involving NN O O
the NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Only NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
compliant NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
metronidazole NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
8 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
considered NN O O
noncompliant NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
needs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
8.3 NN O O
teeth NN O O
per NN O O
compliant NN O O
patient NN O O
versus NN O O
3.6 NN O O
teeth NN O O
per NN O O
non-compliant NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
hydrolysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
synthetic NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
BANA NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
most NN O O
non-compliant NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
involving NN O O
the NN O O
unsupervised NN O O
usage NN O O
of NN O O
systemic NN O O
medication NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
patient NN O O
non-compliance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8436744)

Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
magnesium NN O O
concentration NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
PROMISE NN O O
Study 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
determine NN O O
the NN O O
prognostic NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
magnesium 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
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
magnesium NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
postulated NN O O
to NN O O
play NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
promoting NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
adverse NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
in NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
postulate NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Serum NN O I-OUT
magnesium NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1,068 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
milrinone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
phosphodiesterase NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diuretic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
6.1 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
high NN O O
serum NN O O
magnesium NN O O
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1.9 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
242 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
survive NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
were NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
magnesium NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
627 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
1.41 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
magnesium NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1.5 NN O O
mEq/liter NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
199 NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
normal NN O O
magnesium NN O O
level NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
= NN O O
0.89 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
magnesium NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
older NN O O
and NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
analysis NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
variables NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
low NN O O
, NN O O
normal NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
magnesium NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
longest NN O I-OUT
run NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
premature NN O I-OUT
beats NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
baseline NN O I-OUT
Holter NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
hypomagnesemia NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
ventricular NN O O
couplets NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Serum NN O O
magnesium NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
sudden NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
due NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
causes NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

Hypomagnesemia NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
certain NN O O
forms NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
ectopic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
higher NN O O
mortality NN O O
rate NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
hypermagnesemia NN O O
is NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
advanced NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
renal NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8437833)

Diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
threshold NN O I-PAR
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
peripheral NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
unfavorable NN O O
anatomic NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
threshold NN O O
retinopathy NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prematurity NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ROP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
apnea NN O O
, NN O O
bradycardia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lid NN O O
edema NN O O
can NN O O
occur NN O O
. NN O O

Argon NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
indirect NN O I-INT
ophthalmoscope NN O I-INT
photocoagulation NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Retinal NN O O
lesions NN O O
placed NN O O
with NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
lasers NN O I-INT
are NN O O
deeper NN O O
than NN O O
similar NN O O
argon NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
could NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
ablative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
under NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
protocol NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
eye NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
symmetric NN O O
, NN O O
threshold NN O O
ROP NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
814/815 NN O O
nm NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
eye NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
with NN O O
asymmetric NN O O
diseases NN O O
also NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
eye NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nineteen NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
485 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
863 NN O I-PAR
g NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
23 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
gestational NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
or NN O O
longer NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postconceptional NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
apparatus NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
easily NN O O
transported NN O O
. NN O O

Apneic NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O I-OUT
intubation NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
from NN O O
two NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
cryotherapy-treated NN O I-INT
eyes NN O O
required NN O O
retreatment NN O I-OUT
because NN O O
of NN O O
persistent NN O O
disease NN O O
with NN O O
adjacent NN O O
skip NN O O
areas NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
15 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
cryotherapy-treated NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
diode NN O O
laser-treated NN O I-INT
eye NN O O
progressed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
5 NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Compared NN O O
with NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
convenient NN O O
, NN O O
technically NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
too NN O O
small NN O O
for NN O O
meaningful NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
outcome NN O O
, NN O O
diode NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
peripheral NN O I-INT
retinal NN O I-INT
ablation NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
threshold NN O O
ROP NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8450402)

Beta-carotene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
beta-Carotene NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
immunostimulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Recent NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
can NN O O
increase NN O O
CD4 NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our 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
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
raising NN O O
CD4 NN O O
counts NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty-one NN O I-PAR
HIV-seropositive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
180 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
the NN O O
alternative NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

beta-Carotene NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
count 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
% NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
count 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
and NN O O
% NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
B-lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
all NN O O
increased NN O O
on NN O O
carotene NN O O
and NN O O
fell NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
reach NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
on NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

beta-Carotene NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
immunostimulatory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
whether NN O O
beta-carotene NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
role NN O O
as NN O O
adjunct NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8450514)

Antinuclear NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8453557)

Adjuvant NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intermediate-grade NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
CHOP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
non-Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
achieved NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Forty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pathologic NN O I-PAR
Stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
intermediate-grade NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
low-grade NN O I-PAR
NHL NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
median NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
regional NN O I-INT
RT NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CHOP NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
pathologic NN O O
characteristics NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
2-10 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
plus NN O O
CHOP NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
7 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
RT-alone NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The 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
for NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
88 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
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
intermediate-grade NN O O
NHL NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
7-year NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
RFS NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
RT NN O O
and NN O O
CHOP NN O O
was NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
RT NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low-grade NN O O
histologic NN O O
findings NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
RFS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.6 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
OS NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
relapses NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
at NN O O
sites NN O O
remote NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
initially NN O O
involved NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
recurrences NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
or NN O O
longer NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
CHOP NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improves NN O O
RFS NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
Stage NN O O
I NN O O
intermediate-grade NN O O
NHL NN O O
who NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
CR NN O O
after NN O O
regional-field NN O O
RT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O O
regimen NN O O
favorably NN O O
affected NN O O
their NN O O
probability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8454478)

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
split NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
as NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
hypopharyngeal NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
larynx NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypopharynx NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
28 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
or NN O O
split NN O I-INT
course NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
further NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
fractions NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
14 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
starting NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
43 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
Mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
43 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5FU NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
43 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
46 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Surgery NN O O
was NN O O
reserved NN O O
for NN O O
persistent NN O O
or NN O O
recurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
212 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
analyses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Outcome NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
interval NN O O
of NN O O
4.4 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

No 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

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.91 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
regional NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.17 NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.86 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Eight-eight NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
attempted NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
salvage NN O O
surgery NN O O
to NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
arms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serious NN O I-OUT
late NN O I-OUT
radiation NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
minimal NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RT NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
plus NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
shows NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
or NN O O
survival NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
treatment NN O O
arm NN O O
of NN O O
split NN O O
course NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8456467)

Long-term NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
different NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
for NN O O
renal NN O I-PAR
allografts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
four NN O O
different NN O I-INT
immunosuppressive NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
on NN O O
renal NN O O
allografts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
investigated NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
128 NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
cadaveric NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
allograft NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
induction NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
triple NN O O
drug NN O O
therapy NN O O
-- NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
low-dose NN O O
) NN O O
cyclosporine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
any NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
i.e. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
actual NN O O
four-year NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
CsA NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
were NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
survival NN O O
rates NN O O
were NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cumulative NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
rejections NN O I-OUT
up NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
0.09 NN O O
, NN O O
0.29 NN O O
, NN O O
0.25 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.34 NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O O
per NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
years NN O O
posttransplantation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
graft NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
worse NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy 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

Of NN O O
the NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
did NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
17 NN O O
developed NN O O
posttransplantation NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
mellitus NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
an NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
posttransplantation NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
and NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
without NN O O
steroids NN O O
had NN O O
these NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Aza NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
MP NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
6.8 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
and NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5.8 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
ns NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
( NN O O
low-dose NN O O
) NN O O
CsA NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
with NN O O
disturbances NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
protocol NN O O
graft NN O O
biopsy NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
functioning NN O O
kidneys NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
histological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
scored NN O O
blindly NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
CsA-specific NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
except NN O O
isometric NN O I-OUT
vacuolation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
tubuli NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

Histological NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
characteristic NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
allograft NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Chronic NN O I-OUT
allograft NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lowest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
1.5 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
3.2-4.3 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
the NN O O
least NN O O
histopathological NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
long-term NN O O
study NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
serious NN O O
cyclosporine-related NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
side-effects NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
posttransplant NN O I-OUT
diabetes NN O I-OUT
mellitus NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
probably NN O O
some NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
abnormalities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
could NN O O
rather NN O O
be NN O O
traced NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
steroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
triple NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
than NN O O
any NN O O
double NN O O
drug NN O O
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
allografts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8463520)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
vasculogenic NN O I-PAR
sexual NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
to NN O O
treat NN O O
impotence NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
penile NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Sexual NN O I-PAR
Dysfunction NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
VA NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Sepulveda NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
CA NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Convenience NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
couples NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Twelve NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
tid NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Report NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
verified NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
partner NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coital NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
month NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
penile-brachial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
determinations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
regularly NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
PBPI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
impotent NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
frequently NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

Pentoxifylline NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
particularly NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
restoring NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
PBPI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
steal NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
six NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
such NN O O
subjects NN O O
improved NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
range NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O O
men NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reestablish NN O I-OUT
coital NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
three NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
couples NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
attempt NN O I-OUT
intercourse NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
a NN O O
professed NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
sexual NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
however NN O O
five NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
men NN O O
experienced NN O O
erections NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fantasy NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
attempts NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
masturbation NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
complications NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
promising NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
erectile NN O I-PAR
dysfunction NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
penile NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8467027)

[ NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
micronebulization NN O O
of NN O O
tobramycin NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

In NN O O
69 NN O I-PAR
artificially NN O I-PAR
ventilated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bacteriological NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
pharmacological NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
endotracheally NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
tobramycin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
specimens NN O O
were NN O O
sterile NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
only NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
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

In NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
endotracheal NN O I-OUT
colonisation NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
ps NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
aeruginosa NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
4th NN O O
and NN O O
14th NN O O
day 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
secondary NN O I-OUT
pneumonia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Systemic NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antibiotics NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
e.g NN O O
. NN O O

of NN O O
aminoglycosides NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
often NN O O
necessary 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
increasing NN O O
of NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fungi NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
tract NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
non-significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
mainly NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
staph NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
epidermidis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
four NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
aerosol NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Under NN O O
there NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
tobramycin NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
allergic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
increased NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
bronchoconstrictions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8467286)

Use NN O O
of NN O O
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
and NN O O
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
combination NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-INT
marrow NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
toxicities NN O O
and NN O O
possible NN O O
utility NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhGM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
given NN O O
after NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
BMT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
pilot NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
six NN O I-INT
concurrent NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
65 NN O I-INT
historical NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
rhGM-CSF NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
more NN O O
rapid NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
500 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/l NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
= NN O O
12.5 NN O O
vs NN O O
18 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
concurrent NN O O
and NN O O
19 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
historical NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
red NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
rhGM-CSF NN O O
plus NN O O
either NN O O
rHuEPO NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
historical NN O O
experience NN O O
using NN O O
rhGM-CSF NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
difference NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
rhGM-CSF NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
schedule NN O O
. NN O O

Erythropoietin NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
combined NN O O
safely NN O O
with NN O O
rhGM-CSF NN O O
after NN O O
autologous NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Larger NN O O
controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
possible NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8472567)

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
conservation NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
in NN O O
medical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
document NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
device NN O O
intended NN O O
to NN O O
conserve NN O O
blood NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
b NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
on NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
c NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
device NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
interference NN O O
with NN O O
arterial NN O O
pressure NN O O
waveforms NN O O
; NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
device NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
accidental NN O O
needle NN O O
punctures NN O O
suffered NN O O
by NN O O
healthcare NN O O
workers NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
random NN O O
allocation NN O O
of NN O O
consecutive NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
intensive NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
unit NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
located NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
metropolitan NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
line NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
purposes NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
managed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS 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
a NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
conservation NN O I-INT
device NN O I-INT
incorporated NN O I-INT
into NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
arterial NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Data NN O O
gathered NN O O
included NN O O
: NN O O
age NN O O
; NN O O
gender NN O O
; NN O O
ICU NN O O
discharge NN O O
status NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICU NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
all NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
drawn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
discarded NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
lost NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
leakage NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
accidental NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
waveforms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
inspected NN O O
for NN O O
dampening NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
deformation NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
on NN O O
ICU NN O O
admission NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
12-hr NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

Demographic NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
drawn NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
discarded NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
catheters NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
device NN O O
: NN O O
5.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
96.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
88.5 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
discarded NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
device NN O O
: NN O O
19.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
47.4 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
: NN O O
103.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
99.9 NN O O
mL NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
admission NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
device NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
11.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
; NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
: NN O O
12.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) 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
mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
declined NN O O
most NN O O
rapidly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hrs NN O O
of NN O O
ICU NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
declined NN O O
more NN O O
slowly NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
reached NN O O
until NN O O
9.5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
ICU NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
overall NN O O
: NN O O
1.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
represents NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
1.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.2 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
g/dL NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Univariate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multiple NN O I-OUT
regression NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
demonstrated NN O O
discarded NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
and NN O O
independent NN O O
predictor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

Transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
blood NN O I-INT
conservation NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
or NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
pressure NN O I-OUT
waveforms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
accidental NN O I-OUT
needle NN O I-OUT
injuries NN O I-OUT
noted NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
conservation NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
must NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
high-priority NN O O
concern NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
healthcare NN O O
workers NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
conservation NN O O
system NN O O
eliminates NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
in NN O O
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
With NN O O
devices NN O O
as NN O O
described NN O O
here NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
reason NN O O
to NN O O
continue NN O O
the NN O O
practice NN O O
of NN O O
wasting NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
of NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
preanalytic NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8478759)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
rectal NN O I-INT
midazolam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
diazepam NN O I-INT
for NN O O
premedication NN O O
in NN O O
pediatric NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Rectally NN O O
administered NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.35 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.70 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
other NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
preanesthetic NN O O
medication NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
extractions NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
rectal NN O I-INT
medications NN O I-INT
were NN O O
very NN O O
well NN O O
accepted NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
mask NN O I-OUT
acceptance NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
sedation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
best NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
in NN O O
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drug NN O O
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Thirty NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
rectal NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in 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
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Although NN O O
these NN O O
decreases NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
premedication NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
probably NN O O
of NN O O
little NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
rectally NN O O
administered NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
somewhat NN O O
more NN O O
efficacious NN O O
than NN O O
diazepam NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8487324)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anemic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
frequently NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
exacerbated NN O O
by NN O O
myelosuppressive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
. NN O O

Consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
anemia NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
documented NN O O
serum NN O O
erythropoietin NN O O
levels NN O O
that NN O O
are NN O O
inappropriately NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
anemia NN O O
in NN O O
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Myelosuppressive NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
impairs NN O O
erythropoiesis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
not NN O O
fully NN O O
recover NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
cycles NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
erythropoietin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
safely NN O O
and NN O O
effectively NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
anemia NN O O
in NN O O
AIDS NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
zidovudine NN O O
( NN O O
AZT NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
chronic NN O O
renal NN O O
failure NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
rHuEPO NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
anemia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
myelosuppressive NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
excluding NN O I-PAR
cisplatin NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
153 NN O I-PAR
anemic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
cyclic NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
( NN O O
150 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
to NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
-40 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
this NN O O
target NN O O
level NN O O
before NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
hematocrit NN O O
at NN O O
that NN O O
level NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Response NN O O
to NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
transfusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Quality-of-life NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
questionnaires NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rHuEPO-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
percentage NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
final NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
percentage NN O O
points NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
transfusion NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
unrelated NN O O
to NN O O
transfusion NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
toward NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
months NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
combined NN O O
in NN O O
rHuEPO-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
0.91 NN O O
U NN O O
versus NN O O
1.65 NN O O
U NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.056 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
rHuEPO-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
toxic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
except NN O O
for NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
diaphoresis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
diarrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rHuEPO-treated NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
rHuEPO NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
reversing NN O O
anemia NN O I-OUT
related NN O O
to NN O O
advanced NN O O
cancer NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8487344)

Abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
wound NN O I-PAR
infection NN O O
is NN O O
lowered NN O O
with NN O O
improved NN O O
perioperative NN O I-INT
enterococcus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
bacteroides NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Perioperative NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
decrease NN O O
surgical NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SWI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
trauma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
exploration NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
investigation NN O O
evaluated NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ampicillin/sulbactam NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
early NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
evaluated NN O O
was NN O O
SWI NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
purulent NN O O
drainage NN O O
or NN O O
active NN O O
wound NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
ninety-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
283 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
ampicillin/sulbactam NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
309 NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
cefoxitin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
ampicillin/sulbactam NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
among NN O O
cefoxitin NN O O
patients NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cefoxitin NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
colon NN O O
injuries NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
major NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
enterococcal NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
cefoxitin-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
single NN O O
broad-spectrum NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
hour NN O O
perioperatively NN O O
effectively NN O O
controls NN O O
SWI NN O O
. NN O O

Use NN O O
of NN O O
ampicillin/sulbactam NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
SWI NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cefoxitin NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
improved NN O O
enterococcal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Bacteroides NN O I-OUT
coverage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8498878)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
serotonin NN O O
reuptake NN O O
blocker NN O O
with NN O O
unique NN O O
anti-obsessional NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
differentially NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
obsessive-compulsive NN O O
and NN O O
stereotyped NN O O
motor NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
noradrenergic NN O I-INT
tricyclic NN O I-INT
antidepressant NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
desipramine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Following NN O O
a NN O O
2-week NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
washout NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
clomipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Outpatient NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
referral NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MEASURES NN O O
Key NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Autism NN O I-OUT
Relevant NN O I-OUT
Subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Modified NN O I-OUT
Comprehensive NN O I-OUT
Psychopathological NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale-Obsessive-Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Disorder NN O I-OUT
Subscale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Clomipramine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
desipramine NN O O
on NN O O
ratings NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
stereotypies NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anger NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compulsive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ritualized NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clomipramine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
equal NN O O
to NN O O
desipramine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
both NN O O
tricyclic NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
amelioration NN O O
of NN O O
hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Biological NN O O
links NN O O
between NN O O
compulsions NN O O
and NN O O
stereotyped NN O O
, NN O O
repetitive NN O O
behaviors NN O O
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8499152)

Prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
, NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
histological NN O O
characteristics NN O O
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
myeloma NN O O
: NN O O
improved NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
risk NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
of NN O O
320 NN O I-PAR
multiple NN O I-PAR
myeloma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entering NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-INT
German NN O I-INT
Myeloma NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GMTG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
trial NN O I-PAR
MM01 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
for NN O O
factors NN O O
predicting NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Response NN O O
to NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
relevant NN O O
for NN O O
prognosis NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
limit NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
tumour NN O O
cell NN O O
mass NN O O
( NN O O
TCM NN O O
) NN O O
reduction NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
separate NN O O
responders NN O O
from NN O O
non-responders NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
TCM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
histological NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
myeloma NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
infiltration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
platelet NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
albumin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
beta NN O I-OUT
2M NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Bence NN O I-OUT
Jones NN O I-OUT
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
OAS NN O O
and NN O O
TRS NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
was NN O O
relevant NN O O
for NN O O
OAS NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
revealed NN O O
histological NN O I-OUT
grading NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
TCM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
reliable NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
data NN O O
the NN O O
Durie/Salmon NN O O
classification NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
defining NN O O
poor NN O I-INT
prognosis NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
TRS NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
characterised NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
pretreatment NN O I-PAR
platelets NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
150,000 NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O O
poorly NN O O
differentiated NN O O
myeloma NN O O
cell NN O O
morphology NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
lacking NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
displayed NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
46 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
and NN O O
88 NN O O
months NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8507025)

Metabolic NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
under NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O O
sedation NN O O
with NN O O
intravenous NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
local NN O I-INT
anesthetics NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
epinephrine-free NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
epinephrine-containing NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
solutions NN O O
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
midazolam NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
4.4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1:80,000 NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
given NN O I-INT
4.4 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
prilocaine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.03 NN O I-INT
IU/mL NN O I-INT
felypressin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
There NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
potassium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
within NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
treatments NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postinjection NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
epinephrine-containing NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
10 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
by NN O O
0.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.20 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
by NN O O
0.46 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.37 NN O O
, NN O O
0.63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.45 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.56 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.28 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Conversely NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epinephrine-free NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
30 NN O I-OUT
min NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
0.24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
0.23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
epinephrine-free NN O I-INT
and NN O O
epinephrine-containing NN O I-INT
local NN O I-INT
anesthetics NN O I-INT
differ NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
metabolic NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
oral NN O O
surgery NN O O
with NN O O
midazolam NN O I-INT
sedation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8509099)

Recurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
condylomata NN O I-OUT
acuminata NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
not NN O O
prevented NN O O
by NN O O
systemically NN O O
administered NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
utilised NN O O
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
following NN O O
ablation NN O O
of NN O O
condylomata NN O O
acuminata NN O O
( NN O O
genital NN O O
warts NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
recurrences NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
2-tailed NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
Exact NN O O
Test NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
97 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-PAR
acuminata NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
49 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
received NN O O
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
36 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
37 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
respectively NN O I-PAR
, 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
evaluable NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
condylomata NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
adjuvant NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
By NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
interferon NN O O
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
( NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
experienced NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
At NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
( NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
experienced NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
only NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
and NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
remained NN O O
free NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.99 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2a NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
offers NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
chemotherapeutic NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
cryotherapy NN O I-INT
when NN O O
used NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
genital NN O O
warts NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
condylomata NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8512622)

Ethanol-induced NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
investigation NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
low-dose NN O O
( NN O O
LD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
high-dose NN O O
( NN O O
HD NN O O
) NN O O
ethanol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
electroencephalographic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
22.7 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Only NN O O
one NN O O
condition NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
LD NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
HD NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
condition NN O O
order NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
, NN O O
blood-alcohol NN O O
levels NN O O
measured NN O O
via NN O O
breathalyzer NN O O
and NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
10/20 NN O O
International NN O O
System NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
both NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
, NN O O
70 NN O O
, NN O O
105 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
140 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
P NN O O
, NN O O
LD NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
HD NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Fast NN O O
Fourier NN O O
Transform NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
power NN O O
spectral NN O O
densities NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
EEG NN O O
recording NN O O
. NN O O

Measures NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
areas NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
power NN O O
spectral NN O O
curve NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
frequency NN O O
bands NN O O
: NN O O
slow NN O O
alpha NN O O
( NN O O
7.5 NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
fast NN O O
alpha NN O O
( NN O O
10.5 NN O O
to NN O O
13.0 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
slow NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
13.5 NN O O
to NN O O
19.5 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
fast NN O O
beta NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
26 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
electrodes NN O O
F3 NN O O
, NN O O
F4 NN O O
, NN O O
C3 NN O O
, NN O O
C4 NN O O
, NN O O
P3 NN O O
, NN O O
P4 NN O O
, NN O O
O1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
O2 NN O O
. NN O O

Repeated-measures NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
normalized NN O O
relative NN O O
area NN O O
values NN O O
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
ethanol NN O O
had NN O O
significant NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
EEG NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
anterior NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
frontal NN O O
( NN O O
F3 NN O O
, NN O O
F4 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
central NN O O
( NN O O
C3 NN O O
, NN O O
C4 NN O O
) NN O O
that NN O O
presented NN O O
as NN O O
increased NN O O
activity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
slow NN O O
alpha NN O O
frequency NN O O
band NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
differential NN O O
responsivity NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
cortical NN O I-OUT
region NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
EEG NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
band NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ethanol NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8519722)

0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
epidural NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
infusion NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Although NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
to NN O O
potentiate NN O O
spinal NN O O
morphine NN O O
analgesia NN O O
in NN O O
animal NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
results NN O O
comparing NN O O
epidural NN O O
local NN O O
anesthesia/opioid NN O O
mixtures NN O O
with NN O O
opioid NN O O
alone NN O O
are NN O O
contradictory NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
was NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
of NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
its NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
fentanyl/bupivacaine NN O I-INT
solution NN O O
was NN O O
closely NN O O
adjusted NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
need NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
would NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
epidural NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
fentanyl NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
micrograms/mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
fentanyl/bupivacaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
mixture NN O I-INT
epidurally NN O I-INT
corresponding NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
dermatome NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
fashion NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
major NN O I-INT
abdominal NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
titrated NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
rate NN O I-INT
required NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
relief NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
forced NN O I-INT
inspiration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
pain NN O I-INT
score NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pain NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
doses NN O O
required NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
at NN O O
18 NN O O
hours NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
reported NN O O
similar NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
equally NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
post-operative NN O I-OUT
fentanyl NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
57.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.5 NN O O
micrograms/h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.84 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
54.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
19.2 NN O O
micrograms/h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fentanyl/bupivacaine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Respiratory NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
preserved NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
periods NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
drowsiness NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
low NN O O
concentrations NN O O
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
titrated NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
fentanyl NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
adequate NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
during NN O O
forced NN O O
inspiration NN O O
after NN O O
major NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
comparable NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
low-dose NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8520804)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
at NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Substituted NN O I-INT
benzimidazole NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
gastric NN O O
H+/K+ATPase NN O O
may NN O O
interact NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
cytochrome NN O O
P450 NN O O
enzyme NN O O
system NN O O
and NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
coadministered NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
intragastric NN O O
pH NN O O
might NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
modifies NN O O
the NN O O
steady-state NN O O
serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Secondary NN O O
aims NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
digoxin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
tolerability NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
to NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
fashion NN O O
oral NN O O
beta-acetyldigoxin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
and NN O O
concomitant NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
characteristics NN O O
for NN O O
confirmative NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
interaction NN O O
were NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
digoxin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lack NN O O
of NN O O
interaction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
sense NN O O
of NN O O
equivalence NN O O
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
digoxin NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
-confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
AUC- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax-ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
equivalence NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
0.8-1.25 NN O O
. NN O O

Pantoprazole NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
characteristic NN O O
ECG NN O O
modifications NN O O
( NN O O
T-wave NN O O
) NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
digoxin NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
no NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
or NN O O
clinical NN O O
laboratory NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
pantoprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
digoxin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
administered NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
dose NN O O
adjustment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8521712)

Differential NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
progestogen-only NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
for NN O O
contraception NN O O
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
differential NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
bone NN O O
density NN O O
by NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
progestogen-only NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
for NN O O
contraception NN O O
in NN O O
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
addressed NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
among NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
premenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
32.6 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
20-45 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
treatments NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
progestogens NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
contraception NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
; NN O O
depot-medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DMPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
subdermal NN O I-INT
implants NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Norplant NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Forearm NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMDprox NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
2.94 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
prescribed NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
stable NN O O
values NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
prescribed NN O O
depot-medroxy-progesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
group NN O O
difference NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
for NN O O
BMDprox NN O I-OUT
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
5.5 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
BMDdist NN O I-OUT
4.1 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
- NN O O
1.3 NN O O
, NN O O
9.6 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.077 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
DMPA NN O I-INT
users NN O O
showed NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
increased NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
turnover NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
users NN O O
of NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O O
showed NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
alkaline NN O O
phosphatase NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
osteocalcin NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
levonorgestrel NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stable NN O O
values NN O O
during NN O O
short-term NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
DMPA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
standard NN O O
clinical NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
contraception NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8549289)

Direct NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
resistance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cutaneous NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
topical NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
nadifloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
erythromycin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8549538)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
fibre NN O I-INT
on NN O O
feeding NN O I-OUT
behaviour NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8550361)

Long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
self-injector NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
tolerability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
acceptability NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
cartridge NN O O
system NN O O
self-injector NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
home NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-PAR
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mg. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
second NN O O
injection NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
if NN O O
relief NN O O
was NN O O
inadequate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
recurred NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
rescue NN O O
medication NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
taken NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
attacks NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
headache NN O O
improved NN O O
from NN O O
severe NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
before NN O O
treatment NN O O
to NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
1566 NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Headache NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
injection NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
attacks NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
second NN O O
injection NN O O
was NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
attacks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
injection NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

Rescue NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
required NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
injection NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
said NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
would NN O O
take NN O O
the NN O O
medication NN O O
again NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
over NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
said NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
injector NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
previously NN O O
with NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
and NN O O
were NN O O
mostly NN O O
mild NN O O
to NN O O
moderate NN O O
in NN O O
intensity NN O O
, NN O O
short-lived NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
resolved NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
. NN O O

Subcutaneous NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
mg NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
accepted NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
migraine NN O O
when NN O O
self-injected NN O O
by NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
novel NN O I-PAR
self-injector NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8561059)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
interaction NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-alpha-tocopheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
on NN O O
low-density-lipoprotein NN O O
oxidation NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
hormone-replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
RRR-alpha-tocpheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
alpha-tocopheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
hormone-replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
oxidative NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
low-density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
LDL NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
consuming NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fish NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
supplement NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
independent NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
equally NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
periods NN O O
lasted NN O O
5 NN O O
wk NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
4-wk NN O O
washout NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
each NN O O
period NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
a NN O O
15-g NN O O
supplement NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
0 NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
200 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
alpha-tocopheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
. NN O O

LDL NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
modification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
calculating NN O I-OUT
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
propagation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conjugated NN O I-OUT
dienes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
shortened NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
slowed NN O I-OUT
propagation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
both NN O O
using NN O O
and NN O O
not NN O O
using NN O O
HRT NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
, NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
alpha-tocopheryl NN O O
acetate NN O O
increased NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-OUT
contents NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lengthened NN O I-OUT
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
at NN O O
even NN O O
the NN O O
lowest NN O O
concentration NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
propagation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
values NN O O
measured NN O O
after NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
not NN O O
using NN O O
HRT NN O O
had NN O O
faster NN O O
propagation NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
women NN O O
using NN O O
HRT NN O O
; NN O O
after NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
alpha-tocopheryl NN O I-INT
acetate NN O O
these NN O O
differences NN O O
prevailed NN O O
. NN O O

Supplements NN O O
as NN O O
low NN O O
as NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
alpha-tocopheryl NN O O
acetate/d NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
resistance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
supplements NN O O
are NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

HRT NN O O
and NN O O
fish NN O O
oil NN O O
supplements NN O O
may NN O O
independently NN O O
affect NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
oxidative NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8561526)

A NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
praziquantel NN O I-INT
to NN O O
control NN O O
schistosomiasis NN O O
morbidity NN O O
in NN O O
schoolchildren NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Zambia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
community-based NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
praziquantel NN O I-INT
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Zambia NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
schistosomiasis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
Schistosoma NN O I-PAR
mansoni NN O I-PAR
morbidity NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
377 NN O I-PAR
infected NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
190 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
187 NN O O
( NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
praziquantel/kg NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
start NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O O
months NN O O
later NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
were NN O O
re-treated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
praziquantel NN O I-INT
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
placebos NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
three NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
clinically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
six- NN O O
and NN O O
12-month NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
splenomegaly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hepatomegaly NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
six NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
, NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevalences NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
therefore NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
once-yearly NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
endemic NN O I-PAR
areas NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
schistosomiasis NN O O
morbidity NN O O
to NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
maintain NN O O
it NN O O
at NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
tolerable NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8570776)

Placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
acute NN O O
dosage NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
study NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
crossover NN O O
trial NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
40-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opiate NN O O
antagonist NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Drug NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
by NN O O
detailed NN O O
playroom NN O O
observations NN O O
, NN O O
actometers NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
parents NN O O
' NN O O
checklist NN O O
ratings NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Aberrant NN O I-OUT
Behavior NN O I-OUT
Checklist NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
items NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
did NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
irritability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
checklists NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
playroom NN O O
data NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
significantly NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
indices NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8570879)

Lung NN O O
function NN O O
measurement NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
practice NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Escort NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
Micromed NN O I-INT
turbine NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
mini-Wright NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
that NN O O
new NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
spirometer NN O I-INT
for NN O O
widespread NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
are NN O O
pragmatically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
measurements NN O O
taken NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
portable NN O I-INT
Fleisch NN O I-INT
pneumotachograph NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
known NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Escort NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
commonly NN O O
used NN O O
mini-Wright NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Micromed NN O I-INT
Pocket NN O I-INT
turbine NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
phases NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
surgeries NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
Aldermoor NN O O
Health NN O O
Centre NN O O
, NN O O
Southampton NN O O
. NN O O

Phase NN O O
I NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mini-Wright NN O I-INT
peak NN O I-INT
flow NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Phase NN O O
2 NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
turbine NN O I-INT
spirometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5-88 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
56 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
chronic NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6-82 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
62 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
chronic NN O I-PAR
respiratory NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
patient NN O O
contributed NN O O
only NN O O
once NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
some NN O O
entered NN O O
both NN O O
phases NN O O
on NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

Ninety-five NN O O
percent NN O O
limits NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
wide NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

Graphical NN O I-OUT
plots NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
trends NN O O
towards NN O O
higher NN O O
Escort NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
rose NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
mini-Wright NN O I-INT
and NN O O
turbine NN O I-INT
readings NN O O
for NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Possible NN O O
over-reading NN O O
of NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
mini-Wright NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
at NN O O
low NN O O
mean NN O O
values NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
. NN O O

Readings NN O O
taken NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
different NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
meter NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
interchanged NN O O
with NN O O
confidence NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
theoretically NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lung NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
produced NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-INT
meter NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
indeed NN O O
of NN O O
spirometry NN O O
itself NN O O
, NN O O
needs NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8571077)

No NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
to NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
vitro NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
low NN O O
density NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
( NN O O
LDL NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
oxidative NN O O
modification NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
per NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
subjects NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
subjects NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
to NN O O
follow NN O O
the NN O O
American NN O O
Heart NN O O
Association NN O O
Step NN O O
One NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

LDL NN O O
, NN O O
isolated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
copper-catalysed NN O O
lipid NN O O
peroxidation 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
LDL NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
beta-carotene NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conjugated NN O I-OUT
dienes NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conjugated NN O I-OUT
dienes NN O I-OUT
formed NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
peroxides NN O I-OUT
generated NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
electrophoretic NN O I-OUT
mobility NN O I-OUT
, 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

Dietary NN O O
records NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
consuming NN O O
similar NN O O
amounts NN O O
and NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O O
with NN O O
beta-carotene NN O I-INT
in NN O O
non-smoking NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hypercholesterolaemic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
no NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O O
of NN O O
LDL NN O O
to NN O O
copper-catalysed NN O O
modification NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8580292)

[ NN O I-PAR
Evaluating NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
interactive NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
multi-media NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
of 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
. NN O O

Using NN O O
the NN O O
interactive NN O I-INT
multimedia NN O I-INT
learning NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
for NN O O
studying NN O O
open-angle NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
[ NN O O
3 NN O O
] NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
case-controlled NN O O
study 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
value NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
new NN O O
form NN O O
of NN O O
learning NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
acceptance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
imparting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
details NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
presents NN O O
their NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
were NN O O
established NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
targeted NN O O
questions NN O O
asked NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
learning NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
frequencies NN O O
and NN O O
significance NN O O
testing NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Chi NN O O
squared NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
imparting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
when NN O O
this NN O O
learning NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
is NN O O
employed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
its NN O O
first NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
acceptance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
medium NN O I-OUT
rose NN O O
dramatically NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8582461)

Chronopharmacology NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
in NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
and NN O O
pharmacodynamics NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
converting NN O O
enzyme NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
vary NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
on NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
bradykinin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
E2 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril-induced NN O O
cough NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
also NN O O
be NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Enalapril NN O I-INT
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
orally NN O O
at NN O O
10:00 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
22:00 NN O O
h NN O O
( NN O O
night NN O O
trial NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
enalapril NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
enalaprilat NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
night NN O O
trials NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
enalaprilat NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
higher NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentration NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
trial NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
at NN O O
22:00 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
10:00 NN O O
h. NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
BK NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
following NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
at NN O O
10:00 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
at NN O O
22:00 NN O O
h. NN O O
Remarkable NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
BK NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
also NN O O
complained NN O O
of NN O O
cough NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
such NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
BK NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
subsequent NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
night NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
substance NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PGE2 NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
significantly NN O O
following NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
either NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
or NN O O
night NN O O
trial 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
response NN O O
of NN O O
BK NN O O
to NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
is NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
complain NN O O
of NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
enalapril NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
daytime NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
adverse NN O O
effect NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
diminished NN O O
or NN O O
eliminated NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
switch NN O O
to NN O O
night-time NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8589555)

Synthetic NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SSS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
globulin-enriched NN O O
protein NN O O
supplement NN O O
for NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
embryo NN O I-PAR
culture NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE 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
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
IVF NN O O
protein NN O O
supplement NN O O
prepared NN O O
from NN O O
human NN O O
serum NN O O
albumin NN O O
( NN O O
HSA NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
globulins NN O O
would NN O O
retain NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
equivalent NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
commercial NN O O
plasma NN O O
expanders NN O O
, NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Alpha NN O O
Therapeutics NN O O
, NN O O
Los NN O O
Angeles NN O O
, NN O O
California NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Plasmanate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Cutter NN O O
Biological NN O O
, NN O O
Miles NN O O
Inc. NN O O
, NN O O
Elkhart NN O O
, NN O O
Indiana NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Pronuclear-stage NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cultured NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
tubal NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
medium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HTF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
HSA NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/mL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
v/v NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mg/ml NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
indirectly NN O I-INT
assessing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
effect NN O I-INT
alpha- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
beta-globulins NN O I-INT
have NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
embryonic NN O I-INT
development NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Those NN O O
results NN O O
coupled NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
known NN O O
composition NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
starting NN O O
basis NN O O
to NN O O
formulate NN O O
test NN O O
lots NN O O
of NN O O
synthetic NN O O
serum NN O O
substitute NN O O
( NN O O
SSS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
embryos NN O O
cultured NN O O
in NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
supplemented NN O O
medium NN O O
reached NN O O
the NN O O
four-cell NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
greater NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
40 NN O O
hr NN O O
postinsemination NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
group NN O O
cultured NN O O
in NN O O
HSA NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Lot NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
SSS NN O O
, NN O O
formulated NN O O
with NN O O
HSA NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
protein NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
human NN O O
globulins NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
protein NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
aqueous NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
fraction NN O O
derived NN O O
from NN O O
human NN O O
plasma NN O O
( NN O O
Excyte NN O O
IV NN O O
; NN O O
Miles NN O O
Diagnostics NN O O
, NN O O
Kankakee NN O O
, NN O O
Illinois NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
produced NN O O
accelerated NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
embryonic NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
relative NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
murine NN O O
embryos NN O O
grown NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
Plasmatein NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
embryos NN O O
reaching NN O O
the NN O O
hatched NN O O
blastocyst NN O O
stage NN O O
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
vs NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
HTF NN O O
medium NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
or NN O O
lot NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
SSS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
showed NN O O
equivalent NN O O
growth NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
36-40 NN O O
hr NN O O
postinsemination NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
microprecipitate NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
media NN O O
supplemented NN O O
with NN O O
lot NN O O
1 NN O O
after NN O O
several NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
culture NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Excyte NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
ultimately NN O O
, NN O O
eliminated NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
and NN O O
final NN O O
prototype NN O O
lots NN O O
of NN O O
SSS NN O O
. NN O O

Murine NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
grown NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
lipoprotein NN O O
free NN O O
SSS NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
17 NN O O
hr NN O O
postthaw NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
and NN O O
all NN O O
embryos NN O O
progressed NN O O
to NN O O
hatching NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
41 NN O O
hr NN O O
. NN O O

Human NN O I-PAR
embryos NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
Plasmatein NN O I-INT
or NN O O
lot NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
SSS NN O I-INT
, NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
accelerated NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
scored NN O O
at NN O O
38 NN O O
hr NN O O
following NN O O
insemination NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Synthetic NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
substitute NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
a NN O O
convient NN O O
, NN O O
standardized NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
adding NN O O
protein NN O O
to NN O O
media NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
assisted NN O O
reproductive NN O O
technology NN O O
( NN O O
ART NN O O
) NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8590792)

Hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
lisinopril NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
antagonist NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
162 NN O I-PAR
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
a NN O O
24-week NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
83 NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
slow-release NN O I-INT
nifedipine NN O I-INT
produced NN O O
similar NN O O
reductions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
systolic/diastolic NN O O
: NN O O
-16/-13 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
supine NN O O
and NN O O
-14/-11 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
standing NN O O
after NN O O
lisinopril NN O O
; NN O O
-15/-12 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
supine NN O O
and NN O O
-14/-11 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
standing NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fasting NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
post-prandial NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
glycosylated NN O I-OUT
haemoglobin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
on NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
presented NN O O
microalbuminuria NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
drugs NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
albumin NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AER NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
geometric NN O O
mean NN O O
x NN O O
: NN O O
tolerance NN O O
factor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
AER NN O I-OUT
among NN O O
the NN O O
23 NN O O
microalbuminuric NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-10.0 NN O O
x:1.3 NN O O
micrograms/min NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
, NN O O
though NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
so NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
26 NN O O
on NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
-0.9 NN O O
x NN O O
1.2 NN O O
micrograms/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

Microalbuminuria NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
risk NN O O
factor NN O O
for NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
non-insulin-dependent NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
what NN O O
extent NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AER NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
diabetic NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
present NN O O
, NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
lisinopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
antihypertensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
glucose NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
or NN O O
lipid NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
consequences NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
insignificant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
AER NN O I-OUT
remain NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8600885)

Around-the-clock NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
once-daily NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
by NN O O
itself NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
once-daily NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
topical NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
ocular NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
analogue NN O O
, NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
, NN O O
yields NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
similar NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
diurnal NN O O
IOP NN O O
reducing NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
PATIENTS NN O O
Placebo- NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double-masked NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
on NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
applications NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
maleate NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n=10 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
terminated NN O O
their NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
beginning NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
0.005 NN O O
% NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
vehicle NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
by NN O O
hospital NN O O
staff NN O O
every NN O O
morning NN O O
for NN O O
9 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
After NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
hospitalized NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
supine NN O O
and NN O O
sitting NN O O
positions NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
handheld NN O O
electronic NN O O
tonometer NN O O
( NN O O
Tono-Pen NN O O
XL NN O O
, NN O O
Bio-Rad NN O O
, NN O O
Glendale NN O O
, NN O O
Calif NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
Goldmann NN O O
's NN O O
applanation NN O O
tonometer NN O O
, NN O O
covering NN O O
every NN O O
2-hour NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
clock NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
at NN O O
four NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
5-day NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
IOPs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Goldmann NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
applanation NN O I-OUT
tonometer NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
collected NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
were NN O O
mean NN O O
+/-SEM NN O O
17.9+/-0.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
20.2+/-0.6 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
and NN O O
16.8+/-0.3 NN O O
vs NN O O
20.6+/-0.5 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
vs NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
paired NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
diurnal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
reductions NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
handheld NN O O
electronic NN O O
or NN O O
Goldmann NN O O
's NN O O
applanation NN O O
tonometer NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
minimal NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
statistically NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.31 NN O O
, NN O O
two-tailed NN O O
paired NN O O
Student NN O O
's NN O O
t NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Once-daily NN O O
latanoprost NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
provides NN O O
uniform NN O O
circadian NN O O
( NN O O
around-the-clock NN O O
) NN O O
IOP NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
itself NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8602105)

Concentration NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
amiloride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
cystic NN O I-PAR
fibrosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8604728)

Five-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
Filtering NN O I-INT
Surgery NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Fluorouracil NN O I-INT
Filtering NN O I-INT
Surgery NN O I-INT
Study NN O I-INT
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine 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
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
5- NN O I-INT
fluorouracil NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
after NN O O
trabeculectomy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
prognoses NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
determine NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
examine NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
relationship NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
multicenter NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
213 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
filtering 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
receive NN O O
either NN O O
trabeculectomy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
trabeculectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
postoperative NN O I-INT
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurements NN O O
of NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
fields NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
clinician NN O O
masked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Failure NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
reoperation NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
an NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
greater NN O O
than NN O O
21 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
at NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first-year NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fifty-four NN O O
( NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
105 NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
80 NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
108 NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
filtering NN O O
surgery NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
failures NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
, NN O O
Mantel-Cox NN O O
survival NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Risk NN O O
factors NN O O
for NN O O
failure NN O O
include NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
procedure NN O O
involving NN O O
a NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
incision NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
procedures NN O O
with NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
incisions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Hispanic NN O O
ethnicity NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
controlled NN O O
intraocular NN O O
pressures NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
late-onset NN O I-OUT
bleb NN O I-OUT
leaks NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
105 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
filtering NN O O
surgery NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
two NN O O
of NN O O
108 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.032 NN O O
, NN O O
Fisher NN O O
's NN O O
exact NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
subconjunctival NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
after NN O O
trabeculectomy NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
cataract NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unsuccessful NN O I-PAR
filtering NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
caution NN O O
against NN O O
its NN O O
routine NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
good NN O O
prognoses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8610775)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
outpatient NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
low-dose NN O O
intravaginal NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
protocol NN O O
for NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
induction NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
initiating NN O O
labor NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
low-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
having NN O I-PAR
well-dated NN O I-PAR
pregnancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Bishop NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
gestation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
administered NN O O
either NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
intravaginal NN O I-INT
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
as NN O O
outpatients NN O O
while NN O O
undergoing NN O O
fetal NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
median NN O O
interval NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
randomization NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
10 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
26 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-seven NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
54 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
admitted NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
dosing NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
20 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
gestational NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
39.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.0 NN O O
weeks NN O O
vs NN O O
40.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.99 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postdates NN O I-OUT
pregnancy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperstimulation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2-treated NN O I-INT
patient NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
no NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Outpatient NN O O
low-dose NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
gel NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
initiating NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervix NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
appears NN O O
safe NN O O
if NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
adequate NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8619354)

Iobitridol NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
iopromide NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase-III NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
tolerance NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
CT. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
PURPOSE NN O O
, NN O O
MATERIAL NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
: NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
iobitriodol NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
I/ml NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
iopromide NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
I/ml NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
phase-III NN O O
study NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
variety NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
or NN O O
nondiagnostic NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
image NN O O
quality NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Nature NN O O
, NN O O
onset NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
intensity NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
imaging NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
iobitridol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
iopromide NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
excellent NN O I-OUT
image NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Iobitridol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
nonionic NN O I-OUT
contrast NN O I-OUT
agent NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
contrast-enhanced NN O O
body NN O O
CT NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8623941)

Processing NN O O
familiar NN O O
and NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
auditory NN O O
stimuli NN O O
during NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
tested NN O O
memory NN O O
priming NN O O
for NN O O
auditory NN O I-INT
stimuli NN O I-INT
presented NN O O
during NN O O
general NN O I-INT
propofol-sufentanil NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
58 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
day-case NN O I-INT
arthroscopic NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Stimuli NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
presented NN O I-INT
via NN O I-INT
headphones NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
common NN O I-INT
facts NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
familiar NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
unfamiliar NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
names NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
fictitious NN O I-INT
people NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
GRoup NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Group NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
give NN O O
more NN O O
correct NN O O
answers NN O O
to NN O O
questions NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
facts NN O O
than NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
tested NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
to NN O O
attribute NN O O
more NN O O
fame NN O O
to NN O O
presented NN O O
names NN O O
than NN O O
Group NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
famous NN O O
names NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
for NN O O
learning NN O O
new NN O O
or NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
stimuli NN O O
( NN O O
elaboration NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
impaired NN O O
under NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
more NN O O
memory NN O O
priming NN O O
was NN O O
expected NN O O
for NN O O
familiar NN O O
than NN O O
for NN O O
unfamiliar NN O O
material NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
common NN O I-OUT
facts NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
in NN O I-OUT
fame NN O I-OUT
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
names NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
priming NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
positively NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
one NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
preoperative NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8623957)

Recovery NN O O
profile NN O O
after NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
combining NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
[ NN O O
IV NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O I-INT
desflurane-based NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
grade NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
gynecological NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Recovery NN O O
after NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
special NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
nausea NN O O
and NN O O
vomiting NN O O
( NN O O
PONV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
groups NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
propofol-infusion-based NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
anesthetic NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
study NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double-blind NN O O
( NN O O
regarding NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
single-blind NN O O
( NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
recovery NN O O
( NN O O
eye NN O O
opening NN O O
, NN O O
orientation NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
commands NN O O
, NN O O
sitting NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
overall NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
readiness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
toleration NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
fluids NN O O
, NN O O
walking NN O O
, NN O O
pain NN O O
tolerable NN O O
by NN O O
oral NN O O
analgesics NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
or NN O O
only NN O O
mild NN O O
nausea NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
faster NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
109 NN O O
[ NN O O
21-937 NN O O
] NN O O
min 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
in NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
110 NN O O
[ NN O O
33-642 NN O O
] NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
only NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
372 NN O O
[ NN O O
45-723 NN O O
] NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
[ NN O O
range NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane-only NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
80 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
compared NN O O
to NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
desflurane-only NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
sedation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychomotor NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Maddox NN O O
Wing NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Digit NN O O
Symbol NN O O
Substitution NN O O
Tests NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
a NN O O
propofol-like NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
PONV NN O O
, NN O O
desflurane NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
ondansetron NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8624213)

Antihistaminics NN O I-INT
in NN O O
idiopathic NN O I-OUT
dystonia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (862429)

Comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
synemol NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
corticosteroid NN O I-INT
creams NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
vasoconstrictor NN O I-PAR
bioassay NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
vasoconstrictor NN O I-PAR
bioassay NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
potency NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O I-PAR
applications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Synemol NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.025 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Diprosone NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Aristocort-A NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Valisone NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
0.1 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Intensity NN O O
of NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
determined NN O O
eight NN O O
, NN O O
twenty-four NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thirty-two NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
intensity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
determinations NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
Synemol NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.025 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
actually NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
active NN O O
compound NN O O
than NN O O
are NN O O
Diprosone NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.05 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
Aristocort-A NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
Valisone NN O I-INT
cream NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
its NN O O
activity NN O O
is NN O O
longer NN O O
acting NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8624384)

Antibiotic NN O I-INT
strategy NN O I-INT
after NN O O
the NN O O
empiric NN O O
phase NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hematological NN O I-PAR
malignancy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Empiric NN O I-INT
broad-spectrum NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
a NN O O
generally NN O O
accepted NN O O
strategy NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
febrile NN O I-PAR
neutropenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Particularly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prolonged NN O I-PAR
neutropenia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
subsequent NN O O
adaptation NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
regimen NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
rule NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
exception NN O O
. NN O O

Since NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
uniformly NN O O
accepted NN O O
guidelines NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
during NN O O
the NN O O
post-empiric NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
set NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
rules NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
evolved NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
first NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
trials NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Evaluation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
clinician NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
compliance NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
rules NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
1951 NN O I-INT
febrile NN O I-INT
neutropenic NN O I-INT
episodes NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
subject NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
present NN O I-INT
analysis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatment NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
in NN O O
761 NN O O
( NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rules NN O O
in NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
and NN O O
night NN O O
shifts NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
reasonable NN O O
explanation NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
93 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
modifications NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
working NN O O
hours NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
for NN O O
objective NN O O
reasons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
empiric NN O O
regimen NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
changed NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
focus NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
showed NN O O
fever NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
only NN O O
symptom NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
perceived NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
modification NN O O
amounted NN O O
to NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
51 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
skin NN O O
and NN O O
soft-tissue NN O O
infections NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
abdominal NN O O
complaints NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
upper NN O O
respiratory NN O O
tract NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

Glycopeptides NN O O
constituted NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
modifications NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
central NN O O
venous NN O O
catheter NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
systemically NN O O
active NN O O
antifungals NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Especially NN O O
inexperienced NN O O
clinicians NN O O
tend NN O O
to NN O O
adjust NN O O
antibiotic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fact NN O O
that NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
fever NN O O
alone NN O O
seldom NN O O
reflects NN O O
inadequate NN O O
treatment NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
condition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
is NN O O
stable NN O O
or NN O O
improving NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
infectious NN O O
events NN O O
emphasizes NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
genuine NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
modification NN O O
does NN O O
frequently NN O O
exist NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8627197)

Antifungal NN O I-INT
pulse NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
onychomycosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8636370)

The NN O O
individual NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
GH-binding NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
gender 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
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
search NN O O
for NN O O
possible NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
44.3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
verified NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
2-phase NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
an NN O O
initial NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
6-month NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
thereby NN O O
ensuring NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
GH NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
GH NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
sc NN O O
daily NN O O
at NN O O
bedtime NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
target NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
x NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

GHBP NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ligand-mediated NN O O
immunofunctional NN O O
assay NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
insulin-like NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
I NN O O
( NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
RIA NN O O
after NN O O
acid-ethanol NN O O
extraction NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
truncated NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
analog NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
radioligand NN O O
. NN O O

Lean NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
mass NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
dual NN O O
energy NN O O
x-ray NN O O
absorptiometry NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
total NN O O
body NN O O
water NN O O
( NN O O
TBW NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
bioelectrical NN O O
impedance NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
control NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
LBM NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TBW NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
BF NN O I-OUT
decreased 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
serum NN O I-OUT
GHBP NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
GH NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
GH NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
BF NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
-12.5 NN O O
to NN O O
4.3 NN O O
kg NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
-4.5 NN O O
to NN O O
10.1 NN O O
kg NN O O
in NN O O
LBM NN O O
. NN O O

Age 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
baseline NN O I-OUT
GHBP NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
LBM NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
GH-induced NN O I-OUT
increment NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TBW NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
BF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
to NN O O
GH NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
in NN O O
GH-deficient NN O O
adults NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
GH NN O O
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
in NN O O
younger NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
low NN O O
GHBP NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
men NN O O
responded NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8639070)

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pemoline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
multiple NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Amantadine NN O I-INT
hydrochloride NN O I-INT
and NN O O
pemoline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
frequently NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
the NN O O
fatigue NN O O
of NN O O
multiple NN O O
sclerosis NN O O
( NN O O
MS NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
also NN O O
improve NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functions NN O O
in NN O O
MS. NN O O
To NN O O
our NN O O
knowledge NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
have NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pemoline NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
MS. NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MS NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
with NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pemoline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
using NN O O
a NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
underwent NN O O
comprehensive NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
testing NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
tests NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Digit NN O I-OUT
Span NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Trail NN O I-OUT
Making NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Symbol NN O I-OUT
Digit NN O I-OUT
Modalities NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
verbal NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Selective NN O I-OUT
Reminding NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonverbal NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Benton NN O I-OUT
Visual NN O I-OUT
Retention NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
motor NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Finger NN O I-OUT
Tapping NN O I-OUT
Test NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fatigue NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuropsychological NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
improved NN O O
on NN O O
tests NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
verbal NN O I-OUT
memory 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
motor NN O I-OUT
speed NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
amantadine NN O O
, NN O O
pemoline NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Cognitive NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
MS NN O O
is NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
fatigue NN O O
. NN O O

Neither NN O O
amantadine NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
pemoline NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
cognitive NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
MS NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8640699)

Fadrozole NN O I-INT
HCL NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CGS-16949A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
randomized NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
controlled NN O O
multiinstitutional NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
achieve NN O O
subsequent NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
additional NN O O
endocrine NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
aromatase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
, NN O O
fadrozole NN O I-INT
HCL NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
in NN O O
post NN O I-PAR
menopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
antiestrogen NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
adjuvant NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
multiinstitutional NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
683 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
fadrozole NN O I-INT
HCL NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
megestrol NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
double NN O I-INT
blind NN O I-INT
fashion NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
progression NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
first-line NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
intent-to-treat NN O O
analyses NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
detected NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
objective NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
meaningful NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
except NN O O
that NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
fadrozole NN O O
HCL NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fadrozole NN O O
HCL NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Fadrozole NN O I-INT
HCL NN O I-INT
was NN O O
as NN O O
efficacious NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
breast NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
one NN O O
hormonal NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
experiences NN O O
were NN O O
mild NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
therapies NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
megestrol NN O O
acetate NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
wiht NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
dyspnea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
fadrozole NN O I-INT
HCL NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8644646)

Comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
for NN O O
enhancing NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
atrial NN O O
flutter NN O O
by NN O O
atrial NN O O
overdrive NN O O
pacing NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
class NN O O
III NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
class NN O O
IA NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
its NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
terminate NN O O
atrial NN O O
flutter NN O O
using NN O O
rapid NN O O
atrial NN O O
pacing NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-nine NN O I-PAR
episodes NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
flutter NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
failed NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
terminate NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
infusion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ibutilide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procainamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
attempts NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
pacing NN O I-PAR
termination NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
burst NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
overdrive NN O I-PAR
pacing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Atrial NN O O
flutter NN O O
cycle NN O O
length NN O O
and NN O O
atrial NN O O
monophasic NN O O
action NN O O
potential NN O O
duration NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
atrium NN O O
during NN O O
atrial NN O O
flutter NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procainamide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
enhanced NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
pacing-induced NN O I-OUT
termination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Pacing NN O O
converted NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
29 NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
to NN O O
sinus NN O I-OUT
rhythm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Ibutilide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
markedly NN O O
reduced 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
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pacing-induced NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
prolonged NN O O
significantly 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
monophasic NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
than NN O O
by NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Although NN O O
the NN O O
electrophysiologic NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
agents NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
facilitating NN O O
pacing-induced NN O O
termination NN O O
, NN O O
neither NN O O
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
action NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
useful NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
pacing NN O O
to NN O O
terminate NN O O
atrial NN O O
flutter NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
differing NN O O
electrophysiologic NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ibutilide NN O I-INT
or NN O O
procainamide NN O I-INT
enhances NN O O
the NN O O
termination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
flutter NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
overdrive NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8644688)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
intake NN O I-INT
on NN O O
phospholipid NN O O
fatty NN O O
acid NN O O
composition NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
erythrocytes NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
characterize NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
( NN O O
RBC NN O O
) NN O O
changes NN O O
after NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
four NN O I-INT
1-g NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
n-3 NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
esters NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
1-g NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
olive NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
mo NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
3-mo NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RBC NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
at NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
washout NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
accumulations NN O O
of NN O O
eicosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
docosapentaenoic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DPA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
docosahexaenoic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DHA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
marked NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
mo NN O O
with NN O O
differences NN O O
among NN O O
different NN O O
fractions NN O O
of NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
RBCs NN O O
in NN O O
further NN O O
accumulation NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
and NN O O
second NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
washout NN O O
, NN O O
slight NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
among NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
phospholipid NN O I-OUT
fractions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
washout NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
minor NN O O
alterations NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
detectable NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
values NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
complex NN O O
relations NN O O
among NN O O
different NN O I-OUT
fatty NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
pools NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
n-3 NN O I-INT
PUFA NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8655293)

Pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
HIV NN O I-PAR
seropositive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
TNF NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tumor NN O O
necrosis NN O O
factor-alpha NN O O
( NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
cachexia NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
infected NN O O
with NN O O
human NN O O
immunodeficiency NN O O
virus NN O O
( NN O O
HIV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
HIV-seropositive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
known NN O O
suppressor NN O O
of NN O O
TNF-alpha NN O O
production NN O O
. 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
examine NN O O
how NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
thrice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
would NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
cellular NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
HIV-seropositive NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
TNF-alpha NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Six NN O I-PAR
HIV-seropositive NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
elevated NN O I-PAR
amounts NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
TNF-alpha NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
plasma NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
occasions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected 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
each NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Pentoxifylline NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
plasma-TNF-alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subpopulations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
proliferative NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
nor NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymphokine NN O I-OUT
activated NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LAK NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O O
treatment NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
the NN O O
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
tiredness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
frequently NN O O
reported NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
vitro NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O O
at NN O O
suprapharmacological NN O O
concentrations NN O O
inhibited NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMNC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
proliferative NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
NK NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
LAK NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8655422)

Feedlot NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
Holstein NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
protein NN O O
and NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
ruminally NN O O
protected NN O O
lysine NN O O
and NN O O
methionine NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
CP NN O O
and NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
ruminally NN O O
protected NN O O
lysine NN O O
and NN O O
methionine NN O O
( NN O O
RPLM NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
feedlot NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
carcass NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Holstein NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
growing-finishing NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
266 NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
168 NN O I-PAR
Holstein NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
182.7 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
27.5 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
completely NN O O
randomized NN O O
design NN O O
experiment NN O O
( NN O O
eight NN O O
treatments NN O O
; NN O O
three NN O O
pens NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
steers/treatment NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Steers NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
access NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
high-concentrate NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
13 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
CP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
71 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
shelled NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
corn NN O I-INT
silage NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
condensed NN O I-INT
distillers NN O I-INT
solubles NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
protein NN O I-INT
supplements NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DM NN O I-INT
basis NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Treatments NN O O
were NN O O
arranged NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
2 NN O O
x NN O O
4 NN O O
factorial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
factors NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
CP NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
soybean NN O O
meal NN O O
( NN O O
SBM NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
SBM NN O O
and NN O O
urea NN O O
( NN O O
SBM-U NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Urea-N NN O I-OUT
replaced NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
SBM-N NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SBM-U NN O O
diet NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O O
were NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
g NN O O
per NN O O
steer NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
interactions NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O I-OUT
CP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
RPLM NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
feedlot NN O O
performance NN O O
or NN O O
carcass NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Feedlot NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
feeding NN O O
SMB NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
84 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
feeding NN O O
SBM-U NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
98 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
feedlot NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
whole NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
( NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
source NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
CP NN O O
. NN O O

Steers NN O O
fed NN O O
diets NN O O
containing NN O O
SBM-U NN O O
had NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
thickness NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
those NN O O
fed NN O O
diets NN O O
containing NN O O
SBM NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
diets NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
ADG NN O O
or NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
DMI NN O O
and NN O O
gain NN O O
: NN O O
feed NN O O
showed NN O O
cubic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.10 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
increasing NN O O
dietary NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O O
. NN O O

Supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
g/d NN O O
level NN O O
improved NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
feed NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
98 NN O O
d NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
direct NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cubic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
RPLM NN O O
on NN O O
DMI NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
a NN O O
cost NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
replacing NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
SBM-N NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
from NN O O
urea NN O O
in NN O O
high-corn NN O O
diets NN O O
without NN O O
negative NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
feedlot NN O O
performance NN O O
or NN O O
carcass NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
growing-finishing NN O I-PAR
Holstein NN O I-PAR
steers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
feeding NN O I-PAR
periods NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
266 NN O I-PAR
d NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
diets NN O O
seem NN O O
to NN O O
meet NN O O
the NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
requirements NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
limiting NN O O
in NN O O
lysine NN O O
and NN O O
methionine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8656171)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin 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
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
shown NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
bronchitis NN O O
with NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
. NN O O

Many NN O O
physicians NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
treat NN O O
acute NN O O
bronchitis NN O O
with NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
of NN O O
Mycoplasma NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
pathogens 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
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
newly NN O O
developed NN O O
rapid NN O O
M NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
antibody NN O O
test NN O O
is NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
predicting NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O O
will NN O O
respond NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
North NN O I-PAR
Carolina NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
convenience NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
140 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
presenting NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
M NN O I-PAR
pneumoniae NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
either NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
identical-appearing NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
missed NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
only NN O O
0.81 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.1 NN O O
days NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
2.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
medicine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
general NN O I-OUT
feeling NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
well-being NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
congestion NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
tested NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
M NN O O
pneumoniae 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
response NN O O
to NN O O
erythromycin NN O I-INT
based NN O O
on NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
positive NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
M NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Erythromycin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
reducing NN O O
lost NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
work NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
cough NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O O
symptoms NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
bronchitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
M NN O O
pneumoniae NN O O
antibody NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8667967)

Tight-fitting NN O I-INT
underwear NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
sperm NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8669042)

[ NN O I-INT
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primitive NN O I-PAR
neuroectodermal NN O I-PAR
tumor NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PNET NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pineal NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8673938)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
two-stage NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
, NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11- NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15-year-old NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
attending NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Rio NN O I-PAR
de NN O I-PAR
Janeiro NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Brazil NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
53 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
matched NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
salivary NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
mutans NN O I-PAR
streptococci NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
caries NN O I-PAR
scores NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
elimination NN O O
of NN O O
carious NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
prophylaxis NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
was NN O O
then NN O O
painted NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
dentition NN O O
of NN O O
Group NN O O
T NN O O
subjects NN O O
only NN O O
. NN O O

Prior NN O O
to NN O O
caries NN O O
elimination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
after NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
study NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
average NN O O
of NN O O
106.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.9 NN O O
and NN O O
107.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.2 NN O O
gingival NN O O
sites NN O O
per NN O O
subject NN O O
( NN O O
four NN O O
sites NN O O
per NN O O
tooth NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
Groups NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
T NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
calibrated NN O O
examiner NN O O
on NN O O
two NN O O
occasions NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
statistical NN O O
purposes NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
dichotomized NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
0,1 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
2,3 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O O
index NN O O
. NN O O

Independent NN O O
t-tests NN O O
and NN O O
paired NN O O
t-tests NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
subject NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
between NN O O
study NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
3.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.1 NN O O
for NN O O
T NN O O
; NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
for NN O O
C NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.08 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sites NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
T NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
0.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.4 NN O O
, NN O O
T NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
; NN O O
1.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
, NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
T NN O O
subjects NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
gingival NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
C NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8676619)

Fludarabine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8681312)

A NN O O
phase NN O O
I NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
ciliary NN O I-INT
neurotrophic NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHCNTF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amyotrophic NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
ALS NN O O
CNTF NN O O
Treatment NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
ACTS NN O O
) NN O O
Phase NN O O
I-II NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
amyotrophic NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
sclerosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALS 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
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
ciliary NN O I-INT
neurotrophic NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rHCNTF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
subcutaneously NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Dose-limiting NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
consisting NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
some NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonproductive NN O I-OUT
cough NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Dose-related NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acute-phase NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
, NN O O
consistent NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
CNTF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
its NN O O
receptor NN O O
system NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cytokine NN O O
interleukin-6 NN O O
( NN O O
IL-6 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
receptor NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
neurologic NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rHCNTF NN O I-OUT
administration NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Antibodies NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
rHCNTF NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
sera NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
tested NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
continuous NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

rHCNTF NN O I-INT
was NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
acceptable NN O O
limits NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ALS NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
at NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
30 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
3 NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
explore NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
rHCNTF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
human NN O O
motor NN O O
neuron NN O O
diseases NN O O
are NN O O
justified NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8686245)

[ NN O O
Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
third NN O O
series NN O O
of NN O O
randomized NN O O
tests NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diethylstilbestrol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
orimethen NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
glutethymide NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
breast NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Tamoxifen NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
176 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T1-2N0M0 NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five-year NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
registered NN O O
in NN O O
85.2 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
menopausal NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
71.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Five-year NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
menopausal NN O O
females NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
tumors NN O O
, NN O O
stage NN O O
IIb NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
71.1 NN O O
% NN O O
among NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
diethylstilbestrol NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
low NN O O
as NN O O
57.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Untoward NN O I-OUT
side-effect NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
much NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diethylstilbestrol NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
30.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
orimethen NN O I-INT
and NN O O
tamoxifen NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
5-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8689462)

Intra-articular NN O O
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
intra-articular NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
hexacetonide NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
intra-articular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i/a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
hexacetonide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
i/a NN O I-INT
hyaluronic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
inflammatory NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparative NN O O
trail NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rheumatology NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
70.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bilateral NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
five NN O I-INT
HA NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
TH NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
weekly NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
monthly NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Assessment NN O O
included NN O O
recording NN O O
of NN O O
: NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stiffness NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
effusion NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
synovial NN O I-OUT
thickening NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
joint-line NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
periarticular NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
principal NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
self-selected NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Vas NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
comparable NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
developed NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-PAR
drop-out NN O I-PAR
rate NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
remaining NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
parameters NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
experienced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
parameters NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
HA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
active NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

HA NN O I-INT
may NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
additional NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
osteoarthritis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
action NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8707361)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
deoxycholate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
kala-azar NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
288 NN O I-PAR
parasitologically NN O I-PAR
proved NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
kala-azar NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
received NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AMB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
( NN O O
bw NN O O
) NN O O
/day NN O O
, NN O O
0.75 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
bw/day NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
bw/day NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Apparent NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
afebrile NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
parasitological NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
96 NN O O
( NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
92 NN O O
( NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
( NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
respectively NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
Ultimate NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
no NN O O
relapse NN O O
in NN O O
six NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
95 NN O O
( NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
87 NN O O
( NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
79 NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
groups NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
B NN O O
and NN O O
C NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
ultimate NN O I-OUT
cure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
was 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

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
rise NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
potassium NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
appetite NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
shivering NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rigor NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
indicative NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
GIT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
respectively NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
amphotericin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
bw/day NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
Indian NN O I-PAR
kala-azar NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
minimise NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prevent NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
unresponsiveness NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8708224)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
positioning NN O O
upon NN O O
maximal NN O I-INT
oxygenation NN O I-INT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
quasi-experimental NN O O
, NN O O
repeated-measures NN O O
cross-over NN O O
design NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
position NN O O
on NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SaO2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
respiration NN O O
and NN O O
pulse NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

Previous NN O O
research NN O O
strongly NN O O
suggests NN O O
that NN O O
positioning NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
healthy NN O O
( NN O O
unaffected NN O O
) NN O O
lung NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
lateral NN O O
( NN O O
down NN O O
) NN O O
position NN O O
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
improved NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
lacking NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
Is NN O O
positioning NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
unaffected NN O O
lung NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
lateral NN O O
position NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
saturation NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O O
and NN O O
respiration NN O O
? NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
What NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
dependent NN O O
variables NN O O
-- NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
saturation NN O O
levels NN O O
, NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
pulse NN O O
and NN O O
respiration NN O O
-- NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
independent NN O O
variables NN O O
-- NN O O
body NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
? NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
unilateral NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
pathology NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
positioned NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
sides NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
unaffected NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
down NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
their NN O I-INT
sides NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
affected NN O I-INT
lung NN O I-INT
down NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
also NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
semi-Fowler NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Arterial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
0 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiration NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
vary NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
position NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8708726)

Randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
European NN O O
Lung NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
European NN O O
Lung NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
( NN O O
ELCWP NN O O
) NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
with NN O O
12 NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
120 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
vindesine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
3 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
improve NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
small-cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
courses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ifosfamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
anthracycline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Among NN O I-PAR
235 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
initially NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
91 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
maintenance NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
including NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
longer NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Among NN O O
84 NN O O
randomized NN O O
responders NN O O
, NN O O
progression-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.003 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
median NN O O
durations NN O O
( NN O O
maintenance NN O O
v NN O O
follow-up NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
versus NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
median NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
and NN O O
38 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multi-variate NN O O
analysis NN O O
that NN O O
took NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
extent NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
dose-intensity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ADI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anthracycline NN O I-OUT
given NN O O
during NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
limited NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
positive NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
maintenance NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
responding NN O O
patients NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
in NN O O
SCLC NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8709689)

Removing NN O I-INT
bee NN O I-INT
stings NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Conventional NN O O
advice NN O O
on NN O O
immediate NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
honey-bee NN O O
stings NN O O
has NN O O
emphasised NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
sting NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
scraped NN O O
off NN O O
, NN O O
never NN O O
pinched NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
morphology NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sting NN O O
suggested NN O O
little NN O O
basis NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
advice NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
slow NN O O
down NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sting NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
honey-bee NN O I-PAR
stings NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
assayed NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
size NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
resulting NN O O
weal NN O O
. NN O O

Injection NN O O
of NN O O
known NN O O
quantities NN O O
of NN O O
venom NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
measurement NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
envenomisation NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
Weal NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
envenomisation NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
stinging NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
removal NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sting NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
seconds 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
response NN O O
between NN O O
stings NN O I-OUT
scraped NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pinched NN O I-OUT
off NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
2 NN O O
s. NN O O
INTERPRETATION NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
advice NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
immediate NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bee NN O I-OUT
stings NN O I-OUT
should NN O O
emphasise NN O O
quick NN O I-INT
removal NN O I-INT
, NN O O
without NN O O
concern NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8712092)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
bicalutamide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Casodex NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

To NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
bicalutamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Casodex NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
clinically NN O O
recommended NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O O
early NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
124 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
D NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
50 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
80 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
bicalutamide NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
once NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
in NN O O
fixed NN O O
doses NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
; NN O O
122 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
eligible NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
20/40 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
61.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
25/41 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
53.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
22/41 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
prostate NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lymph NN O I-OUT
node NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
showing NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
regard NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
PSA NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
84.2 NN O O
, NN O O
92.7 NN O O
and NN O O
97.6 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
65.0 NN O O
, NN O O
61.0 NN O O
and NN O O
61.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
50 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
mg NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Frequent NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
gynecomastia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
withdrawn NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
shortness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
testosterone NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Bicalutamide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
concluded NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
and 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
prostatic NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
recommended NN O O
dose NN O O
was NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8712112)

Influence NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
location NN O O
on NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
outcome NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
tissue NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
Primary NN O O
Angioplasty NN O O
in NN O O
Myocardial NN O O
Infarction NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
395 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
tissue NN O I-INT
plasminogen NN O I-INT
activator NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
tPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
coronary NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
138 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
PTCA NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
tPA NN O O
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
11.9 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

PTCA NN O O
also NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
18.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
11.3 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
28.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.0 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.037 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
anterior NN O O
wall NN O O
AMI NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
independent NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
primary NN O O
PTCA NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
tPA NN O O
in NN O O
anterior NN O O
wall NN O O
AMI NN O O
was NN O O
confirmed NN O O
by NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
and NN O O
interaction NN O O
testing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
257 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonanterior NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
similar NN O O
after NN O O
PTCA NN O O
and NN O O
tPA NN O O
( NN O O
3.2 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
3.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.82 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
tPA NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
primary NN O O
PTCA NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
markedly NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.7 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
27.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
unscheduled NN O I-OUT
catheterization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
8.6 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
nonanterior NN O O
wall NN O O
AMI NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
tPA NN O O
, NN O O
primary NN O O
PTCA NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
wall NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
in NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
lower NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reinfarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
nonanterior NN O O
wall NN O O
AMI NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
PTCA NN O O
and NN O O
tPA NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
similar NN O O
early NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
PTCA-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
stable NN O O
hospital NN O O
course NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
reduced NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
ischemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
invasive NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
earlier NN O O
discharge NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8712652)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
day NN O O
case NN O O
inguinal NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
delayed NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
hospital NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
morbidity NN O O
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
patient NN O O
satisfaction NN O O
with NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
two NN O O
postoperative NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
analgesic NN O I-PAR
protocols NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
case NN O I-PAR
inguinal NN O I-PAR
hernia NN O I-PAR
repair NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
every NN O O
8 NN O O
h NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
or NN O O
75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
diclofenac NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
MST NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
on NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
MST NN O I-INT
complained NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
1st NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
, NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
walk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dress NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
home NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
diclofenac NN O I-INT
provides NN O O
effective NN O O
analgesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
has NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
acceptable NN O O
side-effect NN O O
profile NN O O
than NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
sulphate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
after NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
hernia NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8722072)

Resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
diabetes NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
complications NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
in NN O O
detail NN O O
the NN O O
resources NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
and NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
incurred NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insulin-dependent NN O I-INT
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IDDM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Complications NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DCCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESEARCH NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
resources NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
deal NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
side NN O I-INT
effects NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
assessed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
DCCT NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
summarized NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Unit NN O I-INT
costs NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
derived NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
DCCT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
manufacturers NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Medicare NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chosen NN O O
to NN O O
reflect NN O O
what NN O O
an NN O O
item NN O O
would NN O O
cost NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
single-payer NN O O
national NN O O
health NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Costs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
used NN O O
and NN O O
unit NN O O
costs NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
component NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DCCT NN O I-INT
were NN O O
not NN O O
included NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
DCCT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
the NN O O
annual NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
4,000 NN O O
and NN O O
$ NN O O
5,800/year NN O O
for NN O O
multiple NN O O
daily NN O O
injections NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
insulin NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
$ NN O I-OUT
1,700/year NN O I-OUT
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
large NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
cost NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
outpatient NN O I-OUT
visits NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
greater NN O O
resources NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
self-care NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
DCCT NN O I-INT
intensive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
it NN O O
offers NN O O
the NN O O
hope NN O O
of NN O O
cost NN O O
savings NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
averted NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (872859)

Pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
adriamycin NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
complex NN O I-INT
in NN O O
L1210 NN O I-PAR
mice NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8731496)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
affect NN O O
following NN O O
acute NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O O
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
training NN O O
program NN O O
on NN O O
somatic NN O O
, NN O O
emotional NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
behavioral NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O O
stress NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
motor NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
affect NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
examined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
unfit NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
undergraduate NN O I-PAR
students NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stress NN O I-PAR
management NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
and NN O O
evenly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
engage NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
over NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
moderate NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
progressive NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
c NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
engaged NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
discussion NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
experience NN O I-INT
acute NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
nonintervention NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
did NN O I-INT
not NN O I-INT
experience NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
performing NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
motor NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Acute NN O O
stress NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
losing NN O O
against NN O O
a NN O O
competitor NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
opposite NN O O
sex NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
criterion NN O O
motor NN O O
task NN O O
while NN O O
receiving NN O O
unpleasant NN O O
information NN O O
about NN O O
their NN O O
performance NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
preintervention NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
postintervention NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Analyses NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercisers NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparisons NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
more NN O O
positive NN O O
affect NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
stressor NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
systolic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
superior NN O O
motor NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Progressive NN O O
relaxation NN O O
markedly NN O O
reduced NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
favorably NN O O
influence NN O O
performance NN O O
or NN O O
affect NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Placebo NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
similar NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
findings NN O O
indicated NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
aerobic NN O O
exercise NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
for NN O O
improved NN O O
coping NN O O
with NN O O
acute NN O O
stress NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8733449)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
otic NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
neomycin-polymyxin NN O I-INT
B-hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
otic NN O I-INT
drops NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
medical NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
suppurative NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Active NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
suppurative NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
poses NN O O
a NN O O
management NN O O
problem NN O O
when NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
considered NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Topical NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
have NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
varying NN O O
degrees NN O O
of NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
discharging NN O I-PAR
ears NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
quinolones NN O O
has NN O O
revived NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
topical NN O O
agents NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
compares NN O O
two NN O O
antibiotics NN O I-INT
, NN O O
namely NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
neomycin-polymyxin NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
sensitivities NN O O
to NN O O
Gram NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
Gram NN O O
negative NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
have NN O O
marginal NN O O
benefits NN O O
in NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
89 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
versus NN O O
79 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.27 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
bacterial NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
81 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
versus NN O O
75 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.81 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
suppurative NN O I-OUT
otitis NN O I-OUT
media NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
seven NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
versus NN O O
29 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
recommend NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
eardrops NN O I-INT
in NN O O
managing NN O O
active NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
suppurative NN O I-PAR
otitis NN O I-PAR
media NN O I-PAR
since NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
high NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
contains NN O O
no NN O O
steroid NN O O
component NN O O
and NN O O
has NN O O
no NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ototoxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8735490)

Accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
pelvic NN O I-PAR
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
prospective NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
blocked NN O O
versus NN O O
standard NN O O
radiotherapy 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
assess NN O O
the NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
pelvic NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
during NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
blocked NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
Royal NN O O
Marsden NN O O
Hospital NN O O
, NN O O
UK NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prospective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
90 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
CT NN O I-INT
planned NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-PAR
weekly NN O I-PAR
anterior-posterior NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lateral NN O I-PAR
portal NN O I-PAR
films NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Field NN O I-OUT
placement NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FPEs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
field NN O O
centres NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
film NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
designated NN O O
point NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
simulator NN O I-OUT
differences NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
treatments NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
treatment-simulator NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systematic NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
random NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
site NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
position NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fractionation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blocked NN O I-OUT
versus NN O I-OUT
conventional NN O I-OUT
techniques NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
accuracy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
simulator NN O O
films NN O O
was NN O O
anterior NN O O
right-left NN O O
( NN O O
ARL NN O O
) NN O O
0.25 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
anterior NN O O
superior-inferior NN O O
( NN O O
ASI NN O O
) NN O O
0.32 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
lateral NN O O
anterior-posterior NN O O
( NN O O
LAP NN O O
) NN O O
0.42 NN O O
cm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
lateral NN O O
superior-inferior NN O O
( NN O O
LSI NN O O
) NN O O
0.28 NN O O
cm NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
average NN O O
the NN O O
field NN O O
centre NN O O
was NN O O
displaced NN O O
by NN O O
0.66 NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
, NN O O
S.D NN O O
. NN O O

= NN O O
0.34 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
intended NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
day NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
anterior NN O O
films NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
lateral NN O O
films NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
0.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
had NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
0.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
error NN O O
and NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
a NN O O
1.0 NN O O
cm NN O O
error NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
field NN O O
centre NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
0.5 NN O O
cm NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
position NN O O
intended NN O O
in NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
random NN O O
and NN O O
systematic NN O O
errors NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
directions NN O O
. NN O O

Though NN O O
random NN O O
errors NN O O
were NN O O
of NN O O
similar NN O O
magnitude NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
variance NN O O
sigma NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.06-0.09 NN O O
cm2 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
systematic NN O O
errors NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
4-fold NN O O
variation NN O O
being NN O O
greatest NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LAP NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
sigma NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
cm2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
least NN O O
the NN O O
ARL NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
sigma NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.048 NN O O
cm2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
factor NN O O
consistently NN O O
predicted NN O O
for NN O O
worse NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
directions NN O O
. NN O O

Hypofractionated NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
accurate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
LSI NN O O
direction NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
> NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Systematic NN O I-OUT
errors NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
associated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ARL NN O O
direction NN O O
with NN O O
hypofractionation 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
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LSI NN O O
direction NN O O
with NN O O
weight 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
age NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
significant NN O O
random NN O O
and NN O O
systematic NN O O
errors NN O O
can NN O O
occur NN O O
during NN O O
pelvic NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LAP NN O O
direction NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
customised NN O O
immobilisation NN O O
device NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
cover NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
errors NN O O
, NN O O
margins NN O O
of NN O O
0.6 NN O O
cm NN O O
for NN O O
RL NN O O
and NN O O
SI NN O O
directions NN O O
and NN O O
0.9 NN O O
cm NN O O
for NN O O
AP NN O O
direction NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
allowed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
planning NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
target NN O O
volumes NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
ideally NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
centre NN O O
should NN O O
determine NN O O
their NN O O
own NN O O
margin NN O O
requirements NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
local NN O O
clinical NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8741469)

[ NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
continuous NN O O
epidural NN O O
block NN O O
influences NN O O
postoperative NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
breathing NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
thoracoabdominal NN O O
movement NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
upper NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
breathing NN O O
pattern NN O O
and NN O O
thoracoabdominal NN O O
movement NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
upper NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
influences NN O O
of NN O O
nociceptive NN O O
input NN O O
on NN O O
respiration NN O O
. NN O O

Sixteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
gastrectomy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Continuous NN O I-INT
epidural NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
instituted NN O I-INT
prior NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
throughout NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
while NN O I-INT
it NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
instituted NN O I-INT
upon NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
peritoneal NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
maintained NN O I-INT
thereafter NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
remaining NN O I-INT
8 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Breathing NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
thoracoabdominal NN O I-OUT
motion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
awake NN O O
by NN O O
respiratory NN O I-INT
inductance NN O I-INT
plethysmography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Respisomnography NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Chest NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Breathing NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
minute NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
while NN O O
tidal NN O O
volume NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
epidural NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
shortening NN O O
of NN O O
inspiratory NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
duty NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
inspiratory NN O O
time/duration NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
breath NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Contribution NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rib NN O I-OUT
cage NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
tidal NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
smaller NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
intraoperative NN O I-PAR
epidural NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
tachypnea NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
minute NN O O
ventilation NN O O
are NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
alteration NN O O
of NN O O
thoracoabdominal NN O O
partitioning NN O O
of NN O O
ventilation NN O O
after NN O O
upper NN O O
abdominal NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
former NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
conceivably NN O O
, NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
epidural NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O

While NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
consequence NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
reflex NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diaphragmatic NN O O
function NN O O
that NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
partially NN O O
, NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
continuous NN O O
epidural NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8748041)

Risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Risperidone NN O I-INT
has NN O O
antiserotonergic NN O O
and NN O O
antidopaminergic NN O O
properties NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
make NN O O
it NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
conventional NN O O
antipsychotic NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
schizophrenic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
shown NN O O
trends NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
perphenazine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zuclopenthixol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
consistently NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
that NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
at NN O O
doses NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
negative NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Positive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Negative NN O I-OUT
Syndrome NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
active NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
4-8 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
of NN O O
risperidone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
1.43 NN O O
times NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
subscale NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
population NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
haloperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
perphenazine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
zuclopenthixol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8750409)

Measuring NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
impact NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
design NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Kaiser NN O I-PAR
Permanente/USC NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
consultation NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
alternative NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
outpatient NN O I-PAR
pharmacy NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
pharmacies NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Southern NN O I-PAR
California NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
Kaiser NN O I-PAR
Permanente NN O I-PAR
Medical NN O I-PAR
Care NN O I-PAR
Program NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
and NN O O
large-scale NN O O
geographic NN O O
area NN O O
research NN O O
designs NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
presentation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
research NN O O
design NN O O
includes NN O O
discussions NN O O
of NN O O
data NN O O
collection NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
sampling NN O O
methods NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
including NN O O
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Demographic NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
biased NN O O
selection NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
electing NN O O
to NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
presented NN O O
documenting NN O O
potential NN O O
selection NN O O
bias NN O O
across NN O O
geographically NN O O
determined NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
geographic NN O O
area NN O O
design NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
article NN O O
presents NN O O
the NN O O
analysis NN O O
plan NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
discusses NN O O
study NN O O
limitations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8752181)

Prediction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
infarct-related NN O O
artery NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
using NN O O
summary NN O I-INT
ST-segment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
T-wave NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
developed NN O O
a NN O O
scoring NN O O
system NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
artery NN O O
responsible NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
AMI NN O O
) NN O O
using NN O O
ST-segment NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
T-wave NN O I-INT
changes NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
initial NN O I-INT
electrocardiogram NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ECG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
228 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
compatible NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AMI NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tested NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
223 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
set NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Thrombolysis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Angioplasty NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Myocardial NN O I-PAR
Infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TAMI-5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Using NN O O
stepwise NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
we NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
accurately NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
left NN O O
anterior NN O O
descending NN O O
( NN O O
LAD NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
left NN O O
circumflex NN O O
( NN O O
LC NN O O
) NN O O
coronary NN O O
artery NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
infarct-related NN O O
artery NN O O
using NN O O
2 NN O O
variables NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
summation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ST-segment NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
leads NN O O
V1 NN O O
to NN O O
V4 NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
summation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
T-wave NN O O
negativity NN O O
in NN O O
leads NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
aVL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
V5 NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
set NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
2 NN O O
variables NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
respective NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
98 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LAD NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
right NN O O
narrowings NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LC NN O O
narrowings NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
set NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
specificity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
97 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LAD NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
86 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
right NN O O
lesions NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
LC NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Information NN O O
easily NN O O
obtained NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ECG NN O O
can NN O O
accurately NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LAD NN O O
, NN O O
right NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
LC NN O O
artery NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
infarct-related NN O O
artery NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
decision NN O O
to NN O O
administer NN O O
thrombolytic NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8770026)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O I-INT
on NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nondiabetic NN O I-PAR
Caucasian NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
72 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
fat NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
and NN O O
blindly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
glucocorticoid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
methylprednisolone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
METH NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PLAC NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
twice NN O O
: NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
weight NN O O
maintenance NN O O
diet NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Energy NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
indirect NN O O
calorimetry NN O O
and NN O O
food NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
an NN O O
automated NN O O
food-selection NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-four-hour NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
24-h NN O O
NE NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
estimate NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
During NN O O
weight NN O O
maintenance NN O O
, NN O O
METH NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
125 NN O O
mg/30 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PLAC NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
METH NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
decreased NN O O
24-h NN O I-OUT
NE NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
increased NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
expenditure NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PLAC NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
ad NN O O
libitum NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
METH NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
PLAC NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
increased NN O O
their NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
weight NN O O
maintenance NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
larger NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
METH NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PLAC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
4,554 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1,857 NN O O
vs. NN O O
2,867 NN O O
+/- NN O O
846 NN O O
kcal/day NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O O
induce NN O O
obesity NN O O
mostly NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
effect NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
glucocorticoids NN O O
to NN O O
act NN O O
directly NN O O
or NN O O
indirectly NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
regulation NN O O
of NN O O
appetite NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8770304)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
locally NN O O
and NN O O
systemically NN O O
administered NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
in NN O O
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Ketorolac NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
( NN O O
NSAID NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
features NN O O
have NN O O
limited NN O O
its NN O O
clinical NN O O
utility NN O O
: NN O O
tendency NN O O
to NN O O
elicit NN O O
kidney NN O O
failure NN O O
and NN O O
inability NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
complete NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
most NN O O
NSAIDs NN O I-INT
are NN O O
weak NN O O
acids NN O O
( NN O O
pKa NN O O
3-5 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
become NN O O
concentrated NN O O
in NN O O
acidic NN O O
tissues NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
injured NN O O
and NN O O
inflamed NN O O
tissues NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
hypothesized NN O O
that NN O O
local NN O O
administration NN O O
may NN O O
enhance NN O O
its NN O O
analgesic NN O O
efficacy NN O O
while NN O O
lowering NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
systemic NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
I-II NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
American NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Anesthesiology NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
mastectomy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Near NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
20 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
solution NN O O
containing NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
simultaneously NN O O
either NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
Jackson-Pratt NN O O
drain NN O O
or NN O O
intravenously NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
character NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drain NN O I-OUT
fluid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, 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
postoperative NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
used NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
break-through NN O O
pain NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Intraoperative NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
better NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
immediate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
drain NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
exceed NN O O
the NN O O
output NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Analgesic NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
locally NN O O
administered NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
is NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
intravenously NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8780429)

MRI NN O I-INT
signal NN O I-INT
hyperintensities NN O O
in NN O O
geriatric NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
rated NN O O
periventricular NN O O
and NN O O
subcortical NN O O
signal NN O O
hyperintensities NN O O
on NN O O
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
scans NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
similar NN O O
demographic NN O O
features NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
whether NN O O
such NN O O
changes NN O O
discriminate NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
depression NN O O
from NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
they NN O O
are NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
hyperintensity NN O I-PAR
rating NN O I-PAR
systems NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
brain NN O I-INT
scans NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
48 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
scans NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Elderly NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
manifested NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
severe NN O O
hyperintensity NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
subcortical NN O O
gray NN O O
matter NN O O
than NN O O
age-matched NN O O
comparison NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
identified NN O O
between NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
current NN O O
ages NN O O
and NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
risk NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
early-onset NN O O
or NN O O
late-onset NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
neuroimaging NN O O
studies NN O O
implicating NN O O
the NN O O
basal NN O O
ganglia NN O O
in NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
geriatric NN O O
depression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
reports NN O O
between NN O O
late-onset NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
hyperintensities NN O O
is NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
a NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
cerebrovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
risk NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8785132)

Metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
hormonal NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
induced NN O I-INT
hypotension NN O I-INT
for NN O O
middle NN O I-PAR
ear NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
have NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
metabolic NN O O
and NN O O
hormonal NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
middle NN O I-PAR
ear NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
induced NN O I-INT
hypotension NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
pressure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
standardized NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
technique NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
thiopentone-vecuronium-isoflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
hypotension NN O I-INT
induced NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
sodium NN O I-INT
nitroprusside NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
trimetaphan NN O I-INT
camsylate NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
classic NN O I-OUT
stress NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
circulating NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
hormone NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
uric NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
changed NN O O
little NN O O
during NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
tissue NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
was NN O O
adequate NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
declined NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
concomitant NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
propranolol NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
techniques NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hormonal NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
trimetaphan NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
obtunded NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
induced NN O O
hypotension NN O O
for NN O O
middle NN O I-PAR
ear NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
induced NN O O
an NN O O
endocrine NN O O
and NN O O
metabolic NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
small NN O O
magnitude NN O O
and NN O O
short NN O O
duration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8787364)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
acellular NN O I-INT
diphtheria NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pertussis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
southern NN O I-PAR
Ghana NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
acellular NN O I-INT
diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ADPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
freeze-dried NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
liquid NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
conducted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
peri-urban NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Ashaiman NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
southern NN O I-PAR
Ghana NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
acellular NN O O
vaccines NN O O
, NN O O
persistence NN O O
of NN O O
antibodies NN O O
and NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
whole-cell NN O I-INT
diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
pertussis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
pertussis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
under NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
area NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
determined NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
acellular NN O O
vaccines NN O O
produced NN O O
significantly NN O O
fewer NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Local NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
such NN O O
as NN O O
swelling NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
redness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8/399 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
2.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9/385 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
acellular NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
recipients NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
against NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
122/394 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
whole-cell NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fever NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
37.5 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
7.27 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
29/399 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
38/385 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acellular NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
36.6 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
145/394 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole-cell NN O O
vaccine NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
GMTs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
ELISA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
pertussis NN O I-OUT
toxin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
filamentous NN O I-OUT
haemagglutinin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FHA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
acellular NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
whole-cell NN O I-INT
DPT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
WCDPT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
GMTs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
tetanus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diphtheria NN O I-OUT
antitoxins NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
after NN O O
each NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
GMTs NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
PT NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
freeze-dried NN O O
, NN O O
liquid NN O O
ADPT NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
WCDPT NN O O
group NN O O
have NN O O
fallen NN O O
from NN O O
56.23 NN O O
, NN O O
62.63 NN O O
and NN O O
44.97 NN O O
ELISA NN O O
U/ml NN O O
to NN O O
6.08 NN O O
, NN O O
6.18 NN O O
and NN O O
11.30 NN O O
ELISA NN O O
U/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

GMTs NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
FHA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
also NN O O
dropped NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
period NN O O
from NN O O
49.94 NN O O
, NN O O
41.73 NN O O
and NN O O
20.74 NN O O
ELISA NN O O
U/ml NN O O
to NN O O
7.26 NN O O
, NN O O
7.72 NN O O
and NN O O
5.91 NN O O
ELISA NN O O
U/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
comparative NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
ADPT NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
immunogenic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
WCDPT NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
considerable NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
antibody NN O I-OUT
titres NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
groups NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
titres NN O O
of NN O O
anti-PT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-FHA NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
vaccines NN O O
that NN O O
confer NN O O
protection NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
this NN O O
information NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
booster NN O O
doses NN O O
after NN O O
primary NN O O
immunization NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
ADPT NN O I-INT
and NN O O
WCDPT NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8787889)

Serum NN O I-OUT
bactericidal NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comparative NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
meropenem NN O O
and NN O O
imipenem-cilastatin NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
bactericidal NN O I-OUT
activities NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SBAs NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
imipenem NN O I-INT
and NN O O
meropenem NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O I-INT
30-min NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
imipenem NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
cilastatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
meropenem NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
bioassay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
high-pressure NN O I-OUT
liquid NN O I-OUT
chromatography NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
two-compartment NN O I-INT
model NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
noncompartmental NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
imipenem NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
meropenem NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
61.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
9.8 NN O O
and NN O O
51.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.5 NN O O
mg/liter NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
recoveries NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
48.6 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
60.0 NN O O
% NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
areas NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
time NN O O
zero NN O O
to NN O O
infinity NN O O
were NN O O
96.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.4 NN O O
and NN O O
70.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.3 NN O O
mg.h/liter NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Imipenem NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
half-life NN O O
of NN O O
66.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.4 NN O O
min NN O O
; NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
meropenem NN O O
was NN O O
64.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.9 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volumes NN O O
of NN O O
distribution NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
imipenem NN O O
and NN O O
meropenem NN O O
were NN O O
15.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
and NN O O
18.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
liters/70 NN O O
kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
renal NN O O
clearances NN O O
per NN O O
1.73 NN O O
m2 NN O O
were NN O O
85.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17.6 NN O O
and NN O O
144.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
26.0 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-PAR
antibiotics NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
tolerated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
single-dose NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
SBAs NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
microdilution NN O I-OUT
method NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Reller NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Stratton NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
L. NN O O
B. NN O O
Reller NN O O
and NN O O
C. NN O O
W. NN O O
Stratton NN O O
, NN O O
J. NN O O
Infect NN O O
. NN O O

Dis NN O O
. NN O O

136:196-204 NN O O
, NN O O
1977 NN O O
) NN O O
against NN O O
40 NN O O
clinically NN O O
isolated NN O O
strains NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
reciprocal NN O I-OUT
bactericidal NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
SBAs NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
imipenem NN O O
and NN O O
meropenem NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
409 NN O O
and NN O O
34.9 NN O O
and NN O O
97.9 NN O O
and NN O O
5.8 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
against NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
, NN O O
19.9 NN O O
and NN O O
4.4 NN O O
and NN O O
19.4 NN O O
and NN O O
4.8 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
against NN O O
Pseudomonas NN O O
aeruginosa NN O O
, NN O O
34.3 NN O O
and NN O O
2.2 NN O O
and NN O O
232 NN O O
and NN O O
15.5 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
against NN O O
Enterobacter NN O O
cloacae NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
13.4 NN O O
and NN O O
2.25 NN O O
and NN O O
90.7 NN O O
and NN O O
7.9 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
against NN O O
Proteus NN O O
mirabilis NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
rather NN O I-PAR
short NN O I-PAR
biological NN O I-PAR
elimination NN O I-PAR
half-lives NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
route NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
elimination NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Both NN O O
carbapenems NN O O
revealed NN O O
high NN O O
SBAs NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
pathogens NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
; NN O O
meropenem NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
SBA NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
E. NN O O
cloacae NN O O
and NN O O
P. NN O O
mirabilis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
SBA NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
imipenem NN O O
against NN O O
S. NN O O
aureus NN O O
was NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
SBA NN O O
of NN O O
meropenem NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8790079)

Warfarin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
perspective NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
minimal NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MCID NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
from NN O O
the NN O O
perspective NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
elicitation NN O I-PAR
methods NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
All NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
2 NN O O
face-to-face NN O O
interviews NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
apart NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
each NN O O
interview NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
elicitation NN O O
methods NN O O
: NN O O
ping-ponging NN O O
or NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
known NN O O
efficacy NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
The NN O O
practices NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
university-affiliated NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
community-based NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-PAR
physicians NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
cardiologists NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
warfarin NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
During NN O O
each NN O O
interview NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
MCIDs NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-OUT
pictorial NN O I-OUT
flip NN O I-OUT
chart NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
describe NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
fibrillation NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
chance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
if NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
chance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
episode NN O I-OUT
if NN O I-OUT
taking NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
examples NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
inconvenience NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
then NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
elicitation NN O I-OUT
methods NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
determine NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
MCIDs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
smallest NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
which NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
willing NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
take NN O I-OUT
warfarin NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
acceptability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
interview NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
determining NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
preferences NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Given NN O O
a NN O O
baseline NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
not NN O O
taking NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
MCID NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2.01 NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.60-2.42 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-two NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
would NN O O
take NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
an NN O O
absolute NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
stroke NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1 NN O O
% NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
eliciting NN O O
their NN O O
MCIDs NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
poor NN O O
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
improved NN O O
afterward NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interview NN O O
process NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
accepted NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MCID NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
ping-ponging NN O O
elicitation NN O O
method NN O O
was NN O O
1.015 NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
smaller NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
starting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
known NN O O
efficacy NN O O
method 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
We NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
MCID NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
warfarin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
perspective NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nonvalvular NN O I-PAR
atrial NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Their NN O O
MCIDs NN O O
were NN O O
much NN O O
smaller NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
that NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
implied NN O O
by NN O O
some NN O O
experts NN O O
and NN O O
clinicians NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
interview NN O O
process NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
flip NN O O
chart NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
consequences NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
elicit NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
MCIDs NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
patient NN O O
responses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
generalized NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
3 NN O O
ways NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
decision-making NN O O
perspective NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
facilitate NN O O
patient-physician NN O O
communication NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
clarify NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
perspective NN O O
when NN O O
interpreting NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
previously NN O O
completed NN O O
trials NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
it NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
derive NN O O
more NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
sample NN O O
sizes NN O O
for NN O O
randomized NN O O
treatment NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8791949)

Prospective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
macrolide NN O I-INT
antibiotic NN O I-INT
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Macrolide NN O I-INT
antibiotics NN O I-INT
are NN O O
active NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
against NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
a NN O O
newer NN O O
macrolide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
separate NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
13C-urea NN O I-PAR
breath NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
2-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
1 NN O O
: NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
t.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Study NN O O
2 NN O O
: NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d. NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
q.d.s NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
omepirazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
b.d NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
a NN O O
repeat NN O O
13C-urea NN O O
breath NN O O
test NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
for NN O O
cure NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
patient NN O O
taking NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
26 NN O O
) NN O O
achieved NN O O
cure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
seven NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Five NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
omeprazole-amoxycillin NN O I-INT
dual NN O O
therapy NN O O
had NN O O
their NN O O
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
cured NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0007 NN O O
vs. NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
plus NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Eleven NN O O
( NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
32 NN O O
patients NN O O
taking NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
reported NN O I-OUT
side-effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
stopped NN O O
therapy NN O O
prematurely NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
side-effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
No NN O O
subject NN O O
taking NN O O
dirithromycin NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
had NN O O
their NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
infection NN O O
cured NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Dirithromycin NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
regimen NN O O
used NN O O
, NN O O
shows NN O O
little NN O O
promise NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8792262)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
nonhandicapped NN O I-INT
peers NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
interactions NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
related NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
regular NN O I-INT
opportunities NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
interact NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
normally NN O I-INT
developing NN O I-INT
peer NN O I-INT
, NN O O
matched NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
random NN O O
assignment NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
this NN O O
peer-mediated NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
PDD NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
gains NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
generalized NN O O
to NN O O
interactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
unfamiliar NN O I-OUT
nonhandicapped NN O I-OUT
peer NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
to NN O O
interactions NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
another NN O I-OUT
child NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
PDD NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
large NN O I-OUT
school NN O I-OUT
setting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
untreated NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PDD NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
develop NN O O
peer NN O I-OUT
relations NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
appropriate NN O O
social NN O O
contexts NN O O
are NN O O
made NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8798245)

Relation NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
homocysteine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
lipid NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
premature NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
death NN O O
in NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
relatives NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
importance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lipid NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
apo NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
Lp NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
homocysteine NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
tHcy NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
premature NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
family NN O I-PAR
members NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parents NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
381 NN O I-PAR
girls NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
375 NN O I-PAR
boys NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
8-12 NN O I-PAR
y NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
family NN O I-INT
history NN O I-INT
questionnaires NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nonfasting NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
lipid NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
lipoproteins NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
tHcy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cysteine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
B12 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O O
subsample NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
food NN O O
frequency NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
whose NN O O
parents NN O O
reported NN O O
hypercholesterolemia NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
non-HDL NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
apo NN O I-OUT
B NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
rest NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
these NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

tHcy NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
boys NN O O
. NN O O

tHcy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
whose NN O O
father NN O O
, NN O O
grandfather NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
uncle NN O O
died NN O O
at NN O O
age NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
55 NN O O
y NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
or NN O O
sudden NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrest NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
42 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
control NN O O
children NN O O
[ NN O O
5.92 NN O O
mumol/L 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
of NN O O
5.47-6.36 NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
5.25 NN O O
mumol/L NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
5.16-5.34 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
also NN O O
after NN O O
adjustment NN O O
for NN O O
socioeconomic NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vitamin NN O I-OUT
B12 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
within NN O O
recommended NN O O
or NN O O
reference NN O O
ranges NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
stepwise NN O O
multiple NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
folate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sugar NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
energy NN O O
( NN O O
positive NN O O
correlations NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
tHcy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
multiple NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.44 NN O O
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
r2 NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
5-30 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
modest NN O O
elevation NN O O
in NN O O
tHcy NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O O
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
male NN O O
relatives NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
partly NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
family NN O O
history NN O O
to NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

tHcy NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
modifiable NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O O
with NN O O
apparently NN O O
adequate NN O O
vitamin NN O O
nutriture NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8801151)

Intraumbilical NN O O
vein NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
in NN O O
retained NN O I-PAR
placenta NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
protocol NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
intraumbilical NN O I-INT
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Hembate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Upjohn NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
oxytocin NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retained NN O I-PAR
placenta NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prostaglandin NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diluted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
30 NN O I-INT
IU NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxytocin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
diluted NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
or NN O O
20 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
injected NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
umbilical NN O O
vein NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
. NN O O

Nine NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
manual NN O I-PAR
removal NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
retained NN O I-PAR
placenta NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
placental NN O I-OUT
expulsion NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
placental NN O I-OUT
expulsion NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
prostaglandin NN O I-OUT
F2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.36 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
min NN O O
: NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
six NN O O
placental NN O I-OUT
expulsions NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
13.3 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.97 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SE NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
after NN O O
intraumbilical NN O O
saline NN O O
injection NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
intraumbilical NN O O
vein NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
, NN O O
non-surgical NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
treating NN O O
retained NN O O
placenta NN O O
. NN O O

Oxytocin NN O I-INT
might NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
manual NN O I-OUT
lysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
placenta NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
achieve NN O O
partial NN O O
success NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8815984)

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
water NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bark NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Burns NN O I-PAR
are NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
economic NN O O
constraints NN O O
and NN O O
limited NN O O
resources NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
import NN O O
of NN O O
appropriate NN O O
treatments NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
health NN O O
authorities NN O O
are NN O O
obliged NN O O
to NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
traditional NN O O
herbal NN O O
remedies NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
current NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
water NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bark NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
tree NN O I-INT
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Vietnam-Sweden NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
Uong NN O I-PAR
Bi NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
northern NN O I-PAR
Vietnam NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
remedy NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
extract NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
saline NN O I-INT
gauze NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
( NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
gauze NN O I-INT
( NN O O
17 NN O O
days 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
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
wound NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7/20 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
16/19 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
bark NN O I-INT
extract NN O I-INT
was NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
wound NN O O
care NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
usually NN O O
necessary NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
gauze NN O I-INT
was NN O O
laborious NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
staff NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
expensive NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
extract NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
Choerospondias NN O I-INT
axillaris NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
convenient NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
second NN O I-PAR
degree NN O I-PAR
burns NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
both NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8823584)

One NN O I-INT
quadrant NN O I-INT
sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anterior NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Reports NN O O
of NN O O
complications NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
ophthalmic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
increased NN O O
conspicuously NN O O
in NN O O
recent NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
capsule NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
for NN O O
anterior NN O O
segment NN O O
surgery NN O O
avoids NN O O
the NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
and NN O O
peribulbar NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
and NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
segment 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
sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
1-quadrant NN O I-INT
sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1-QST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
compared NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
270 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
operated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
2.5 NN O O
ml NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
1:1 NN O O
mixture NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sub-Tenon NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
involved NN O O
direct NN O O
transconjunctival NN O O
infiltration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
directly NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
sub-Tenon NN O O
's NN O O
space NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inferior-nasal NN O O
quadrant NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
blunt NN O O
23-gauge NN O O
cannula NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
segment NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
procedures NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
or NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
300 NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
operated NN O O
with NN O O
1-QST NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
270 NN O O
patients NN O O
operated NN O O
with NN O O
retrobulbar NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Preinjection NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+/- NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
wer NN O O
12.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
and NN O O
13.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Preoperative NN O I-OUT
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
8.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.0 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
and NN O O
9.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.2 NN O O
mmHg NN O O
in NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Pre- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postinjection NN O I-OUT
IOP NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
and NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
. NN O O

Pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
anesthetic NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
numerical NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
for NN O O
1-QST NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
technique NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
operative NN O O
procedure NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
was NN O O
1 NN O O
for NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
retrobulbar NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Complete NN O I-OUT
akinesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
in NN O O
41 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
1-QST NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
retrobulbar NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

1-QST NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
incomplete NN O I-OUT
akinesia NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
often NN O O
had NN O O
lateral NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
blunt NN O O
cannula NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
sub-Tenon NN O O
's NN O O
space NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
simple NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
alternative NN O O
approach NN O O
to NN O O
traditional NN O O
retrobulbar NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
in NN O O
anterior NN O O
segment NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8831332)

Clonidine NN O I-INT
increases NN O O
the NN O O
sweating NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
produces NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
reduce NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Six NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
each NN O O
on NN O O
three NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
one NN O O
, NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
another NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
2-micrograms/kg NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
clonidine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
micrograms.kg-1.h-1 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
4-micrograms/kg NN O O
bolus NN O O
was NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
infusion NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
micrograms.kg-1.h-1 NN O O
. NN O O

Core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
tympanic NN O O
membrane NN O O
and NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
four NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
chest NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
40 NN O O
g.m-2.h-1 NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
core NN O O
temperature NN O O
triggering NN O O
sweating NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
adjusted NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
designated NN O O
mean NN O O
skin NN O O
temperature NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
identified NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Gain NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
adjusted NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
augment NN O O
sweating NN O O
from NN O O
100 NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
g.m-2.h-1 NN O O
. NN O O

degree NN O O
C-1 NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
clonidine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.1 NN O O
and NN O O
1.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
ng/mL NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
small- NN O O
and NN O O
large-dose NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Clonidine NN O O
administration NN O O
increased NN O O
the NN O O
sweating NN O O
threshold NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.4 NN O O
degree 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
but NN O O
the NN O O
increase NN O O
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gain NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sweating NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
approximately NN O O
0.2 NN O O
degree NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
clonidine NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
thermoregulatory NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
clonidine NN O O
thus NN O O
resemble NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
volatile NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
, NN O O
opioids NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
propofol NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
antishivering NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
central NN O O
thermoregulatory NN O O
inhibition NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O O
peripheral NN O O
action NN O O
on NN O O
thermogenic NN O O
muscular NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Unlike NN O O
other NN O O
sedatives NN O O
and NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-dependence NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
a NN O O
ceiling NN O O
beyond NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
drug NN O O
fails NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
thermoregulatory NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
limited NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
at NN O O
high NN O O
plasma NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
gain NN O O
of NN O O
sweating NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
preserved NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
response NN O O
remains NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
sedatives NN O O
and NN O O
anesthetics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8832526)

Long-term NN O O
results NN O O
regarding NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
alpha-2b NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
II NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
cryoglobulinemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
cryoglobulinemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MEC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
including NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
interferon NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
other NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Interferon NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
induction NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
Mu/day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
Mu NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

83 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
patients NN O O
responded NN O O
as NN O O
opposed NN O O
to NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prednisone NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
that NN O O
responded NN O O
to NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
response NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

None NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
responded NN O O
completely NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
two NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
a NN O O
minor NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
three NN O O
of NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
proteinuria NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
which NN O O
improved NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
anti-HCV NN O I-OUT
positivity NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
secondary NN O O
to NN O O
cryoglobulinemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
histological NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
patient NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
peripheral NN O I-OUT
neuropathy NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
interferon NN O I-INT
given NN O O
as NN O O
induction NN O O
and NN O O
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
II NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
mixed NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
cryoglobulinemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8832772)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
ORG-2766 NN O I-INT
on NN O O
brain NN O O
event-related NN O O
potentials NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
adrenocorticotropin4-9 NN O I-INT
analogue NN O I-INT
ORG-2766 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
brain NN O O
event-related NN O O
potentials NN O O
( NN O O
ERPs NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
visual NN O O
and NN O O
auditory NN O O
oddball NN O O
paradigms NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
task NN O O
and NN O O
nontask NN O O
conditions NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
standard NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
target NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
unexpected NN O O
novel NN O O
stimuli NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
presented NN O O
. NN O O

ORG-2766 NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occipital NN O I-OUT
P3 NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
b NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occipital NN O I-OUT
P3 NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
targets NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
c NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
parietal NN O I-OUT
target NN O I-OUT
P3 NN O I-OUT
components NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
d NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
affect NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
A/Pcz/300 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
novel NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
ORG-2766 NN O O
treatment NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
N1 NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ERP NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
task-irrelevant NN O I-OUT
auditory NN O I-OUT
stimuli NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8837189)

Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O I-OUT
morphine-induced NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
intravenous NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
increasing NN O O
the NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Because NN O O
the NN O O
mechanism NN O O
of NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
morphine-induced NN O O
pruritus NN O O
by NN O O
droperidol NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
larger NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
210 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-PAR
delivery NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
epidural NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
1:200,000 NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
groups NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
( NN O O
groups NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
was NN O O
added NN O O
. NN O O

Just NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
, NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
groups NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
absent NN O O
, NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
other NN O I-OUT
untoward NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
the NN O O
Mann-Whitney NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

( NN O O
no NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
when NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
5-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
droperidol NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
inhibitory NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pruritus NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Other NN O O
untoward NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
either NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O O
or NN O O
occurred NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
incidence NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
either NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Pruritus NN O I-OUT
caused NN O O
by NN O O
epidural NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
or NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intravenous NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
droperidol NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
larger NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8838389)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O O
on NN O O
laterality NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
practice NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
lateralization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
mental NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty-six NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
46 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
four NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
64 NN O O
trials NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
lateralized NN O I-INT
mental NN O I-INT
rotation NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Results NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
reaction NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
error NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
blocks NN O O
, NN O O
thus NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
a NN O O
practice NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
shift NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
right NN O O
hemisphere NN O O
advantage NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
left NN O O
hemisphere NN O O
advantage NN O O
across NN O O
blocks NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
implication NN O O
for NN O O
hypotheses NN O O
linking NN O O
laterality NN O O
and NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Practical NN O O
implications NN O O
for NN O O
laterality NN O O
research NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
discussed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8840371)

The NN O O
comparative NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
adenosine NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
adenosine NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
comparative NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Nuclear NN O I-PAR
medicine NN O I-PAR
laboratory NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university-affiliated NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
Consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
referred NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
evaluation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
suspected NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
judged NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
exercise NN O I-PAR
adequately NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Coronary NN O I-INT
angiography NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
adenosine NN O I-INT
thallium-201 NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Diagnostic NN O I-OUT
accuracy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
shown NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
table NN O O
. NN O O

[ NN O O
table NN O O
: NN O O
see NN O O
text NN O O
] NN O O
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
adenosine NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ST NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O O
than NN O O
men NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
their NN O O
etiologies NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
between NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
adenosine NN O I-INT
thallium-201 NN O I-INT
myocardial NN O I-INT
perfusion NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
are NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8841156)

Cost-effectiveness NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O I-INT
vancomycin NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Seventy NN O I-PAR
immunocompromised NN O I-PAR
febrile NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hematologic NN O I-PAR
malignancies NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
therapeutic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
TDM NN O O
group NN O O
; NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Intervention NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TDM NN O O
group NN O O
involved NN O O
patient NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
pharmacist NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
obtain NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetically NN O I-INT
interpret NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
vancomycin NN O I-INT
concentrations NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
dosage NN O I-INT
individualization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
included NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
economic NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
derived NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
monitoring NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
TDM NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
, NN O O
except NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
minor NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
33.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
13.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
TDM NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
for NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
TDM NN O O
independently NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
reduced NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
incremental NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
$ NN O O
435 NN O O
per NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
nephrotoxicity NN O O
prevented NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
serum NN O O
concentration NN O O
monitoring NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nephrotoxicity NN O I-OUT
provides NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
real NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
to NN O O
patient NN O O
management NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
hematologic NN O O
malignancies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
TDM NN O O
for NN O O
vancomycin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
high-risk NN O O
population NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effective NN O O
procedure NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8849265)

Levels NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-OUT
human NN O I-OUT
granulocyte NN O I-OUT
colony-stimulating NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
serum NN O O
are NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
circulating NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
counts NN O O
. NN O O

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
countering NN O O
chemotherapy-induced NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
rhG-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
drop NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
rhG-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
vary NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
counts NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
myelosuppressive NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
subcutaneous NN O I-PAR
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
lenograstim NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
micrograms NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
kg NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
day NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
four NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
different NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
schedules NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Serum NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
enzyme NN O O
immunoassay NN O O
method NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
greatly NN O O
exceeded NN O O
endogenous NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
mainly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
exogenous NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
rather NN O O
than NN O O
increased NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
endogenous NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
circulating NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
counts NN O O
( NN O O
r2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.73 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
neutrophilia NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
neutropenia NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 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
the NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
result NN O O
from NN O O
increased NN O O
clearance NN O O
and/or NN O O
decreased NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
rhG-CSF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
two NN O O
processes NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
circulating NN O O
neutrophil NN O O
counts NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8856425)

Counselling NN O I-INT
of NN O O
postnatal NN O O
depression NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
Swedish NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
two-stage NN O O
screening NN O O
procedure NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Edinburgh NN O I-OUT
Postnatal NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EPDS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
the NN O O
Montgomery-Asberg NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MADRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
DSM-III-R NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
about NN O O
13 NN O O
weeks NN O O
postpartum NN O O
, NN O O
41 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
identified NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
women NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
6 NN O I-INT
weekly NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
counselling NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
Child NN O I-INT
Health NN O I-INT
Clinic NN O I-INT
nurse NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
routine NN O I-INT
primary NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twelve NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
15 NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
major NN O O
depression NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
fully NN O I-OUT
recovered NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Counselling NN O I-INT
by NN O O
health NN O O
nurses NN O O
is NN O O
helpful NN O O
in NN O O
managing NN O O
postnatal NN O O
depression NN O O
and NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
work NN O O
well NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
Swedish NN O O
Primary NN O O
Health NN O O
Care NN O O
system NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8858230)

Prospective NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
nasal NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
thin NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
endoscope NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
STUDY NN O O
AIMS NN O O
Attempts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
tolerance NN O O
of NN O O
upper NN O I-INT
gastrointestinal NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
sedation NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
thinner NN O O
endoscopes NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
nasal NN O O
introduction NN O O
route NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
prospectively NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
routes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
volunteers NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
thin NN O I-INT
prototype NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
endoscope NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Ten NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-INT
upper NN O I-INT
gastrointestinal NN O I-INT
endoscopies NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
random NN O I-PAR
order NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
procedure NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
experienced NN O I-PAR
endoscopist NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parameters NN O O
assessed NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
scope NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
entire NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0-10 NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
preferred NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
volunteers NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
completeness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
examination NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
independent NN O O
endoscopist NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
failed NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
she NN O O
was NN O O
excluded NN O O
from NN O O
further NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
insertion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scope NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
easier NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
route NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
examination NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
165 NN O O
vs. NN O O
210 NN O O
seconds NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.017 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
scope NN O I-OUT
insertion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
score NN O O
: NN O O
8 NN O O
for NN O O
oral NN O O
vs. NN O O
4 NN O O
for NN O O
nasal NN O O
route NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
, NN O O
gagging NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
more NN O O
frequently NN O O
during NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
endoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
6/9 NN O O
vs NN O O
1/9 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
volunteers NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
preferred NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
oral NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
nasal NN O O
route NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
decided NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
endoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Thin-diameter NN O I-INT
gastroscopes NN O I-INT
seem NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
tolerance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
this NN O O
small NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
volunteers NN O O
, NN O O
nasal NN O O
introduction NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
overall NN O O
benefit NN O O
over NN O O
oral NN O O
introduction NN O O
. NN O O

Modifications NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scope NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
better NN O O
nasal NN O O
passage NN O O
are NN O O
necessary NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8866262)

Secondary NN O O
caries NN O O
formation NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
around NN O O
glass NN O I-PAR
ionomer-lined NN O I-PAR
amalgam NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
composite NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
secondary NN O O
caries NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
liner NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
effect NN O O
on NN O O
wall-lesion NN O O
inhibition NN O O
when NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
light-cured NN O O
glass NN O I-INT
ionomer NN O I-INT
liner NN O I-INT
was NN O O
placed NN O O
under NN O O
amalgam NN O I-INT
and NN O O
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
restorations NN O O
. NN O O

Class NN O O
V NN O O
preparations NN O O
in NN O O
extracted NN O I-PAR
upper NN O I-PAR
premolars NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
ten NN O I-PAR
restorations NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
i NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
layers NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
copal NN O I-INT
varnish NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amalgam NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amalgam NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
amalgam NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
iv NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
v NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
conventional NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vi NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
enamel NN O I-INT
margin NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
vii NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
extended NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
short NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
enamel NN O I-INT
margin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bonding NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
light-cured NN O I-INT
composite NN O I-INT
resin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
teeth NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
thermocycled NN O O
and NN O O
artificial NN O I-INT
caries NN O I-INT
were NN O O
created NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
acid-gel NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
artificial NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
liner NN O I-INT
under NN O I-INT
amalgam NN O I-INT
restorations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
results NN O O
also NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
light-cured NN O O
glass-ionomer NN O I-INT
liner NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mm NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
cavosurface NN O O
margin NN O O
under NN O O
composite NN O O
resin NN O O
restoration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
artificial NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
caries NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8871414)

A NN O O
component NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
for NN O O
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
test NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
theory NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
put NN O O
forth NN O O
by NN O O
A. NN O O
T. NN O O
Beck NN O O
, NN O O
A. NN O O
J NN O O
. NN O O

Rush NN O O
, NN O O
B. NN O O
F. NN O O
Shaw NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
G. NN O O
Emery NN O O
( NN O O
1979 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
explain NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cognitive-behavioral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
depression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
comparison NN O O
involved NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigning NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
outpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
focused NN O I-PAR
exclusively NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
component NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CT NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
that NN O O
included NN O O
both NN O O
BA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
teaching NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
modify NN O I-INT
automatic NN O I-OUT
thoughts NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
but NN O I-INT
excluding NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
focused NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
core NN O I-OUT
schema NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
CT NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
experienced NN O O
cognitive NN O O
therapists NN O O
conducted NN O O
all NN O O
treatments NN O O
. NN O O

Despite NN O O
excellent NN O O
adherence NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
protocols NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
therapists NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
clear NN O O
bias NN O O
favoring NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
competent NN O O
performance NN O O
of NN O O
CT NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
produced NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
at NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
or NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
component NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
BA NN O O
and NN O O
AT NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
just NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
CT NN O I-INT
at NN O O
altering NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
thinking NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
dysfunctional NN O I-OUT
attributional NN O I-OUT
styles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
, NN O O
attributional NN O I-OUT
style NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
short- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
BA NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
CT NN O O
condition NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8872499)

Relationship NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
gammaglobulin NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
variable NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
clinical NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
gammaglobulins NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
infectious NN O O
episodes NN O O
in NN O O
adult NN O O
common NN O O
variable NN O O
immunodeficiency NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
, NN O O
dose-assessing NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
University NN O I-PAR
Hospital NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Out-patient NN O I-PAR
Clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Our NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
twenty-one NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
common NN O I-PAR
variable NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
measurements NN O O
were NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
3 NN O O
various NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
gammaglobulins NN O I-INT
, NN O O
each NN O O
given NN O O
monthly NN O O
for NN O O
M NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicated NN O O
four NN O O
hundred NN O O
and NN O O
eighty-four NN O O
infectious NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
while NN O O
giving NN O O
305 NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
IVIG NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
205 NN O O
infectious NN O O
episodes NN O O
while NN O O
giving NN O O
170 NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
and NN O O
436 NN O O
infectious NN O O
episodes NN O O
while NN O O
giving NN O O
247 NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
infection/infusion NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.59 NN O O
, NN O O
1.21 NN O O
and NN O O
1.77 NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
- NN O O
N/S NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
3 NN O O
dosages NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infection-free NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
conclusions NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
adult NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
common NN O O
variable NN O O
immunodeficiency NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
cross-over NN O O
pattern NN O O
with NN O O
IVIG NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
400 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
and NN O O
600 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
high NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
IVIG NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
conferring NN O O
better NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
infections NN O O
in NN O O
such NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8872685)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
oxygenation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
on NN O O
hepatic NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ShvO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
To NN O O
measure NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
ShvO2 NN O O
, NN O O
mixed NN O O
venous NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
arterial NN O O
lactate NN O O
concentrations NN O O
during NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
University NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
mechanical NN O I-PAR
ventilation NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
few NN O I-PAR
hours NN O I-PAR
postoperatively NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
After NN O O
placement NN O O
of NN O O
catheters NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
radial NN O O
artery NN O O
, NN O O
peripheral NN O O
and NN O O
right NN O O
hepatic NN O O
vein NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
hour NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
either NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
was NN O O
applied NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
minimum NN O O
alveolar NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
MAC NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
, NN O O
1.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.5 NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Before NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
desired NN O O
end-expiratory NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
concentration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
: NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mixed NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SvO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mixed NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

SaO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
SvO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
with NN O O
enflurane NN O O
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
ShvO2 NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
inhalational NN O O
concentrations NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ShvO2 NN O I-OUT
reflected NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
O2 NN O I-OUT
extraction NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Enflurane NN O I-INT
causes NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
ShvO2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
indicates NN O O
an NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
corresponding NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
CO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MAP NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Isoflurane NN O I-INT
maintains NN O O
splanchnic NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
enflurane NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8877260)

Baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Appropriate NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O I-PAR
Pressure NN O I-PAR
Control NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Diabetes NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
ABCD NN O O
( NN O O
Appropriate NN O O
Blood NN O O
Pressure NN O O
Control NN O O
in NN O O
Diabetes NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
with NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
and NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
diabetic NN O O
nephropathy NN O O
, NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
, NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
in NN O O
non-insulin-dependent NN O O
diabetes NN O O
( NN O O
NIDDM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
secondary NN O O
objective NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
equivalency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
nisoldipine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
angiotensin-converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
first-line NN O O
antihypertensive NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
and/or NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
diabetic NN O O
vascular NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
consists NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
90.0 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
80.0-89.0 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
950 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
40-74 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
center NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
470 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
480 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
report NN O O
summarizes NN O O
the NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
randomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
and NN O O
evaluates NN O O
the NN O O
balance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8881340)

Using NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
to NN O O
predict NN O O
reinforcer NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-INT
choice NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
accurate NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
identifying NN O O
preferences NN O O
than NN O O
is NN O O
single-item NN O O
presentation NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
reinforcement NN O O
varies NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
preference NN O O
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
preference NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O O
assessment NN O O
predicts NN O O
relative NN O O
reinforcer NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
question NN O O
by NN O O
categorizing NN O O
stimuli NN O O
as NN O O
high NN O O
, NN O O
middle NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
preference NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
stimuli NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
operants NN O I-INT
paradigm NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
High-preference NN O O
stimuli NN O O
consistently NN O O
functioned NN O O
as NN O O
reinforcers NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Middle-preference NN O O
stimuli NN O O
functioned NN O O
as NN O O
reinforcers NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
low-preference NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

Low-preference NN O O
stimuli NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
function NN O O
as NN O O
reinforcers NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
high- NN O O
and NN O O
middle-preference NN O O
stimuli NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
choice NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
reinforcing NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
various NN O O
stimuli NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
programs NN O O
for NN O O
clients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
profound NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8882257)

Injection NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Reduction NN O O
with NN O O
aspiration NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
single-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
reducing NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
injection NN O O
. NN O O

Aspiration NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
blood NN O O
into NN O O
a NN O O
syringe NN O O
of NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
immediately NN O O
before NN O O
injection NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
lignocaine NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
propofol NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
injection NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
saline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
lignocaine NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8885803)

Efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
aqueous NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
seasonal NN O I-PAR
allergic NN O I-PAR
rhinitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
accommodate NN O O
increasing NN O O
patient NN O O
preferences NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
aqueous NN O O
formulation NN O O
of NN O I-INT
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
seasonal NN O O
and NN O O
perennial NN O O
allergic NN O O
rhinitis NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
aqueous NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
( NN O O
220 NN O O
micrograms/day NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
the NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
ragweed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
forty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
220-microgram NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
triamcinolone NN O I-INT
acetonide NN O I-INT
aqueous NN O I-INT
nasal NN O I-INT
spray NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
4-point NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
0 NN O O
= NN O O
absent NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
= NN O O
mild NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
moderate NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
= NN O O
severe NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Physician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
global NN O O
evaluations NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O O
treatment NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
acetonide NN O O
aqueous NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
, NN O O
220 NN O O
micrograms/day NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
greater NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
2-week NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.006 NN O O
) NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
nasal NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
12 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
acetonide NN O O
aqueous NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
physicians NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
overall NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
acetonide NN O O
aqueous NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
confirmed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
220-microgram NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
triamcinolone NN O O
acetonide NN O O
aqueous NN O O
nasal NN O O
spray NN O O
, NN O O
administered NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
reduces NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
severity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seasonal NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
due NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
ragweed NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8891846)

Levosulpiride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
functional NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
multicentric NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
motility NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
functional NN O I-PAR
dyspepsia NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
supporting NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prokinetic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dyspeptic NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
levosulpiride NN O I-INT
in NN O O
short-term NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
1298 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
double-blind NN O I-PAR
multicentric NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
carried NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
Gastroenterology NN O I-PAR
Departments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
levosulpiride NN O I-INT
( NN O O
25 NN O O
mg NN O O
tid NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
domperidone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
tid NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
tid NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
tablet NN O O
tid NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
basis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
occurrence NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
last NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
5/10 NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-OUT
anorexia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
upper NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
bloating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
abdominal NN O I-OUT
fullness NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
satiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
belching NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
regurgitation NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
severity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
should NN O I-PAR
reach/exceed NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
assessed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
specific NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
absent NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
b NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
routine NN O I-PAR
biochemical NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ultrasound NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
endoscopic NN O I-PAR
examinations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
subjectively NN O O
evaluated NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
visual NN O O
analogue NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
symptoms NN O O
at NN O O
days NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
levosulpiride NN O I-INT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
domperidone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
improvement NN O O
scale NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
postprandial NN O I-OUT
bloating NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
epigastric NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heartburn NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Active NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
as NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
concerns NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
side-effects NN O O
( NN O O
12-20 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
including NN O O
galactorrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
breast NN O I-OUT
tenderness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
menstrual NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8892490)

The NN O O
evolving NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
for NN O O
mortality NN O O
prediction NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
predicting NN O O
mortality NN O O
after NN O O
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
usually NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
combine NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
treatment NN O O
decisions NN O O
are NN O O
often NN O O
made NN O O
or NN O O
modified NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
outpatient NN O O
clinic NN O O
visit NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
on NN O O
mortality NN O O
prediction NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
myocardial NN O O
infarction NN O O
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O I-PAR
inception NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Beta-Blocker NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Attack NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
2830 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-three NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
including NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
stepwise NN O O
logistic NN O O
regression NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
variables NN O O
were NN O O
independently NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
1-year NN O O
mortality NN O O
: NN O O
five NN O O
used NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
data NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
history NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hypertension NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hypercholesterolemia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
congestive NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
CHF NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ventricular NN O I-OUT
tachycardia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
five NN O O
variables NN O O
depended NN O O
on NN O O
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
collected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
outpatient NN O O
visit NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
CHF NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
discharge NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
New NN O I-OUT
York NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Two NN O O
predictive NN O O
systems NN O O
were NN O O
developed NN O O
that NN O O
partitioned NN O O
patients NN O O
into NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
four NN O O
classes NN O O
with NN O O
distinct NN O O
mortality NN O O
risks NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
composite NN O O
system NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
10 NN O O
in- NN O O
and NN O O
post-hospital NN O O
variables NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
system NN O O
using NN O O
only NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
in-hospital NN O O
variables NN O O
. NN O O

Mortality NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O O
system NN O O
classes NN O O
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
0.6 NN O O
to NN O O
20.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
I NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
861 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
II NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
1151 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
2.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
=698 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
IV NN O O
[ NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
120 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
20.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
risk NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
only NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
less NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
8.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
importantly NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
distinct NN O O
gradient NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
in-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
only NN O O
system NN O O
was NN O O
created NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
risk NN O O
stratification NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O O
first NN O O
MI NN O O
is NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
post-hospital NN O I-INT
data NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8893393)

Intrathecal NN O I-OUT
immunoactivation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
by NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
didanosine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
cerebrospinal NN O O
fluid NN O O
( NN O O
CSF NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
neopterin NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
type-1 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
3-12 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
initiation NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
antiretroviral NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O O
treatment NN O O
periods NN O O
on NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
7 NN O O
on NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CSF NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
neopterin NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
29.6 NN O O
to NN O O
12.9 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
by NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
from NN O O
22.6 NN O O
to NN O O
25.9 NN O O
nmol/l NN O O
, NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
during NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CSF NN O I-OUT
monocytic NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
increased NN O O
during NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
zidovudine NN O I-INT
but NN O O
not NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
intrathecal NN O I-OUT
immunoactivation NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
HIV-1 NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (8904679)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
triiodothyronine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
high-risk NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-INT
heart NN O I-INT
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Experimental NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
the NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
triiodothyronine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
following NN O O
myocardial NN O O
revascularization NN O O
on NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
open-label NN O I-PAR
T3 NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
high-risk NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
New NN O I-OUT
Jersey NN O I-OUT
Risk NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
the NN O O
preoperative NN O I-OUT
estimated NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
loading NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
T3 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
release NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aortic NN O O
cross-clamp NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
whenever NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
became NN O O
CPB NN O O
dependent NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
c NN O O
) NN O O
if NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
exhibited NN O O
low NN O O
cardiac NN O O
output NN O O
after NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
CPB NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
d NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
before NN O O
initiating NN O O
CPB NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modalities NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
T3 NN O I-INT
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
T3 NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
upon NN O O
discriminant NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
expected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
72 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

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
T3 NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
reducing NN O I-OUT
surgical NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
advocated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
estimated NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8908106)

Ganciclovir NN O I-INT
use NN O O
during NN O O
mild NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8918486)

Improved NN O O
local NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
invasive NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
definitive NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
National NN O O
Cancer NN O O
Institute NN O O
of NN O O
Canada NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Trials NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
preoperative NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
definitive NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
muscle-invasive NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
improved NN O I-PAR
local NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Ninety-nine NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T2 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
T4b NN O I-PAR
transitional NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
64 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cT3b NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
cT4 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
physicians NN O O
selected NN O O
either NN O O
definitive NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
precystectomy NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
at NN O O
2-week NN O O
intervals NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
cycles NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
pelvic NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
tumor NN O O
stage NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
radiation NN O O
plan NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
duration NN O O
is NN O O
6.5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
distant NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
study NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
of NN O O
48 NN O O
control NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
pelvis NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
15 NN O O
of NN O O
51 NN O O
cisplatin-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pelvic NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.038 NN O O
, NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
preserved NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
stepwise NN O O
Cox NN O O
regression NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
prognostic NN O O
factors NN O O
( NN O O
hazards NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.50 NN O O
; NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.29 NN O O
to NN O O
0.86 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
hazard NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
similar NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
radiation NN O O
plans NN O O
. NN O O

Pretreatment NN O O
leukocytosis NN O O
and NN O O
high NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
adverse NN O O
factors NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
Cox NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
improve NN O O
pelvic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
locally NN O O
advanced NN O O
bladder NN O O
cancer NN O O
with NN O O
preoperative NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
definitive NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
concurrent NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
detectable NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
distant NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8928893)

Age NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
interrelationships NN O O
between NN O O
lung NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
determine NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
aging NN O O
and NN O O
autonomic NN O O
input NN O O
on NN O O
interrelationships NN O O
between NN O O
respiratory NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
collected NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
lung NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
R-R NN O O
interval NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
7 NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
69 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
supine NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
double NN O I-PAR
pharmacological NN O I-PAR
autonomic NN O I-PAR
blockade NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
propranolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.2 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
iv NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
atropine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.04 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
iv NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Estimates NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
and NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
power NN O O
spectra NN O O
and NN O O
linear NN O O
transfer NN O O
functions NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
generated NN O O
by NN O O
Fourier NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Age NN O O
, NN O O
double NN O O
blockade NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
age-drug NN O O
interactions NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Basal NN O O
R-R NN O O
intervals NN O O
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Double NN O O
blockade NN O O
decreased NN O O
R-R NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
R-R NN O O
intervals NN O O
decreased NN O O
less NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
standard NN O O
deviation NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
subjects 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
were NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
double NN O O
blockade NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lung NN O I-OUT
volume-to-heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
spectral NN O I-OUT
coherence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
at NN O O
frequencies NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
respiration NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
older NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Double NN O O
blockade NN O O
decreased NN O O
lung NN O I-OUT
volume-to-heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
variability NN O I-OUT
transfer NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
magnitude NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.007 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
increased NN O O
phase NN O I-OUT
angle NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
without NN O O
age NN O O
effects NN O O
or NN O O
age-drug NN O O
interactions NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiration-heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
interrelations NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
aging NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
double NN O O
autonomic NN O O
pharmacological NN O O
blockade NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
eliminate NN O O
all NN O O
age-related NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8930174)

Differential NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
vasodepressor NN O O
and NN O O
prostacyclin NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
bradykinin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Angiotensin NN O I-INT
converting NN O I-INT
enzyme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ACE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
block NN O O
degradation NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
and NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
stimulates NN O O
prostacyclin NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
prostaglandins NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
set NN O O
out NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
contribution NN O O
of NN O O
prostacyclin NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
bradykinin-mediated NN O O
vasodepressor NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
, NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
alter NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
on NN O O
prostacyclin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
and NN O O
prostaglandins NN O O
are NN O O
class NN O O
effects NN O O
or NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O O
structure NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
address NN O O
these NN O O
questions 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
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
, NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
2,3-dinor-6-keto-PGF1 NN O O
alpha NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
vasodepressor NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

bradykinin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
salt-replete NN O I-PAR
normal-to-high NN O I-PAR
renin NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
quinapril NN O I-INT
doses NN O O
were NN O O
titrated NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
pressure NN O O
similarly NN O O
. NN O O

Captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
quinapril NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
prostacyclin NN O I-OUT
metabolite NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
217 NN O O
+/- NN O O
50 NN O O
vs. NN O O
135 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21 NN O O
pg/mg NN O O
Cr NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
dramatically NN O O
, NN O O
equally NN O O
potentiated NN O O
the NN O O
vasodepressor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
dose NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
15 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
or NN O O
increase NN O O
pulse NN O O
20 NN O O
bpm NN O O
was NN O O
50-fold NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
ACEI-treated NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
12.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
ng/kg/min NN O O
in NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
vs. NN O O
567 NN O O
+/- NN O O
109 NN O O
ng/kg/min 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
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

ACE NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O O
significantly NN O O
attenuated NN O O
the NN O O
prostacyclin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
bradykinin NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
given NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

Indomethacin NN O I-INT
abolished NN O O
the NN O O
prostacyclin NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
alter NN O O
the NN O O
vasodepressor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
data NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
potentiate NN O O
bradykinin-mediated NN O O
vasodepression NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
prostaglandin-independent NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
although NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
increase NN O O
prostaglandins NN O O
by NN O O
increasing NN O O
bradykinin NN O O
, NN O O
ACE NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O O
may NN O O
attenuate NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
production NN O O
through NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
bradykinin-independent NN O O
mechanism NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8932546)

Inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
histamine-induced NN O I-INT
skin NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mizolastine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
nonsedating NN O O
antihistamine NN O O
providing NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
allergic NN O I-OUT
rhinitis NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urticaria NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
formation NN O O
after NN O O
2-mu NN O O
g NN O O
intradermal NN O O
histamine NN O O
injections NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antihistamine NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
mizolastine NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
this NN O O
four-arm NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O I-INT
mizolastine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
during NN O O
5-day NN O O
dose NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

Histamine NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
before NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
3 NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
suppressing NN O O
wheal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
reactions NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
antihistamine NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
highest NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
10- NN O O
and NN O O
15-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
flare NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
within NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
, NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
effect NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
persisted NN O O
for NN O O
as NN O O
long NN O O
as NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
wheal NN O O
and NN O O
flare NN O O
areas NN O O
were NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
trough NN O O
plasma NN O O
levels NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
. NN O O

Safety NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
confirms NN O O
that NN O O
mizolastine NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
potent NN O O
antihistamine NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
its NN O O
long-lasting NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
indicates NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
once-daily NN O O
regimen NN O O
is NN O O
acceptable NN O O
for NN O O
clinical NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8936541)

Durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
durability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
tunnelled NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
non-tunnelled NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Twenty NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
but NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
turned NN O I-PAR
out NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
lack NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
tunnelled NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
was NN O O
224 NN O O
days NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
25-846 NN O O
days NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O I-OUT
longer NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
( NN O O
39.5 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
range NN O O
9-228 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
conventional NN O O
catheters NN O O
were NN O O
accidentally NN O O
removed NN O O
whereas NN O O
all NN O O
catheters NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tunnelled NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
removed NN O O
via NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
incision NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
catheter NN O I-OUT
related NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
tunnelled NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
conventional NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
registered NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
1189 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
522 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tunnelled NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
are NN O O
less NN O O
prone NN O O
to NN O O
displacement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
traditional NN O I-INT
percutaneous NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
when NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
diseases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8957368)

Thoracoscopic NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
talc NN O I-INT
slurry NN O I-INT
for NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Talc NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
generally NN O O
accepted NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
sclerosant NN O O
for NN O O
chemical NN O O
pleurodesis NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
optimal NN O O
route NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
remains NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
designed NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
video-assisted NN O I-INT
thoracoscopic NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
bedside NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
slurry NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
pleural NN O I-PAR
effusion NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O I-PAR
September NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
November NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
recruited NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
video-assisted NN O I-INT
thoracoscopic NN O I-INT
talc NN O I-INT
insufflation NN O I-INT
under NN O O
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
talc NN O O
slurry NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
bedside NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
29 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
condition NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Karnofsky NN O I-PAR
score NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
forced NN O I-PAR
expiratory NN O I-PAR
volume NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
L NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
trapped NN O I-PAR
lungs NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Five NN O O
grams NN O O
of NN O O
purified NN O O
talc NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
video-assisted NN O O
thoracoscopic NN O O
talc NN O O
insufflation NN O O
or NN O O
talc NN O O
slurry NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
respect NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sex NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
chest NN O I-OUT
drainage NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postprocedural NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
parenteral NN O I-OUT
narcotics NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ie NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Video-assisted NN O O
thoracoscopic NN O O
talc NN O O
insufflation NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
superior NN O O
approach NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
talc NN O O
slurry NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
the NN O O
former NN O O
demands NN O O
more NN O O
resources NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
advocate NN O O
that NN O O
talc NN O O
slurry NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
procedure NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
symptomatic NN O O
malignant NN O O
pleural NN O O
effusion NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
do NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
trapped NN O I-PAR
lungs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8964113)

Modulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxidant NN O I-INT
stress NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Free NN O O
radical-induced NN O O
oxidative NN O O
damage NN O O
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pathogenesis NN O O
of NN O O
diseases NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
cigarette NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
production NN O O
of NN O O
8-epi-prostaglandin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PG NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
F2 NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
stable NN O I-INT
product NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lipid NN O I-INT
peroxidation NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
vivo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
modulation NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
antioxidant NN O I-INT
vitamins NN O I-INT
in NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
cigarette NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
We NN O O
performed NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
studies NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
cross-sectional NN O I-PAR
comparison NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
examination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dose-response NN O O
relationship NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O O
exploration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O I-INT
cessation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
aspirin NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
' NN O O
dosing NN O O
with NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
U NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
combination NN O O
. NN O O

8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
in NN O O
pmol/mmol NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
176.5+/-30.6 NN O O
in NN O O
heavy NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
92.7+/-4.8 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
smokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
54.1+/-2.7 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.005 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Urinary NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
fell NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
145.5+/-24.9 NN O O
to NN O O
114.6+/-27.1 NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
112.6+/-24.9 NN O O
( NN O O
week NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
smoking NN O O
. NN O O

Aspirin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
failed NN O O
to NN O O
suppress NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
despite NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
11-dehydro-TxB2 NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
TxB2 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O O
pre NN O O
, NN O O
194.6+/-40.9 NN O O
; NN O O
post NN O O
, NN O O
137.2+/-34.1 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
( NN O O
pre NN O O
, NN O O
171.0+/-39.8 NN O O
; NN O O
post NN O O
, NN O O
133.5+/-29.6 NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
suppressed NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Urinary NN O I-OUT
8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
noninvasive NN O O
, NN O O
quantitative NN O O
index NN O O
of NN O O
oxidant NN O O
stress NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

Elevated NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
8-epi-PGF2 NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
smokers NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
be NN O O
modulated NN O O
by NN O O
quitting NN O I-INT
cigarettes NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
switching NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
nicotine NN O I-INT
patches NN O I-INT
or NN O O
by NN O O
antioxidant NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8964218)

[ NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
of NN O O
metastatic NN O I-PAR
endocrine NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
tract NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (8964276)

A NN O O
randomised NN O O
open NN O O
multicentre NN O O
comparative NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
as NN O O
monotherapy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
partial NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
generalised NN O I-PAR
tonic-clonic NN O I-PAR
seizures NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
received NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
115 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
111 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBZ NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
117 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
higher NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
was NN O O
possibly NN O O
most NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
60.4 NN O O
% NN O O
completing NN O O
seizure NN O O
free NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
51.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
LTG NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
54.7 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
CBZ NN O O
600 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
dosage NN O O
regimens NN O O
of NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
CBZ NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
58 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
were NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
CBZ NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
LTG NN O O
100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
LTG NN O O
200 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CBZ NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
withdrew NN O O
completely NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experiences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
10.3 NN O O
% NN O O
versus NN O O
4.3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LTG NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
experience NN O I-OUT
leading NN O O
to NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
was NN O O
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
approximately NN O O
double NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
reports NN O O
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
CBZ NN O I-INT
600 NN O O
( NN O O
5.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.7 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
LTG NN O I-INT
100 NN O O
and NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
on NN O O
LTG NN O I-INT
200 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
lamotrigine NN O I-INT
appeared NN O O
equally NN O O
effective NN O O
but NN O O
better NN O O
tolerated NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (8976475)

Trunk NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
spinal NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
observer-blinded NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
chronic NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
back NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CLBP NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
preplanned NN O O
comparisons NN O O
were NN O O
made NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
Spinal NN O I-INT
manipulative NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SMT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
trunk NN O I-INT
strengthening NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TSE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
SMT NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
trunk NN O I-INT
stretching NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
SMT NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TSE NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
TSE NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Interdisciplinary NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
observer-blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-yr NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
evaluated NN O O
therapies NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
only NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O O
treatment NN O O
components NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Primary NN O I-PAR
contact NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
college NN O I-PAR
out-patient NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
174 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
20-60 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
admitted NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Patient-rated NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
back NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
disability NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Five NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
SMT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
trunk NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
and NN O O
additional NN O O
6 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Individual NN O O
group NN O O
comparisons NN O O
after NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
wk NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O I-OUT
main NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
reveal NN O O
any NN O O
clear NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
or NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
sustained NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
medication NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
1-yr NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
SMT/TSE NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Continuance NN O O
of NN O O
exercise NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
regimens NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
improvement NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
considered NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
expected NN O O
natural NN O O
history NN O O
of NN O O
long-standing NN O O
CLBP NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
CLBP NN O O
, NN O O
trunk NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
SMT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
seemed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O O
and NN O O
worthwhile NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
effects NN O O
, NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
relative NN O O
risks NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
these NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
need NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
addressed NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8978338)

Colonoscopic NN O O
miss NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
adenomas NN O I-PAR
determined NN O O
by NN O O
back-to-back NN O O
colonoscopies NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
& NN O O
AIMS NN O O
The NN O O
miss NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
for NN O O
neoplasms NN O O
is NN O O
poorly NN O O
understood NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
miss NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
by NN O O
same NN O O
day NN O O
back-to-back NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
same NN O O
day NN O O
colonoscopies NN O I-INT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
183 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O I-INT
colonoscopy NN O I-INT
by NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
endoscopist NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
position NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
miss NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
adenomas NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
adenomas NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
adenomas NN O O
6-9 NN O O
mm NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
adenomas NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
adenomas NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
examination NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
than NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
adenoma NN O I-PAR
detected NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
examination NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
adenomas NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
examination NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
3.3 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
1.69-6.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Right NN O O
colon NN O O
adenomas NN O O
were NN O O
missed NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
often NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
left NN O O
colon NN O O
adenomas NN O O
( NN O O
21 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
variation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
endoscopists NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significant NN O O
miss NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
small NN O O
adenomas NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
among NN O O
essentially NN O O
all NN O O
endoscopists NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Using NN O O
current NN O O
colonoscopic NN O I-INT
technology NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
significant NN O O
miss NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
adenomas NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
even NN O O
with NN O O
meticulous NN O O
colonoscopy NN O O
. NN O O

Miss NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
are NN O O
low NN O O
for NN O O
adenomas NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
cm NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
colonoscopic NN O O
technology NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8980774)

Single-dose NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
delavirdine NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
didanosine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-OUT
immunodeficiency NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Delavirdine NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
nonnucleoside NN O O
reverse NN O O
transcriptase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
with NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
activity NN O O
against NN O O
human NN O I-OUT
immunodeficiency NN O I-OUT
virus NN O I-OUT
type NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
HIV-1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
that NN O O
is NN O O
currently NN O O
being NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
regimens NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
nucleoside NN O O
analogs NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
didanosine NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pH-dependent NN O O
solubility NN O O
of NN O O
delavirdine NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
buffering NN O O
agents NN O O
in NN O O
didanosine NN O O
formulations NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
delavirdine NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
CD4+ NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
304 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
213/mm3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
three-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
single-dose NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Didanosine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
125 NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
as NN O O
buffered NN O O
tablets NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
delavirdine NN O I-INT
mesylate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
when NN O O
each NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
treatments NN O O
A NN O O
and NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
drugs NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
concurrently NN O O
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
when NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
1 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
delavirdine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
treatment NN O O
D NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Delavirdine NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
7.22 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.0 NN O O
to NN O O
3.51 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.9 NN O O
microM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0 NN O O
h NN O O
to NN O O
infinity NN O O
( NN O O
AUC0 NN O O
-- NN O O
> NN O O
infinity NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
22.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
to NN O O
14 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.7 NN O O
microM.h NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
N-dealkylation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
ratio NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
N-dealkylated NN O I-OUT
delavirdine NN O I-OUT
AUC0 NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
infinity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
delavirdine NN O I-OUT
AUC0 NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
infinity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
unchanged NN O O
across NN O O
study NN O O
treatments NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.708 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
didanosine NN O I-OUT
exposure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
with NN O O
delavirdine NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O O
from NN O O
4.65 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.0 NN O O
to NN O O
3.22 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.59 NN O O
microM NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
AUC0 NN O O
-- NN O O
> NN O O
infinity NN O O
reduction NN O O
from NN O O
7.93 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.9 NN O O
to NN O O
6.54 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.3 NN O O
microM.h NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
concurrent NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
delavirdine NN O O
and NN O O
didanosine NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
AUC0 NN O I-OUT
-- NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
infinity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
reduction NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

Administration NN O O
of NN O O
delavirdine NN O I-INT
1 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
didanosine NN O I-INT
avoided NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
. NN O O

Due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
single-dose NN O O
nature NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
require NN O O
further NN O O
evaluation NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (8986845)

Pedantic NN O I-INT
speaking NN O I-INT
style NN O O
differentiates NN O O
Asperger NN O O
syndrome NN O O
from NN O O
high-functioning NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Asperger NN O O
syndrome NN O O
( NN O O
AS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
pervasive NN O O
developmental NN O O
disorder NN O O
recently NN O O
introduced NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
category NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ICD-10 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
DSM-IV NN O O
. NN O O

Along NN O O
with NN O O
motor NN O O
clumsiness NN O O
, NN O O
pedantic NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
feature NN O O
of NN O O
AS NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
few NN O O
attempts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
to NN O O
define NN O O
and NN O O
measure NN O O
this NN O O
symptom NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
17 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
16.4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
full-scale NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
97 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O I-PAR
them NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal-intelligence NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
high-functioning NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HFA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ICD-10/DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
15.5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
full-scale NN O I-PAR
IQ NN O I-PAR
81.2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
An NN O O
operational NN O O
definition NN O O
of NN O O
pedantic NN O O
speech NN O O
was NN O O
formulated NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
rating NN O O
scale NN O O
devised NN O O
. NN O O

13 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
AS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
pedantic NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
HFA NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
= NN O O
6.3 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
pedantic NN O I-INT
speech NN O I-INT
is NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
AS NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
help NN O O
differentiate NN O I-OUT
AS NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
high-functioning NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9001833)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
electromotive NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
with NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
or NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-masked NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
when NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
electromotive NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EMDA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
EMDA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
iontophoresis NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low-intensity NN O O
electric NN O O
current NN O O
is NN O O
applied NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
skin NN O O
to NN O O
deliver NN O O
medication NN O O
into NN O O
body NN O O
tissues NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
EMDA NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
diseases NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
are NN O O
lacking NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
rheumatic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
double-masked NN O O
study NN O O
included NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
epicondylitis NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
scapulohumeral NN O I-PAR
periarthritis NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gonalgia NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
metatarsalgia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
physician NN O O
into NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
each NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
sessions NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
took NN O O
place NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

Immediately NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
treatment NN O O
sessions NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
ended NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
patient NN O O
and NN O O
physician NN O O
measured NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
categoric NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
slight NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
intermediate NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
strong NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
very NN O O
strong NN O O
pain NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
evaluated NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
the NN O O
Scott NN O O
and NN O O
Huskisson NN O O
Visual NN O O
Analogue NN O O
Scale NN O O
( NN O O
VAS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
ended NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
physician NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
judged NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
categoric NN O O
scale NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
improvement NN O O
or NN O O
intermediate NN O O
, NN O O
good NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
very NN O O
good NN O O
result NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
provided NN O O
immediate NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
EMDA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
experienced NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Poor NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
good NN O I-OUT
results NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ketorolac-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
reported NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
that NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
relieves NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
delivered NN O O
by NN O O
EMDA NN O I-INT
and NN O O
offers NN O O
longer-lasting NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
does NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9002920)

Chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
swabbing NN O O
applications NN O O
under NN O O
various NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
preventive NN O O
oral NN O O
care NN O O
for NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
disabilities NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
single-blind NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
testing NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
swabbing NN O O
under NN O O
various NN O O
conditions NN O O
: NN O O
with/without NN O O
prior NN O O
dental NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
reduced NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
application NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
5 NN O O
times NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
prolonged NN O O
use NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
0.12 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
gluconate NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Peridex NN O O
, NN O O
Procter NN O O
& NN O O
Gamble NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
mL NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
NaF NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Toothette NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Sage NN O O
Products NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
swabbing NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
previously NN O O
reported 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
while NN O O
initial NN O O
benefits NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
periodontal NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
sustained NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
dental NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
and NN O O
swabbing NN O O
protocol NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
reduced NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
application NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
prolonged NN O O
time NN O O
. NN O O

High NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
acceptance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
subjects/caregivers NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects/caregivers NN O O
reported NN O O
improvements NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
attitude NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
smile NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Chlorhexidine NN O I-INT
swabbing NN O O
at NN O O
maintenance NN O O
frequency NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
periodic NN O O
dental NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
pragmatic NN O O
long-term NN O I-OUT
preventive NN O I-OUT
regimen NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
persons NN O O
with NN O O
disabilities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9003876)

Topical NN O O
beta-blockade NN O O
with NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
offers NN O O
no NN O O
advantage NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
respiratory NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
function NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Topical NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
beta-antagonists NN O I-INT
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
unrecognized NN O O
impairment NN O O
of NN O O
respiratory NN O O
and NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Beta-antagonists NN O O
with NN O O
intrinsic NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
or NN O O
cardioselective NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
carteolol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
betaxolol NN O I-INT
, NN O O
may NN O O
cause NN O O
less NN O O
impairment NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-masked NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
over 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 I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bronchospasm NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
timolol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
betaxolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
carteolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
continued NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Spirometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
on NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
timolol NN O O
and NN O O
carteolol NN O O
groups 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
mean NN O I-OUT
spirometric NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changing NN O O
to NN O O
betaxolol NN O O
improved NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
310 NN O O
to NN O O
3411/min 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
forced NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
1 NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
9.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
1.74 NN O O
to NN O O
1.861 NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
PF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
betaxolol NN O O
and NN O O
timolol NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
betaxolol NN O O
and NN O O
carteolol NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-one NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
betaxolol NN O O
showed NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
pulse NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
carteolol NN O O
was NN O O
substituted NN O O
for NN O O
timolol NN O O
but NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
beats NN O O
per NN O O
minute 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
mean NN O I-OUT
resting NN O I-OUT
pulse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
betaxolol NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Therapy NN O O
with NN O O
cardioselective NN O O
beta-blockade NN O O
may NN O O
offer NN O O
significant NN O O
advantages NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O O
function NN O O
for NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glaucoma NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
non-selective NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
even NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
have NN O O
sympathomimetic NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9006472)

Feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Epilepsy NN O O
Care NN O O
Evaluation NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
epilepsy NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
A NN O O
randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nurse NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-PAR
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
Six NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
practices NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Thames NN O I-PAR
region NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
251 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
taking NN O I-PAR
anti-epileptic NN O I-PAR
drugs NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
attack NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
past NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
specified NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
questionnaire NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Questionnaire NN O I-INT
responses NN O I-INT
and NN O O
recording NN O O
of NN O O
key NN O O
variables NN O O
extracted NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
records NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
127 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
nurse NN O O
run NN O O
clinic NN O O
, NN O O
of NN O O
whom NN O O
106 NN O O
( NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
attended NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
nurse NN O O
wrote NN O O
28 NN O O
letters NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
general NN O O
practitioners NN O O
suggesting NN O O
changes NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
epilepsy NN O I-INT
management NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
For NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
group NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
having NN O O
been NN O O
given NN O O
on NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
compliance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
driving NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
alcohol NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
help NN O I-OUT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Nurse NN O I-INT
run NN O I-INT
clinics NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
epilepsy NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
feasible NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
attended NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Such NN O O
clinics NN O O
can NN O O
significantly NN O O
improve NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
advice NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9007148)

The NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
dermoid NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
with NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O I-PAR
dermoid NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-eight NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
dermoid NN O I-PAR
cyst NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
allocated NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
18 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
for NN O O
operative NN O O
and NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
times NN O O
and NN O O
postoperative NN O O
course NN O O
. NN O O

Operating NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
longer NN O O
( NN O O
93.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
23.8 NN O O
min NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
( NN O O
22.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6.6 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
laparoscopy NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
complications 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

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
operative NN O I-INT
laparoscopy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
removal NN O O
of NN O O
dermoid NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cysts NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
laparotomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9023640)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
and NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
human NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
gastrointestinal NN O O
microflora NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
1000 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
and NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
capsules NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Samples NN O O
from NN O O
saliva NN O O
, NN O O
dental NN O O
plaque NN O O
and NN O O
faeces NN O O
and NN O O
biopsies NN O O
from NN O O
antrum NN O O
and NN O O
corpus NN O O
were NN O O
analysed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
ecological NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
microflora NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
microorganisms NN O O
were NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
colonised NN O O
with NN O O
enterobacteria NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
cavity NN O O
and NN O O
stomach NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
general NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microorganisms NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
gastric NN O I-OUT
mucosa NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
selection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
resistant NN O I-OUT
enterobacteria NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
beta-lactamase NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
faecal NN O O
samples NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
omeprazole-amoxycillin NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O I-OUT
viable NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
cultivated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
saliva NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
dental NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
faecal NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Treatment NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
1000 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
altered NN O O
the NN O O
normal NN O O
microflora NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
oral NN O O
, NN O O
gastric NN O O
and NN O O
intestinal NN O O
tract NN O O
and NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
resistant NN O O
microorganisms NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
numbers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O I-OUT
microflora NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9028057)

Opioid-immune NN O O
interactions NN O O
in NN O O
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
assessment NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
emerging NN O O
concept NN O O
of NN O O
opioid NN O O
peptides NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
class NN O O
of NN O O
chemical NN O O
messengers NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neuroimmune NN O O
axis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
immunological NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
in NN O O
infantile NN O O
autism NN O O
prompted NN O O
us NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
biological NN O O
( NN O O
hormonal NN O O
and NN O O
immunological NN O O
) NN O O
determinations NN O O
and NN O O
behavioural NN O O
performances NN O O
during NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
potent NN O O
opiate NN O O
antagonist NN O O
, NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NAL NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twelve NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
entered NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O I-INT
crossover NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
NAL NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
1.0 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
1.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
48 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-INT
behavioural NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
conducted NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
BSE NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CARS NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
NAL NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
produced NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
significant NN O I-INT
reduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
autistic NN O I-OUT
symptomatology NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
seven NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
responders NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
out NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
children NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
behavioural NN O O
improvement NN O O
was NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
alterations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
major NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
subsets 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
T-helper-inducers NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD4+CD8- NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
T-cytotoxic-suppressor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CD4-CD8+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
normalization NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
CD4/CD8 NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
natural NN O I-OUT
killer NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
plasma NN O O
beta-endorphin NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
underlying NN O O
opioid-immune NN O O
interactions NN O O
are NN O O
altered NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
an NN O O
immunological NN O O
screening NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
prognostic NN O O
value NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacological NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
opiate NN O I-INT
antagonists NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9039228)

Marginal NN O O
zone NN O O
B NN O O
cell NN O O
lymphoma NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parotid NN O O
glands NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
to NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
marginal NN O I-PAR
zone NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MZBCL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
parotid NN O I-PAR
glands NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
extended NN O O
fields NN O O
, NN O O
4500 NN O O
cGy NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
schedule NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
end NN O I-OUT
points NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
TTF NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
was NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
difference NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
100 NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
and NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.5 NN O O
) NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
early NN O O
stage NN O O
MZBCL NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
offer NN O O
any NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Until NN O O
now NN O O
, NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
considered NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9040453)

Determining NN O O
the NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O O
Hypertension NN O O
in NN O O
Europe NN O O
( NN O O
SYST-EUR NN O O
) NN O O
Trial NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explored NN O O
how NN O O
in NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
trials NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
correction NN O O
for NN O O
placebo NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
smoothing NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
profiles NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
handled NN O O
in NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
244 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-PAR
Systolic NN O I-PAR
Hypertension NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
europe NN O I-PAR
Trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Net NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
computed NN O O
by NN O O
subtracting NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
during NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
133 NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
during NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
111 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O I-PAR
entry NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
averaged NN O I-PAR
176/86 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
149/80 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
24-hour NN O I-PAR
ambulatory NN O I-PAR
monitoring NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
corrections NN O O
applied NN O O
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
nitrendipine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
possible NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
enalapril NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and/or NN O I-INT
hydrochlorothiazide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
12.5 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
25 NN O I-INT
mg/d NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
reduced NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
< NN O I-INT
.001 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
these NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-INT
16.6/7.3 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
9.8/4.7 NN O I-INT
mm NN O I-INT
Hg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
first NN O O
determined NN O O
from NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
hours NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
1-hour NN O I-INT
precision NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
synchronized NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
morning NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
evening NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O I-INT
medication NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
According NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
usual NN O O
approach NN O O
, NN O O
disregarding NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
systolic/diastolic NN O I-OUT
net NN O I-OUT
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.46/0.40 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
0.77/0.99 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
individual NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
baseline-adjusted NN O I-OUT
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
nonnormally NN O O
distributed NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
used NN O O
a NN O O
nonparametric NN O O
technique NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
the NN O O
net NN O I-OUT
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
individual NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
ratios NN O O
averaged NN O O
0.25 NN O O
systolic NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.09 NN O O
to NN O O
0.41 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
0.15 NN O O
diastolic NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
0.00 NN O O
to NN O O
0.31 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
, NN O O
0.19 NN O O
and NN O O
0.36 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
0.00 NN O O
to NN O O
0.38 NN O O
and NN O O
0.14 NN O O
to NN O O
0.56 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
smoothed NN O O
by NN O O
substituting NN O O
the NN O O
1-hour NN O O
averages NN O O
by NN O O
moving NN O O
or NN O O
fixed NN O O
2-hour NN O O
averages NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
Fourier NN O O
modeling NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
unchanged NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
0.20/0.13 NN O O
, NN O O
0.20/0.14 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.16/0.21 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
( NN O O
0.32/0.38 NN O O
, NN O O
0.28/0.40 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0.48/0.49 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
analysis NN O O
proposed NN O O
makes NN O O
it NN O O
possible NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
correct NN O O
the NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
baseline NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
calculate NN O O
a NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
net NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Accounting NN O O
for NN O O
interindividual NN O O
variability NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Smoothing NN O O
affects NN O O
the NN O O
individualized NN O O
net NN O O
trough-to-peak NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
an NN O O
unpredictable NN O O
way NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
therefore NN O O
be NN O O
avoided NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9042119)

Dexamethasone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
salbutamol-treated NN O I-PAR
inpatients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
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
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
nebulized NN O I-PAR
salbutamol NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
inpatient NN O O
wards NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
pediatric NN O O
tertiary NN O O
care NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
participants NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
first-time NN O I-PAR
wheezing NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
oxygen NN O I-PAR
saturation NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
95 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
admission NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
Respiratory NN O I-OUT
Distress NN O I-OUT
Assessment NN O I-OUT
Instrument NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
RDAI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-PAR
greater NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
underlying NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
might NN O I-PAR
affect NN O I-PAR
cardiopulmonary NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
recent NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
steroids NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
within NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
any NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
adverse NN O I-PAR
reaction NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
steroids NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.5 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
0.3 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
2 NN O O
mornings NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
equal NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
orally NN O O
administered NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
with NN O O
an NN O O
identical NN O O
appearance NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
nebulized NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
at NN O O
0.15 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
change NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

Secondary NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
RDAI NN O I-OUT
measurement NN O I-OUT
twice NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospitalization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
At NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
RDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
2.3 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
1.4 NN O O
( NN O O
2.0 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
33 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
RDAI NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
any NN O O
assessment NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
48 NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
, NN O O
54 NN O O
) NN O O
hours NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
57 NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
, NN O O
76 NN O O
) NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.19 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Oral NN O O
dexamethasone NN O O
therapy NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
course NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bronchiolitis NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
clinical NN O O
situation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9044492)

Airway NN O I-OUT
management NN O I-OUT
training NN O I-INT
using NN O O
the NN O O
laryngeal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
training NN O O
programmes NN O O
. NN O O

Nurses NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
experience NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
use NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
laryngeal NN O I-INT
mask NN O I-INT
airway NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LMA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
trained NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
insertion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
LMA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
manikin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
nurses NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
trained NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
manikin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
live NN O I-INT
anaesthetised NN O I-INT
patient NN O I-INT
practice NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
theatre NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
insertions NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Without NN O O
further NN O O
practice NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
insert NN O O
an NN O O
LMA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
live NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
theatre NN O I-PAR
3 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
initial NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
attempts NN O O
per NN O O
nurse NN O O
were NN O O
allowed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
, NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
passed NN O O
the NN O O
LMA NN O I-OUT
successfully NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
attempt NN O O
, NN O O
22 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
attempt NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
one NN O O
nurse NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
attempt NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
successful NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
first NN O O
attempt NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
attempt NN O O
. NN O O

Skill NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
high NN O O
following NN O O
either NN O O
training NN O O
method NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
chi NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
manikin-only NN O O
training NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
emergency NN O O
technique NN O O
for NN O O
LMA NN O I-INT
insertion NN O O
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
live NN O O
patient NN O O
training NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
manikin NN O O
training NN O O
alone NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
adopted NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
future NN O O
training NN O O
modality NN O O
if NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
is NN O O
expected NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LMA NN O I-INT
in NN O O
resuscitation NN O O
becomes NN O O
more NN O O
commonplace NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9048274)

Temporal NN O O
variation NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
participants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
standard NN O I-PAR
deviation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
0.9 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
either NN O O
50 NN O O
microL NN O O
of NN O O
0.5 NN O O
% NN O O
timolol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
lower NN O O
conjunctival NN O O
sacs NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
or NN O O
evening NN O O
. NN O O

Intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
including NN O I-OUT
percent 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
and NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Timolol NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
intraocular NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
both NN O O
administration NN O O
times NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
timolol-induced NN O I-INT
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
respiratory NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
evening NN O O
: NN O O
percent 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
peak NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
expiratory NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
75 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
vital NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
administration NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
ophthalmic NN O I-INT
timolol NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
respiratory NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
that NN O O
bronchial NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
timolol NN O O
differs NN O O
between NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
evening NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9049582)

Pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
of NN O O
YM17E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
inhibitor NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
acyl NN O I-INT
coenzyme NN O I-INT
A NN O O
: NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
acyl NN O O
transferase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
repeat NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
YM17E NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
of NN O O
acyl NN O O
coenzyme NN O O
A NN O O
( NN O O
CoA NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
acyltransferase NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profile NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
YM17E NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
administered NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
six NN O I-INT
subjects NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
three NN O I-INT
taking NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
450 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
YM17E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
respectively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
unchanged NN O O
drug NN O O
following NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
at NN O O
3-300 NN O O
mg NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
meal NN O O
increased NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
450 NN O O
mg NN O O
were NN O O
almost NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
as NN O O
after NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

Unchanged NN O O
YM17E NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
detected NN O O
in NN O O
urine NN O O
after NN O O
single NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
excreted NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
bile NN O O
or NN O O
urine NN O O
after NN O O
metabolism NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O O
active NN O O
metabolites NN O O
( NN O O
M1 NN O O
, NN O O
M2-a NN O O
, NN O O
M2-b NN O O
, NN O O
M3 NN O O
and NN O O
M4 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
at NN O O
concentrations NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
unchanged NN O O
YM17E NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Their NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
manner NN O O
from NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
1-week NN O O
washout NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
YM17E NN O I-INT
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
fasted NN O O
and NN O O
post-prandial NN O O
states NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
fasting NN O O
were NN O O
closely NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
meal NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
that NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
food NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
repeated NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
test NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
6 NN O O
each NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
after NN O O
breakfast NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
dinner NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
days NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
YM17E NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
after NN O O
breakfast NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
repeated NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.d. NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
reached NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
Cmin NN O O
48.6 NN O O
ng.ml-1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
repeated NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.d. NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
prior NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
daily NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
increased NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
5th NN O O
day NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
Cmin NN O O
166.6 NN O O
ng.ml-1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
7th NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
single NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
studies NN O O
at NN O O
150 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.d NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
statistical NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
conducted NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
small NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
receiving NN O O
repeated NN O O
oral NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
300 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
cholesterol NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
the NN O O
simultaneous NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9055050)

Outcome NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
how NN O O
many NN O O
adjudicators NN O I-PAR
do NN O O
we NN O O
need NN O O
? NN O O
Canadian NN O O
Lung NN O O
Oncology NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Considerable NN O O
effort NN O O
is NN O O
often NN O O
expended NN O O
to NN O O
adjudicate NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
little NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
written NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
adjudication NN O O
process NN O O
and NN O O
its NN O O
possible NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
a NN O O
case NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
adjudication NN O I-OUT
committee NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
of NN O O
two NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
approaches NN O O
to NN O O
potentially NN O I-PAR
operable NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Up NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
independent NN O I-PAR
adjudicators NN O I-PAR
independently NN O O
determined NN O O
two NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
: NN O O
tumor NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
final NN O I-OUT
follow-up NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cause NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
whom NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
any NN O O
disagreement NN O O
were NN O O
discussed NN O O
in NN O O
committee NN O O
until NN O O
a NN O O
consensus NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
agreement NN O O
among NN O O
the NN O O
adjudicators NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
consensus NN O O
result NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
model NN O O
the NN O O
adjudication NN O O
process NN O O
and NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
if NN O O
a NN O O
smaller NN O O
committee NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adjudicators NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
five NN O O
to NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
three NN O O
would NN O O
probably NN O O
have NN O O
changed NN O O
the NN O O
consensus NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

Correspondingly NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
final NN O O
study NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
comparing NN O O
primary NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
randomized NN O O
arms NN O O
) NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
altered NN O O
very NN O O
little NN O O
. NN O O

Even NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
adjudicator NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
affected NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
substantially NN O O
. NN O O

About NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
of NN O O
person-time NN O O
per NN O O
patient NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
activities NN O O
directly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
adjudication NN O I-INT
process NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
approximately NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
full NN O O
time NN O O
work NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
entire NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
effort NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
substantially NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
fewer NN O O
adjudicators NN O O
with NN O O
little NN O O
impact NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
high NN O O
observer NN O O
agreement NN O O
is NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
or NN O O
anticipated NN O O
, NN O O
adjudication NN O O
committees NN O O
should NN O O
consist NN O O
of NN O O
no NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
three NN O O
members NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
work NN O O
is NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
if NN O O
smaller NN O O
committees NN O O
are NN O O
adequate NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
important NN O O
treatment NN O O
effects NN O O
or NN O O
if NN O O
they NN O O
compromise NN O O
validity NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
adjudicator NN O O
agreement NN O O
is NN O O
lower NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9058626)

Soluble NN O I-INT
intercellular NN O I-INT
adhesion NN O I-INT
molecule-1 NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effect NN O O
of NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
and NN O O
immunosuppressive NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Soluble NN O I-INT
intercellular NN O I-INT
adhesion NN O I-INT
molecule-1 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
sICAM-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
thought NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
released NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
cells NN O O
at NN O O
sites NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
serum NN O O
levels NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
markers NN O O
of NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
and NN O O
immune NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
aim NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
azathioprine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
on NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
biliary NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN/METHODS NN O O
Twenty-four NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
17 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomized NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
addition NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
than NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
fell NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Addition NN O O
of NN O O
azathioprine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
to NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
25 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

Reductions NN O O
in NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
accompanied NN O O
by NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
marker NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
soluble NN O I-OUT
interleukin-2 NN O I-OUT
receptor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
biliary NN O O
cirrhosis NN O O
are NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O O
reductions NN O O
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
adding NN O O
prednisone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
azathioprine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
reductions NN O O
probably NN O O
reflect NN O O
an NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
hepatobiliary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sICAM-1 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9066329)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
uncuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Uncuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
are NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
tests NN O O
a NN O O
formula NN O O
for NN O O
selecting NN O O
appropriately NN O O
sized NN O O
cuffed NN O O
endotracheal NN O O
tubes NN O O
and NN O O
compares NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
uncuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O O
lungs NN O O
are NN O O
mechanically NN O O
ventilated NN O O
during NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Full-term NN O I-PAR
newborns NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
488 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
required NN O I-PAR
general NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tracheal NN O I-PAR
intubation NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
sized NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
new NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
mm NN O O
internal NN O O
diameter NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
( NN O O
age/4 NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
3 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
uncuffed NN O I-INT
tube NN O I-INT
sized NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
modified NN O I-INT
Cole NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
formula NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
size NN O O
( NN O O
mm NN O O
internal NN O O
diameter NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
( NN O O
age/4 NN O O
) NN O O
+ NN O O
4 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intubations NN O I-OUT
required NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
appropriately NN O I-OUT
sized NN O I-OUT
tube NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
21.min-1 NN O I-OUT
fresh NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nitrous NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
croup NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Cuffed NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
selected NN O O
by NN O O
our NN O O
formula NN O O
were NN O O
appropriate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
99 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Uncuffed NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
selected NN O O
by NN O O
Cole NN O O
's NN O O
formula NN O O
were NN O O
appropriate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lungs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
cuffed NN O O
tubes NN O O
were NN O O
adequately NN O I-OUT
ventilated NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
2 NN O O
1.min-1 NN O O
fresh NN O O
gas NN O O
flow NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
11 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
uncuffed NN O O
tubes NN O O
needed NN O O
greater NN O O
fresh NN O O
gas NN O O
flow NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ambient NN O I-OUT
nitrous NN O I-OUT
oxide NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
exceeded NN O O
25 NN O O
parts NN O O
per NN O O
million NN O O
in NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
uncuffed NN O O
tubes NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
with NN O O
cuffed NN O O
tubes NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
croup NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
% NN O O
cuffed NN O O
; NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
uncuffed NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
formula NN O O
for NN O O
cuffed NN O O
tube NN O O
selection NN O O
is NN O O
appropriate NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
young NN O I-OUT
children NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Advantages NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
include NN O O
avoidance NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
repeated NN O I-OUT
laryngoscopy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
fresh NN O I-OUT
gas NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthetics NN O I-OUT
detectable NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
cuffed NN O I-INT
endotracheal NN O I-INT
tubes NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
routinely NN O O
during NN O O
controlled NN O O
ventilation NN O O
in NN O O
full-term NN O I-PAR
newborns NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9071556)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
desonide NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
0.05 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O O
axis NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Desonide NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
has NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
profile NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
many NN O O
years NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
dermatoses NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
no NN O O
controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
its NN O O
systemic NN O O
safety NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
treating NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Suppression NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal NN O O
( NN O O
HPA NN O O
) NN O O
axis NN O O
can NN O O
occur NN O O
after NN O O
repeated NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
corticosteroids NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
HPA NN O I-OUT
axis NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
daily NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
steroid NN O O
given NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
surface NN O O
covered NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
potency NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
corticosteroid NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
comparative NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
0.05 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
desonide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
2.5 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
ointments NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
HPA NN O O
axis NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
suppression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
morning NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ACTH-stimulated NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
baseline NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
neither NN O O
0.05 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
desonide NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
nor NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
percent NN O I-INT
hydrocortisone NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
compromised NN O O
the NN O O
HPA NN O O
axis NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
topically NN O O
for NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9076205)

Vitrectomy NN O O
with NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
long-acting NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
in NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
vitreoretinopathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
additional NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
report NN O O
11 NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
outcomes NN O O
of NN O O
vitreoretinal NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
retinal NN O I-PAR
detachment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
proliferative NN O I-PAR
vitreoretinopathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PVR NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
short-term NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
or NN O O
perfluoropropane NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
72 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
outcomes NN O O
in NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
attached NN O O
maculas NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
multicentered NN O O
surgical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Community- NN O O
and NN O O
university-based NN O O
vitreoretinal NN O O
practices NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Two-hundred NN O I-PAR
sixty-five NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PVR NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
perfluoropropane NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
and NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
through NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
249 NN O O
eyes NN O O
with NN O O
attached NN O O
maculas NN O O
at NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O I-INT
121 NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
long-acting NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
sulfur NN O I-INT
hexafluoride NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
perfluoropropane NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
128 NN O I-INT
eyes NN O I-INT
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
up NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
years NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
cohort NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Both NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
consisted NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
vitrectomy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
PVR NN O I-PAR
( 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
before NN O O
randomization NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
the NN O O
265 NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
24-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
218 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
36-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
196 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
74 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
208 NN O O
eyes NN O O
in NN O O
cohort NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
48-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
146 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
70 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
60-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
119 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
72-month NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
73 NN O O
eyes NN O O
( NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Vitrectomy NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
PVR NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
long-acting NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
or NN O O
silicone NN O I-INT
oil NN O I-INT
as NN O O
the NN O O
intraocular NN O O
tamponade NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
recurrent NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
detachment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
group NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
oil-treated NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
gas-treated NN O O
eyes NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
reattachment NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
18 NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
other NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
group NN O O
2 NN O O
of NN O O
cohort NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
notable NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
cohort NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
6 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
attachment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
macula NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
eyes NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
notable NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5/200 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
glaucoma NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
gas-treated NN O O
eyes NN O O
had NN O O
more NN O O
hypotony NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Silicone NN O I-INT
oil-treated NN O I-INT
eyes NN O O
that NN O O
underwent NN O O
subsequent NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
oil NN O O
retained NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
oil-retained NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
oil-removed NN O O
eyes NN O O
had NN O O
higher NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
posterior NN O I-OUT
attachment NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
5/200 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
< NN O I-OUT
.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
keratopathy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
with NN O O
oil-removed NN O O
eyes NN O O
, NN O O
gas-treated NN O O
eyes NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
worse NN O O
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
hypotony NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
Silicone NN O O
Study NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
silicone NN O O
oil NN O O
and NN O O
perfluoropropane NN O O
gas NN O O
were NN O O
equal NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
respects NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
detachments NN O O
with NN O O
PVR NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Success NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
PVR NN O O
is NN O O
paramount NN O O
for NN O O
obtaining NN O O
better NN O O
visual NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
PVR NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
retinal NN O O
reattachment NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
if NN O O
anatomically NN O O
and NN O O
visually NN O O
successful NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
excellent NN O O
chance NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
maintained NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9076457)

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
cytostatic NN O I-INT
intravesical NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Is NN O O
short-term NN O O
, NN O O
intensive NN O O
instillation NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
? NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
3-year NN O O
protocols NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
20-week NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
mitomycin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
one NN O O
3-year NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
instillation NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
tumors NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
whose NN O I-PAR
superficial NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
transurethral NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

419 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
57 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cox NN O O
proportional NN O O
hazards NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
An NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
22.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
9.8 NN O O
% NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
detected NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence NN O O
status NN O O
before NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0059 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pairwise NN O O
comparisons NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
mitomycin NN O O
protocol NN O O
with NN O O
short-term NN O O
intensive NN O O
( NN O O
weekly NN O O
) NN O O
combined NN O O
with NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
instillation NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
highly NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
long-term NN O O
maintenance NN O O
instillation NN O O
only NN O O
especially NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
entering NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
recurrent NN O O
tumors NN O O
( NN O O
RR NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
[ NN O O
0.008 NN O O
, NN O O
0.506 NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
intensive NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
instillation NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
over NN O O
less NN O O
intensive NN O O
, NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
regimens NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9084194)

Doxymycine-cyanoacrylate NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
addressed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
singularly NN O O
applied NN O O
topical NN O O
doxymycine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
stomatitis NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Thirty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
aphthous NN O I-PAR
lesions NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
examined NN O O
and NN O O
divided NN O O
randomly NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Experimental NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
application NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
doxymycine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
calcii NN O I-INT
gluconase NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
manner NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Medications NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
covered NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
isobutyl NN O I-INT
cyanoacrylate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Iso-Dent NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Application NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
only NN O O
once NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
ulcer NN O O
episode NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
recorded NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
analog NN O I-PAR
scale NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
healing NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pain NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
more NN O O
rapidly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
seventh NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
doxymycine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
In NN O O
recurrent NN O O
aphthous NN O O
ulcers NN O O
, NN O O
singular NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
topical NN O O
doxymycine-cyanoacrylate NN O I-INT
relieves NN O O
the NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
remarkably NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
latency NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

Topical NN O O
doxymycine NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
further NN O O
exerts NN O O
potential NN O O
to NN O O
directly NN O O
prevent NN O O
tissue NN O O
destruction NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
indirectly NN O O
suppress NN O O
host NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
reaction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9088586)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-PAR
vascular NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIMS NN O O
Diuretic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
conventionally NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
oedema NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypoxic NN O I-PAR
cor NN O I-PAR
pulmonale NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
condition NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
renin NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
RAS NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
elevated NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
angiotensin NN O O
II NN O O
( NN O O
ANG NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
pressor NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
explored NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
RAS NN O O
activation NN O O
by NN O O
diuretic NN O O
therapy NN O O
might NN O O
therefore NN O O
worsen NN O O
hypoxic NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
ANG NN O O
II NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vascular NN O O
bed NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
on NN O O
2 NN O O
separate NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
either NN O O
received NN O O
40 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
frusemide NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
rendered NN O O
hypoxaemic NN O O
, NN O O
by NN O O
breathing NN O O
an NN O O
N2/O2 NN O O
mixture NN O O
for NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
an NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
of NN O O
85-90 NN O O
% NN O O
adjusted NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
20 NN O O
min NN O O
to NN O O
achieve NN O O
an NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
of NN O O
75-80 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Pulsed NN O O
wave NN O O
doppler NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
hence NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PVR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O I-OUT
renin NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PRA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
after NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
all NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
. NN O O

Prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
increased NN O O
PVR NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
: NN O O
185 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
vs NN O O
132 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10 NN O O
dyn NN O O
s NN O O
cm-5 NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
of NN O O
85-90 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
291 NN O O
+/- NN O O
18 NN O O
vs NN O O
229 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
dyn NN O O
s NN O O
cm-5 NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
SaO2 NN O O
of NN O O
75-80 NN O O
% NN O O
: NN O O
356 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12 NN O O
vs NN O O
296 NN O O
+/- NN O O
17 NN O O
dyn NN O O
s NN O O
cm-5 NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
delta-PVR NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hypoxaemia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vasculature NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
alter NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
haemodynamic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
either NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
during NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
prior NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
baseline NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
augmented NN O O
the NN O O
hypoxaemic NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
additive NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
hypothesised NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
frusemide NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
RAS NN O O
activation NN O O
with NN O O
ANG NN O O
II NN O O
mediated NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
vasoconstriction NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9095512)

Studies NN O O
on NN O O
section NN O I-OUT
2D1 NN O I-OUT
monoclonal NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Monoclonal NN O O
antibodies NN O O
in NN O O
Other NN O O
Blood NN O O
Groups NN O O
were NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
random NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
collected NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
various NN O I-PAR
ethnic NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
KwaZulu-Natal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
South NN O I-PAR
Africa NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
samples NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
red NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
phenotypes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Standard NN O I-INT
red NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
serological NN O I-INT
techniques NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9099447)

Partial-area NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
bioequivalence NN O I-PAR
assessment NN O O
: NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Regulatory NN O O
authorities NN O O
require NN O O
demonstration NN O O
of NN O O
bioequivalence NN O I-PAR
through NN O O
comparisons NN O O
of NN O O
different NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration-time NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
peak NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
applicability NN O O
and NN O O
validity NN O O
of NN O O
regulatory NN O O
requirements NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
widely NN O O
criticized NN O O
on NN O O
statistical NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
grounds NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
most NN O O
noncomplicated NN O O
absorption NN O O
models NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
correlates NN O O
well NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
nonlinear NN O O
models NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
involving NN O O
recycling NN O O
of NN O O
drugs NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
drugs NN O O
with NN O O
long NN O O
half-life NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
from NN O O
zero NN O O
to NN O O
infinity NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
give NN O O
erroneous NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
irrelevant NN O O
results NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
area NN O O
is NN O O
mostly NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
elimination NN O O
phase NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
recycling NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
calculation NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
involves NN O O
prolonged NN O O
sampling NN O O
, NN O O
adding NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
and NN O O
risks NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
absorption NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
clinical NN O O
relevance NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
widely NN O O
criticized NN O O
on NN O O
logical NN O O
, NN O O
technical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
statistical NN O O
grounds NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
drugs NN O O
used NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
multiple-dose NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Tmax NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O O
become NN O O
redundant NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
average NN O O
plateau NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
these NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
resolve NN O O
the NN O O
drawbacks NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
traditional NN O O
methodology NN O O
of NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
evaluation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
partial NN O O
areas NN O O
in NN O O
lieu NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
investigates NN O O
the NN O O
logic NN O O
and NN O O
robustness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
partial-area NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
establishing NN O I-PAR
bioequivalence NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
5h NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
relevant NN O O
parameter NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
naproxen NN O I-INT
bioequivalence NN O O
than NN O O
AUCinf NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
recommend NN O O
against NN O O
using NN O O
symmetrical NN O O
confidence NN O O
intervals NN O O
and NN O O
report NN O O
excellent NN O O
agreement NN O O
among NN O O
several NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
calculating NN O O
confidence NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
probability NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nonparametric NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
single-point NN O I-OUT
short-term NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
indicator NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
bioequivalence NN O O
of NN O O
generic NN O O
products NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
AUC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Tmax NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
required NN O O
currently NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
regulatory NN O O
authorities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9099448)

A NN O I-PAR
limited NN O I-PAR
sampling NN O I-PAR
method NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
estimation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
flunarizine NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
limited NN O O
sampling NN O O
model NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
flunarizine NN O O
following NN O O
a NN O O
30 NN O O
mg NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
in NN O O
epileptic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-INT
receiving NN O I-INT
phenytoin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
estimate NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
using NN O O
training NN O O
data NN O O
sets NN O O
from NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
points NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
equations NN O O
describing NN O O
the NN O O
models NN O O
for NN O O
AUC NN O O
using NN O O
two NN O O
time NN O O
points NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
24h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
data NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
AUCpredicted NN O O
= NN O O
11.1 NN O O
C3h NN O O
+ NN O O
121.4 NN O O
C24h NN O O
- NN O O
157 NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.80 NN O O
) NN O O
Cmax NN O O
( NN O O
predicted NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.036 NN O O
AUC NN O O
+ NN O O
42.9 NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.74 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
model NN O O
was NN O O
validated NN O O
on NN O O
64 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
received NN O O
flunarizine NN O O
orally NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
model NN O O
provided NN O O
reasonably NN O O
good NN O O
estimates NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
predicted NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
flunarizine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1230 NN O O
+/- NN O O
717 NN O O
ng NN O O
h NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
the NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
AUC NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1203 NN O O
+/- NN O O
900 NN O O
ng NN O O
h NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bias NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
precision NN O O
was NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O O
predicted NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
flunarizine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
32 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
observed NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
42 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bias NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
precision NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
prediction NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
method NN O O
described NN O O
here NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
AUC NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
for NN O O
flunarizine NN O O
without NN O O
detailed NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9101850)

[ NN O O
Restorative NN O O
proctectomy NN O O
, NN O O
reconstruction NN O O
of NN O O
continuity NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
colon NN O O
J NN O O
pouch NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
anterior NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
rectum NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
39 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
straight NN O I-INT
colo-anal NN O I-INT
anastomosis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
24 NN O O
additionally NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
colon-j-pouch NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
constructed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Local NN O I-OUT
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
after NN O O
pouch-anal NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
20.5 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
colo-anal NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
: NN O O
stool NN O I-OUT
frequency NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
after NN O O
pouch-anal NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
was NN O O
3.3 NN O O
per NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
5.2 NN O O
per NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
straight NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
ileostomy NN O O
closure NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.053 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
continence NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
slightly NN O O
better NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pouch NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n.s NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
anal NN O I-OUT
manometry NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
postoperative NN O O
decrease NN O O
only NN O O
in NN O O
resting NN O O
pressure NN O O
after NN O O
straight NN O O
colo-anal NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Pouch NN O O
construction NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
after NN O O
deep NN O O
rectal NN O O
resection NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
it NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
functional NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
has NN O O
fewer NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
septic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
straight NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9101947)

[ NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O O
or NN O O
conventional NN O O
inguinal NN O I-OUT
hernia NN O I-OUT
repair NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
implant NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9105062)

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
leukotriene NN O I-INT
D4 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
methacholine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
sputum NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
differentials NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cysteinyl NN O I-INT
leukotriene NN O I-INT
LTE4 NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
induce NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
yet NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
for NN O O
LTD4 NN O O
. NN O O

Hence NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
LTD4 NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
control NN O O
bronchoconstrictor NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
methacholine NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
cell NN O I-OUT
differentials NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
hypertonic NN O O
saline-induced NN O O
whole NN O O
sputum NN O O
samples NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
nonsmoking NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
FEV1 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
120 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
pred NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
PC20FEV1 NN O I-PAR
methacholine NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
9.6 NN O I-PAR
mg/ml NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
cross-over NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
design NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
4 NN O O
d NN O O
separated NN O O
by NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
wk NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
each NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
inhaled NN O O
five NN O O
serial NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
LTD4 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
cumulative NN O O
concentration NN O O
: NN O O
95.7 NN O O
microM NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
methacholine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
cumulative NN O O
concentration NN O O
: NN O O
542 NN O O
mM NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
five NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
respective NN O O
diluents NN O O
( NN O I-INT
PBS/ethanol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
PBS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
FEV1 NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
sputum NN O O
induction NN O O
with NN O O
4.5 NN O O
% NN O O
NaCl NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
postchallenge NN O O
. NN O O

Inflammatory NN O O
cells NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
250 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
counted NN O O
twice NN O O
on NN O O
coded NN O O
cytospins NN O O
and NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
nonsquamous NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
percent NN O I-OUT
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
LTD4 NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
, NN O O
49.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.4 NN O O
% NN O O
fall NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
methacholine NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
, NN O O
55.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.4 NN O O
% NN O O
fall NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

LTD4 NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
its NN O O
diluent NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
26.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
21.3 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
10.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
8.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
methacholine NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
reach NN O O
significance NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
19.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
7.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.11 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
LTD4 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
, NN O O
7.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.5 NN O O
% NN O O
eosinophils NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.09 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
LTD4 NN O O
induces NN O O
eosinophilia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sputum NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
asthmatic NN O O
subjects NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
inhalation NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
LTD4 NN O O
recruits NN O O
eosinophils NN O I-OUT
into NN O O
the NN O O
airways NN O O
of NN O O
asthmatics NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
by NN O O
virtue NN O O
of NN O O
direct NN O O
or NN O O
indirect NN O O
chemotactic NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vigourous NN O I-OUT
airway NN O I-OUT
narrowing NN O I-OUT
per NN O O
se NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9116082)

Confounding NN O O
by NN O O
indication NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (9129469)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
at NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
complementary NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
to NN O O
breast-fed NN O O
infants NN O O
on NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
lactational NN O I-PAR
amenorrhea NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Honduran NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lactational NN O I-OUT
amenorrhea NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
LA NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
postpartum NN O I-PAR
infertility NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
frequency NN O O
and NN O O
duration NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
exact NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
complementary NN O I-INT
feeding NN O I-INT
of NN O O
the NN O O
infant NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
clearly NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
on NN O O
LA NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
2-mo NN O O
intervention NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
low-income NN O I-PAR
Honduran NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
breast-fed NN O I-PAR
fully NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
mo NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
continued NN O I-INT
full NN O I-INT
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
FBF NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
introduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
complementary NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ad NN O I-INT
libitum NN O I-INT
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SF NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
47 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
introduction NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
complementary NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
maintenance NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
breast-feeding NN O I-INT
frequency NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
mo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
SF-M NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
44 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
infant NN O O
was NN O O
12 NN O O
mo NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
later NN O O
if NN O O
menses NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
occurred NN O O
by NN O O
then NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
but NN O O
six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
continued NN O O
to NN O O
breast-feed NN O O
for NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
exclusion NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
whose NN O O
menses NN O O
returned NN O O
before NN O O
18 NN O O
wk NN O O
postpartum NN O O
( NN O O
which NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
amenorrheic NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
was NN O O
64.5 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SF NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
80.0 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
FBF NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
85.7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SF-M NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
chi-square NN O O
test NN O O
= NN O O
4.13 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
; NN O O
one-tailed NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
latter NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
combined NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LA NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
significantly NN O O
among NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
significant NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
LA NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
breast-feeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
min/d NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
in NN O O
turn NN O O
negatively NN O O
associated NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
infant NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
complementary NN O I-INT
foods NN O I-INT
in NN O O
regression NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
introducing NN O O
foods NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
mo NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
amenorrhea NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
postpartum NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
thereafter NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
mothers NN O O
who NN O O
maintain NN O O
breast-feeding NN O O
frequency NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9164427)

Clinical NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
social NN O O
phobia NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O O
pilot NN O O
studies NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
serotonin-1A NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-HT1A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
receptor NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
buspirone NN O I-INT
might NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
social NN O O
phobia NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
phobia NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
a NN O O
12-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
design NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
phobic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
DSM-IV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
buspirone NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Phobia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
subscores NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Anxiety NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Taking NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
Social NN O I-OUT
Phobia NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
on NN O O
buspirone NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
responder NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
buspirone NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
buspirone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

Generally NN O O
speaking NN O O
, NN O O
buspirone NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
open NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
social NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
social NN O I-OUT
avoidance NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
social NN O I-PAR
phobia NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
buspirone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9170524)

[ NN O O
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dl-leucovorin NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dl-leucovorin NN O I-INT
for NN O O
colorectal NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
using NN O O
dl-leucovorin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dl-LV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
5-fluorouracil NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
FL-therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
CDDP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5-FU NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dl-LV NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PFL-therapy NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
following NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
schedules NN O O
: NN O O
Arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
13 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
CDDP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/body NN O O
of NN O O
dl-LV NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
was NN O O
300 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
and NN O O
30 NN O O
mg/body NN O O
of NN O O
dl-LV NN O I-INT
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
regimens NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
biweekly NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
dl-LV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
5-FU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
outpatients NN O O
. NN O O

Arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
started NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
26th NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
and NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
21st NN O O
day NN O O
on NN O O
average NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
26 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
composed NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
schedules NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
one NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
was NN O O
complicated NN O O
by NN O O
local NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
around NN O O
35 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
anorexia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
neutropenia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
A NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
arm NN O O
B NN O O
, NN O O
showing NN O O
complete NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
all NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
PFL-therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
FL-therapy NN O I-INT
seem NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
possible NN O O
and NN O O
promising NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
carcinoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9172668)

[ NN O O
Initial NN O O
nuclear NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
course NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
avascular NN O I-PAR
femur NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
necrosis NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
core NN O I-PAR
decompression NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
vascular NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-PAR
head NN O I-PAR
necrosis NN O I-PAR
is NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
especially NN O I-PAR
when NN O I-PAR
appearing NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Many NN O O
etiologic NN O O
factors NN O O
cause NN O O
a NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
necrosis NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
high-dose NN O I-PAR
steroids NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
abuse NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
alcohol NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
defect NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
marrow NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
trauma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Often NN O O
the NN O O
X-ray NN O O
photograph NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
stage NN O O
( NN O O
ARCO NN O O
1992 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
head NN O O
has NN O O
begun NN O O
to NN O O
collapse NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stage NN O O
IIc NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
shows NN O O
an NN O O
evident NN O O
enhancement NN O O
in NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
in NN O O
MRI NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Contrast NN O O
enhancement NN O O
is NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
by NN O O
STIR NN O O
, NN O O
FATSAT NN O O
, NN O O
T1-weighted NN O O
and NN O O
dynamic NN O O
screening NN O O
sequence NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
characteristics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
contrast NN O O
media NN O O
enhancement NN O O
argue NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
concomitant NN O O
process NN O O
of NN O O
destruction NN O O
and NN O O
regeneration NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
stage NN O O
has NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
chances NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
surgical NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
signal NN O O
intensity NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
dynamic NN O I-OUT
screening NN O I-OUT
sequence NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
considered NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
objective NN O O
contribution NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
staging NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
enables NN O O
one NN O O
to NN O O
differentiate NN O O
between NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
curable NN O I-OUT
stage NN O I-OUT
IIc NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
beginning NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
breakdown NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
head NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9174876)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adenosine-induced NN O I-PAR
bronchial NN O I-PAR
hyperreactivity NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Glycosaminoglycan NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
possesses NN O O
multiple NN O O
noncoagulant NN O O
properties NN O O
including NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
actions NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
have NN O O
previously NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
methacholine-induced NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
to NN O O
methacholine NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
stimulus NN O O
that NN O O
induces NN O O
airway NN O O
constriction NN O O
mainly NN O O
by NN O O
direct NN O O
stimulation NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
adenosine NN O O
airway NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
reflects NN O O
indirectly NN O O
induced NN O O
airway NN O O
narrowing NN O O
via NN O O
inflammatory NN O O
mediators NN O O
or NN O O
neural NN O O
reflex NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
. NN O O

Whether NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
modulates NN O O
bronchial NN O O
hyperreactivity NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
adenosine NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
inhaled NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
adenosine-induced NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
adenosine NN O O
challenge NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
methacholine NN O O
challenge NN O O
test NN O O
. NN O O

Fifteen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bronchial NN O O
provocation NN O O
tests NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
single-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
repeated NN O O
45 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
aerosolized NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
inhalation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,000 NN O O
U/kg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
increased NN O O
the NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
methacholine NN O I-OUT
PD20 NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
0.47 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
( NN O O
2.95 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
0.96 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.10 NN O O
( NN O O
8.91 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.0009 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
adenosine NN O I-OUT
PD20 NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
1.59 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.23 NN O O
( NN O O
38.9 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
1.98 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.14 NN O O
( NN O O
97.7 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
whose NN O O
baseline NN O O
adenosine NN O O
PD20 NN O O
levels NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
200 NN O O
mg/ml NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
against NN O O
adenosine-induced NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
against NN O O
methacholine-induced NN O O
bronchoconstriction NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.60 NN O O
, NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
data NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
inhaled NN O O
heparin NN O I-INT
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
inhibitory NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
methacholine NN O O
bronchial NN O O
challenge NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thus NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
likely NN O O
directs NN O O
its NN O O
effect NN O O
against NN O O
smooth NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

Heparin NN O I-INT
caused NN O O
less NN O O
attenuation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
adenosine NN O O
and NN O O
probably NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
affect NN O O
mast NN O O
cell NN O O
degranulation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9178124)

Field NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
against NN O O
bovine NN O O
mastitis NN O O
. NN O O

1 NN O O
. NN O O

Evaluation NN O O
in NN O O
heifers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
developed NN O O
against NN O O
bovine NN O O
mastitis NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
inactivated NN O O
, NN O O
highly NN O O
encapsulated NN O O
Staphylococcus NN O O
aureus NN O O
cells NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
crude NN O O
extract NN O O
of NN O O
Staph NN O O
. NN O O

aureus NN O O
exopolysaccharides NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
inactivated NN O O
, NN O O
unencapsulated NN O O
Staph NN O O
, NN O O
aureus NN O O
and NN O O
Streptococcus NN O O
spp NN O O
. NN O O

cells NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
tested NN O O
on NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
a NN O O
7-mo NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
heifers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
heifers NN O O
each NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prepartum NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
before NN O O
calving NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
postpartum NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
injections NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
wk NN O O
after NN O O
calving NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
two NN O O
injections NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
at NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
wk NN O O
before NN O O
calving NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
brachiocephalicus NN O O
muscle NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
neck NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
frequencies NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
intramammary NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Staph NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
aureus NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
from NN O O
18.8 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
heifers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
6.7 NN O O
and NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
heifers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prepartum NN O O
and NN O O
postpartum NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
6 NN O O
mo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mastitis NN O I-OUT
caused NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
Staph NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
aureus NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.31 NN O O
and NN O O
0.28 NN O O
for NN O O
heifers NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prepartum NN O O
and NN O O
postpartum NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
for NN O O
heifers 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 I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
vaccine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
decreasing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
intrammammary NN O O
infections NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
Staph NN O O
. NN O O

aureus NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
slight NN O O
but NN O O
nonsignificant NN O O
increase NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
fat NN O I-OUT
production NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
milk NN O O
of NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
cows NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaccine NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
observable NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
somatic NN O O
cell NN O O
count NN O O
or NN O O
streptococcal NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9180065)

Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
graded NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
graded NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
fatigue NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
with NN O O
control NN O O
treatment NN O O
crossover NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
follow NN O O
up NN O O
examination NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Chronic NN O O
fatigue NN O O
clinic NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
general NN O O
hospital NN O O
department NN O O
of NN O O
psychiatry NN O O
. NN O O

SUBJECTS NN O O
66 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
neither NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
psychiatric NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
nor NN O I-PAR
appreciable NN O I-PAR
sleep NN O I-PAR
disturbance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Random NN O O
allocation NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
graded NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
or NN O O
flexibility NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
relaxation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
flexibility NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
were NN O O
invited NN O O
to NN O O
cross NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
afterwards NN O O
. NN O O

MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURE NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
self NN O I-OUT
rated NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
impression NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
very NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
much NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
being NN O I-OUT
considered NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
clinically NN O I-OUT
important NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Four NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
and NN O O
three NN O O
receiving NN O O
flexibility NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
before NN O O
completion NN O O
. NN O O

15 NN O O
of NN O O
29 NN O O
patients NN O O
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
better NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
eight NN O O
of NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
completed NN O O
flexibility NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Analysis NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
gave NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
17/33 NN O O
v NN O O
9/33 NN O O
patients NN O O
better NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fatigue NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
capacity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
after NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
than NN O O
after NN O O
flexibility NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
12 NN O O
of NN O O
22 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
after NN O O
flexibility NN O O
treatment NN O O
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
better NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
exercise NN O O
treatment NN O O
32 NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O O
patients NN O O
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
better NN O O
three NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
supervised NN O O
exercise NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
35 NN O O
of NN O O
47 NN O O
patients NN O O
rated NN O O
themselves NN O O
as NN O O
better NN O I-OUT
one NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
completing NN O O
supervised NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
appropriately NN O O
prescribed NN O O
graded NN O I-INT
aerobic NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
fatigue NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9185746)

The NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
monoethylglycinexylidide NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
liver NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
fewer NN O I-PAR
side NN O I-PAR
effects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
hepatic NN O O
metabolism NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
metabolite NN O O
monoethylglycinexylidide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MEG-X NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
lidocaine-induced NN O I-INT
side NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
formation NN O O
after NN O O
0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
From NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
low-dose NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O I-INT
MEG-X NN O I-INT
concentration NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
[ NN O I-INT
MEG-X30min NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
normalized NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
results NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
developed NN O O
. NN O O

Sensory NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
low NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
cross-over NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
) NN O O
comprising NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
C NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
study NN O O
I NN O O
, NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dose-independent NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
severely NN O O
impaired NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
study NN O O
II NN O O
, NN O O
normalized NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
120 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
virtually NN O O
identical NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
test NN O O
results NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
difference NN O O
: NN O O
-1.9 NN O O
microg/L 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
-5.3 NN O O
; NN O O
1.5 NN O O
microg/L NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
individuals NN O O
experienced NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
53 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
low-dose NN O O
test NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Child-Pugh NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
inversely NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
low-dose NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
gives NN O O
almost NN O O
identical NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
MEG-X NN O I-INT
test NN O O
and NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
occur NN O O
less NN O O
often NN O O
in NN O O
individuals NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
severely NN O O
compromised NN O O
liver NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9190129)

Low NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
( NN O O
< NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
reserve NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
physical NN O O
fitness NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
maximal NN O O
and NN O O
submaximal NN O O
indices NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty-two NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sample NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O I-PAR
experimental NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
63.5 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remaining NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
64.2 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
served NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
inactive NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O O
medical NN O O
screening NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
subjects NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O I-INT
intensity NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
subjects-either NN O O
inactive NN O O
or NN O O
active-performed NN O O
two NN O I-INT
treadmill NN O I-INT
tests NN O I-INT
at NN O O
two-days NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
maximal NN O O
and NN O O
submaximal NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Heart NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
HR NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
oxygen NN O I-OUT
uptake NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
ventilation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
telemetric NN O O
apparatus NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
major NN O O
finding NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
submaximal NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
exercise NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
experimental NN O I-OUT
subjects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
expressed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
HR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
VE NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
VO2 NN O I-OUT
max NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Thus NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
appears NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
intensity NN O O
general NN O O
training NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
followed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
may NN O O
represent NN O O
a NN O O
good NN O O
means NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Similarly NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
supports NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
evaluation NN O O
tests NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
submaximal NN O I-OUT
responses NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9196141)

Dose-response NN O O
relationship NN O O
of NN O O
complementary NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
following NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intermediate-stage NN O O
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
appropriate NN O O
irradiation NN O O
dose NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
modern NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
nonbulky NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
field NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IF/BF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
noninvolved NN O I-PAR
extended-field NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EF/IF NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermediate-stage NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
HD NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
mediastinal NN O I-PAR
mass NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
E NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
massive NN O I-PAR
spleen NN O I-PAR
involvement NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
double NN O O
cycles NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
alternating NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABVD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
EF NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
two NN O O
successive NN O O
trials NN O O
( NN O O
HD1 NN O O
and NN O O
HD5 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
HD1 NN O O
trial NN O O
( NN O O
1983 NN O O
to NN O O
1988 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
146 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
responded NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
70 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
76 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
EF NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
fields NN O I-PAR
outside NN O I-PAR
bulky NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
111 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
fulfilled NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
same NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
subsequent NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
HD5 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
Gy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bulky NN O O
disease NN O O
always NN O O
received NN O O
40 NN O O
Gy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Freedom-from-treatment-failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
20- NN O O
, NN O O
30- NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
40-Gy NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicities NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
40-Gy NN O O
arm NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
patterns NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
that NN O O
18 NN O O
of NN O O
26 NN O O
relapsing NN O O
patients NN O O
either NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
respond NN O O
in NN O O
initial NN O O
bulky NN O O
sites NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
extranodal NN O O
relapse NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
cumulative NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
bulky NN O O
sites NN O O
is NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
40 NN O O
Gy NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
results NN O O
strongly NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
relevant NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
between NN O O
20 NN O O
Gy NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
IF/BF NN O O
and NN O O
EF/IF NN O O
after NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
modern NN O I-PAR
polychemotherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
intermediate-stage NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Relapse NN O O
patterns NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
destined NN O O
to NN O O
relapse NN O O
need NN O O
more NN O O
systemic NN O O
, NN O O
rather NN O O
than NN O O
local NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Based NN O O
on NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
20 NN O O
Gy NN O O
is NN O O
sufficient NN O O
in NN O O
EF/IF NN O O
of NN O O
intermediate-stage NN O O
HD NN O O
following NN O O
four NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
modern NN O O
polychemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9205762)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Ebrotidine NN O O
( NN O O
N- NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
) NN O O
- NN O O
[ NN O O
[ NN O O
2- NN O O
[ NN O O
[ NN O O
[ NN O O
2- NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
diaminomethylene NN O O
) NN O O
amino NN O O
] NN O O
-4 NN O O
-thiazoly NN O O
] NN O O
methyl NN O O
] NN O O
thio NN O O
] NN O O
ethyl NN O O
] NN O O
amino NN O O
] NN O O
methylene NN O O
] NN O O
-4-bromo-benzenesulfon NN O O
amide NN O O
, NN O O
CAS NN O O
100981-43-9 NN O O
, NN O O
FI-3542 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
H2-receptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
its NN O O
high NN O O
receptor NN O O
affinity NN O O
and NN O O
gastroprotective NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
Phase NN O O
II NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
dosages NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
evening NN O O
dose NN O O
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
110 NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
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-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
200 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
800 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ebrotidine NN O I-INT
once NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Controls NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
two NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
four NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
visits NN O I-INT
unless NN O I-INT
ulcer NN O I-INT
healed NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Endoscopic NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
parameter NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Vital NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood/ NN O I-OUT
urine NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
used NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
establish NN O I-INT
safety NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
dosages NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
to NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
ulcer NN O I-OUT
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
90-95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whilst NN O O
the NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
daily NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
development NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
episodes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ulcer-related NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
ulcerated NN O I-OUT
surface NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
investigators NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
between NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
( NN O O
400 NN O O
, NN O O
600 NN O O
and NN O O
800 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
marked NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
these NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
far NN O O
as NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
concerned NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
or NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
changes NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
vital NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
analytical NN O O
parameters NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
presented NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
consumption NN O O
of NN O O
antacids NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
daily NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
ebrotidine NN O O
is NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9205768)

Efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O I-PAR
parallel NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
ebrotidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
N- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
2- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
2- NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
diaminomethylene NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
-4-thiazolyl NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
methyl NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
thio NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
ethyl NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
amino NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
methylene NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
-4-bromo-benzenesulfonamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
100981-43-9 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
FI-3542 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ranitidine NN O I-INT
300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
given NN O O
in NN O O
single NN O O
evening NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
750 NN O O
mg NN O O
and NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
therapies NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomization NN O I-PAR
code NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O O
and NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
performed 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
after NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
demographic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
histories NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O O
were NN O O
both NN O O
perfectly NN O O
homogeneous NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
both NN O O
therapies NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
antrum NN O O
and NN O O
gastric NN O O
body NN O O
samples NN O O
( NN O O
over NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
eradication NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
allowing NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
satisfactory NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
perfect NN O O
control NN O O
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
even NN O O
disappeared NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
healing NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
duodenal NN O O
ulcer NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
86.7 NN O O
% NN O O
being NN O O
achieved NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9207711)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
activity NN O O
on NN O O
knee NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
proprioception NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Falls NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
than 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
Impaired NN O O
proprioception NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
contributing NN O O
factor NN O O
to NN O O
falls NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
this NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
habitual NN O O
physical NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary 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
knee NN O I-PAR
joint NN O I-PAR
proprioception NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
sedentary NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Knee NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
proprioception NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
through NN O O
reproduction NN O O
of NN O O
static NN O O
knee NN O O
angles NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
Penny NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Giles NN O I-INT
electrogoniometer NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
secondary NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
investigation NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
reproducibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Penny NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
Giles NN O I-OUT
electrogoniometer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
measuring NN O I-OUT
static NN O I-OUT
knee NN O I-OUT
angles NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
19-27 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
60-86 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
exclude NN O I-PAR
neuromuscular NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
vestibular NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-PAR
limb NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Knee NN O I-OUT
joint NN O I-OUT
proprioception NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
two NN O O
times NN O O
during NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
elderly NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
separated NN O O
into NN O O
active NN O O
and NN O O
sedentary NN O O
subgroups NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
their NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
activity NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
past NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
electrogoniometer NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
laterally NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
dominant NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
attained NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
ten NN O O
randomly NN O O
predetermined NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
angles NN O O
from NN O O
10 NN O O
degrees NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
degrees NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subject NN O O
then NN O O
returned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
starting NN O O
position NN O O
and NN O O
reproduced NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
angle NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
angular NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
angle NN O O
and NN O O
subject NN O O
perceived NN O O
angle NN O O
of NN O O
knee NN O O
flexion NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
correlation NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
control NN O O
visits NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.88 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
young NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
2.01 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.46 NN O O
degrees NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
active-fold NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
3.12 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.12 NN O O
degrees NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
young NN O O
and NN O O
sedentary-old NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
4.58 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.93 NN O O
degrees NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
active-old NN O O
and NN O O
sedentary-old NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
Penny NN O O
and NN O O
Giles NN O O
electrogoniometer NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
reproducible NN O O
device NN O O
for NN O O
measuring NN O O
knee NN O O
joint NN O O
angles NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
young NN O O
and NN O O
elderly NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
proprioception NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
diminished NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
regular NN O O
activity NN O O
may NN O O
attenuate NN O O
this NN O O
decline NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
poor NN O O
proprioception NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
fall NN O O
with NN O O
ageing NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
regular NN O O
exercise NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9220179)

The NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
during NN O O
vigorous NN O O
diuresis NN O O
for NN O O
congestive NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
associated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
insufficiency NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
does NN O O
it NN O O
protect NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
? NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
Low-dose NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
renal NN O O
vasodilator NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
empirically NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
or NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
oliguria NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HYPOTHESIS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
micrograms/kg/min NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
renal-protective NN O O
agent NN O O
during NN O O
vigorous NN O O
diuresis NN O O
for NN O O
congestive NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
( NN O O
CHF NN O O
) NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
renal NN O O
insufficiency NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Of NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
74.3 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
CHF NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategy NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O O
bumetanide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
another NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
low-dose NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
diuretic NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
if NN O O
clinical NN O O
edema NN O O
remitted NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Group NN O O
B NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
renal NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
48.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
10.3 NN O O
to NN O O
32.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14.4 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
creatinine NN O I-OUT
1.97 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.24 NN O O
to NN O O
1.49 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.39 NN O O
mg/dl NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
creatinine NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
35.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.6 NN O O
to NN O O
48.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
12.3 NN O O
ml/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
and NN O O
indexed NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
0.56 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
to NN O O
2.02 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.72 NN O O
ml/kg/h NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
A NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
urinary NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
but NN O I-OUT
nonsignificant NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
deterioration NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
renal-protective NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
low-dose NN O O
dopamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
setting NN O O
of NN O O
CHF NN O O
and NN O O
vigorous NN O O
diuresis NN O O
is NN O O
supported NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9229263)

Brief NN O O
report NN O O
: NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
attentiveness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
responsivity NN O I-OUT
improve NN O O
after NN O O
touch NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9230648)

Gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
agonist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
premenstrual NN O O
symptoms NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
ongoing NN O O
dysphoria NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Gonadotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GnRH NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
agonists NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
premenstrual NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PMS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
, NN O O
leuprolide NN O O
acetate NN O O
depot NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clearly NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
PMS NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
versus NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
premenstrual NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
combination NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysphoric NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
throughout NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
cycle NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
termed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
premenstrual NN O I-PAR
exacerbation NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PME NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Evaluation NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Structured NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Interview NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
DSM-III-R NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
follicular NN O O
phase NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
Penn NN O I-OUT
Dally NN O I-OUT
Symptoms NN O I-OUT
Report NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DSR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-three NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
double-blind NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
administered NN O O
3.75 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
depot NN O I-INT
leuprolide NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
once NN O O
a NN O O
month NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
for NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
DSRs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
17-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HAM-D17 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
PMS NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
PMS NN O O
placebo NN O O
and NN O O
PME NN O O
leuprolide NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
PME NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
dysphoric NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
cycle NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
. NN O O

Depression NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
at NN O O
clinical NN O O
levels NN O O
premenstrually NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PMS NN O O
and NN O O
PME NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
they NN O O
remitted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PMS NN O O
group NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PME NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
until NN O O
after NN O O
several NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
leuprolide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
PMS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
worsened NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
onset NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
replicate NN O O
the NN O O
findings NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
preliminary NN O O
open-label NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Leuprolide NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
PMS NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
minimal NN O O
levels NN O O
where NN O O
symptoms NN O O
were NN O O
limited NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
luteal NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Leuprolide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
effective NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
with NN O O
ongoing NN O O
dysphoric NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
premenstrual NN O O
depression NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
other NN O O
dysphoric NN O O
mood NN O O
disorders NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9230829)

Mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
COMS NN O O
report NN O O
no NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Ocular NN O O
Melanoma NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
survival NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospectively NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
Collaborative NN O O
Ocular NN O O
Melanoma NN O O
Study NN O O
( NN O O
COMS NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
enucleation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
medium NN O O
and NN O O
large-size NN O O
choroidal NN O O
melanoma NN O O
. NN O O

From NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
1986 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1989 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
enough NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
COMS NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
participation NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
nonrandomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Small NN O O
choroidal NN O O
melanomas NN O O
were NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
1.0 NN O O
to NN O O
3.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
apical NN O O
height NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
5.0 NN O O
mm NN O O
in NN O O
basal NN O O
diameter NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
204 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
annually NN O O
through NN O O
August NN O O
1989 NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
additional NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
in NN O O
1993-1994 NN O O
and NN O O
1995-1996 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
92 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
enrollment NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Twenty-seven NN O O
patients NN O O
have NN O O
died NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
6 NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
center NN O O
as NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
metastatic NN O I-OUT
melanoma NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
estimate NN O O
of NN O O
5-year NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
6.0 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
2.7 NN O O
% NN O O
-9.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
8-year NN O O
all-cause NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
14.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
-20.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Otherwise NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
60 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
malignant NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
small NN O I-PAR
choroidal NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
judged NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
dying NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9231814)

Safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
meta-analysis NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
mild NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
nifedipine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
MEDLARS NN O I-PAR
search NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
MeSH NN O I-PAR
heading NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
text NN O I-PAR
word NN O I-PAR
nifedipine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
identify NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
articles NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
published NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1966 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
English NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
French NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
German NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Italian NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Spanish NN O I-PAR
languages NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
involved NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
computerized NN O O
search NN O O
was NN O O
supplemented NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
manual NN O O
search NN O O
of NN O O
article NN O O
bibliographies NN O O
. NN O O

Review NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1880 NN O I-PAR
citations NN O I-PAR
revealed NN O I-PAR
98 NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Articles NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
extracted NN O I-PAR
independently NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
doctors NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
blinded NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
author NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
institution NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
regimen NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
using NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
structured NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
pretested NN O I-PAR
extraction NN O I-PAR
form NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Differences NN O O
of NN O O
opinion NN O O
were NN O O
resolved NN O O
by NN O O
consensus NN O O
. NN O O

Fourteen NN O O
events NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5198 NN O O
exposures NN O O
( NN O O
0.27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
nifedipine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
24 NN O O
events NN O O
in NN O O
5402 NN O O
exposures NN O O
( NN O O
0.44 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
other NN O O
active NN O O
drug NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

Unadjusted NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratios NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
nifedipine NN O O
versus NN O O
controls NN O O
were NN O O
0.49 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
[ NN O O
CI NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
0.22-1.09 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
definitive NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
revascularization NN O I-OUT
procedure NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
0.61 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.31-1.17 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
definitive NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
angina NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
nifedipine NN O I-OUT
monotherapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
sustained- NN O O
or NN O O
extended-release NN O O
in NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
exposures NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
nonsignificantly NN O O
higher NN O O
for NN O O
definitive NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.40 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.49-4.03 NN O O
and NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
1.39 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.59-3.32 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
nifedipine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
combination NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
another NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
for NN O O
definitive NN O O
and NN O O
all NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.09 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.01-0.66 NN O O
and NN O O
odds NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
0.15 NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
, NN O O
0.03-0.65 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
odds NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
nifedipine NN O I-OUT
monotherapy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
combined NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
P=.02 NN O O
for NN O O
definitive NN O O
events NN O O
and NN O O
P=.001 NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
events NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sustained- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
extended-release NN O I-OUT
nifedipine NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
moderate NN O O
hypertension NN O O
when NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
combination NN O O
with NN O O
other NN O O
drugs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9235679)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
venous NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
if NN O O
routine NN O I-INT
bedside NN O I-INT
questioning NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
visiting NN O I-INT
doctor NN O I-INT
could NN O O
reveal NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
legs NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
258 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thromboprophylaxis NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
dextran-70 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
molecular NN O I-INT
weight NN O I-INT
heparin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
graded NN O I-INT
elastic NN O I-INT
stockings NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
given NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

Bilateral NN O I-INT
venography NN O I-INT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
seven NN O O
after NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
showed NN O O
an NN O O
overall NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
visiting NN O O
doctors NN O O
had NN O O
not NN O O
suspected NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
because NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
painful NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
swollen NN O I-OUT
legs NN O I-OUT
effectively NN O O
masked NN O O
any NN O O
signs NN O O
and NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
after NN O O
hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
surgery NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
discovered NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
diagnostics NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
high NN O O
subclinical NN O O
frequency NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
indicates NN O O
the NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
improving NN O O
thromboprophylaxis NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
minimise NN O O
the NN O O
occurrence NN O O
of NN O O
deep NN O O
vein NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
thromboembolic NN O O
complications NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9241341)

2-Chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
antagonism NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
morphine NN O O
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
2-Chloroprocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2-CP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
used NN O O
for NN O O
lumbar NN O O
epidural NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
( NN O O
LEA NN O O
) NN O O
reportedly NN O O
decreases NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
epidural NN O O
morphine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
for NN O O
post-cesarean NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
supplemental NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

morphine NN O I-INT
self-administered NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
via NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
patient-controlled NN O I-PAR
analgesia NN O I-PAR
device NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PCA NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
EM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
CS NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
3 NN O O
equal NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
received NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2-CP NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
epinephrine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Epi NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
micrograms.ml-1 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Lido NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
Epi NN O I-INT
for NN O O
LEA NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
5 NN O O
mg NN O O
EM NN O I-INT
and NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

PCA NN O I-INT
morphine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

Cumulative NN O I-OUT
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
24 NN O I-OUT
hours NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
each NN O I-OUT
2-h NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
noted NN O O
. NN O O

Nonparametric NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
variance NN O O
and NN O O
Chi-squared NN O O
analysis NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
statistical NN O O
comparisons NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
24-h NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PCA NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
2-CP+Epi NN O I-INT
and NN O O
Lido+Epi NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
respectively NN O O
was NN O O
20.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
, NN O O
33.1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
27 NN O O
and NN O O
4.07 NN O O
+/- NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Lido NN O O
+ NN O O
Epi NN O O
group NN O O
used NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
( 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
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
maximum NN O I-OUT
i.v NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
PCA NN O I-OUT
morphine NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Analgesic NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
EM NN O I-INT
is NN O O
decreased NN O O
when NN O O
2-CP NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
LEA NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
when NN O O
Lido NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
Epi NN O I-INT
is NN O O
used NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9261669)

High-dose NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
absence NN O O
of NN O O
salutary NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
reports NN O O
have NN O O
described NN O O
salutary NN O O
effects NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
decreased NN O O
physical NN O O
aggression NN O O
and NN O O
improved NN O O
social NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
being NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HDPM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
open-labeled NN O O
and NN O O
controlled NN O O
studies NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Despite NN O O
this NN O O
fact NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
intervention NN O O
remains NN O O
controversial NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
10-week NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
examine NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
HDPM NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Twelve NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
able NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
complete NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
HDPM NN O I-INT
at NN O O
an NN O O
average NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
638.9 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
216.3 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
magnesium NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
was NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
ameliorating NN O I-OUT
autistic NN O I-OUT
behaviors NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Psychiatric NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CPRS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impression NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
NIMH NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Obsessive NN O I-OUT
Compulsive NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
during NN O O
HDPM NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
trend NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
transient NN O O
change NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CPRS NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
was NN O O
possibly NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
placebo NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
raises NN O O
doubts NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
HDPM NN O I-INT
in NN O O
autistic NN O O
disorder NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9267377)

Cranberry NN O I-INT
concentrate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
UTI NN O I-PAR
prophylaxis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9269786)

Association NN O O
of NN O O
PML-RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
fusion NN O O
mRNA NN O O
type NN O O
with NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
hematologic NN O I-OUT
characteristics NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
not NN O O
treatment NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
promyelocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
intergroup NN O O
molecular NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
promyelocytic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
APL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
PML-RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
mRNA NN O O
types NN O O
is NN O O
produced NN O O
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
break/fusion NN O O
site NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PML NN O O
gene NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
common NN O O
RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
gene NN O O
segment NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
( NN O O
S NN O O
) NN O O
-form NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
PML NN O O
exon NN O O
3 NN O O
RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
exon NN O O
3 NN O O
; NN O O
a NN O O
long NN O O
( NN O O
L NN O O
) NN O O
-form NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
PML NN O O
exon NN O O
6 NN O O
RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
exon NN O O
3 NN O O
; NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
variable NN O O
( NN O O
V NN O O
) NN O O
-form NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
variably NN O O
deleted NN O O
PML NN O O
exon NN O O
6 NN O O
RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
exon NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
PML-RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
mRNA NN O O
type NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
distinct NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
APL NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
registered NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
INT NN O I-PAR
0129 NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Eastern NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Southwest NN O I-PAR
Oncology NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Leukemia NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O I-PAR
279 NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
230 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
molecularly NN O I-INT
evaluable NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
, NN O O
111 NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
remission NN O I-INT
induction NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
all-trans NN O I-INT
retinoic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ATRA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
119 NN O O
with NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Nine NN O O
cases NN O O
not NN O O
excluded NN O O
by NN O O
central NN O O
pathology NN O O
review NN O O
were NN O O
PML-RAR NN O I-OUT
alpha NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
notably NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
five NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
cases NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ATRA NN O O
achieved NN O O
complete NN O I-OUT
remission NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
221 NN O O
PML-RAR NN O O
alpha-positive NN O O
cases NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
82 NN O O
S-form NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
121 NN O O
L-form NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
18 NN O O
V-form NN O O
cases NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Before NN O O
any NN O O
antileukemic NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
S-form NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
L-form NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
higher NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
cell NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
WBC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
2,500/microL NN O O
v NN O O
1,600/microL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.009 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
blasts NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
promyelocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
median NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
8.5 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
blasts NN O I-OUT
plus NN O I-OUT
promyelocytes NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
884/microL NN O O
v NN O O
126/microL NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.019 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Also NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
S-form NN O O
versus NN O O
L-form NN O O
cases NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
M3 NN O I-OUT
variant NN O I-OUT
phenotype NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
24 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.036 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
S-form NN O O
and NN O O
L-form NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
79 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
69 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
disease NN O I-OUT
free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
distribution NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
multivariate NN O O
analysis NN O O
adjusting NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O O
of NN O O
S-form NN O O
type NN O O
and NN O O
higher NN O O
WBC NN O O
count NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.40 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
S-form NN O O
type NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
previously-identified NN O O
adverse NN O O
risk NN O O
WBC NN O O
parameters NN O O
but NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
identification NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
S-form NN O O
or NN O O
L-form NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
PML-RAR NN O O
alpha NN O O
mRNA NN O O
, NN O O
per NN O O
se NN O O
, NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
predict NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
or NN O O
add NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
WBC NN O O
count NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
prognostic NN O O
indicator NN O O
in NN O O
APL NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9278836)

Active NN O I-OUT
warming NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
passive NN O I-OUT
heat NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
maintains NN O O
normothermia NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
combined NN O O
epidural-general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
STUDY NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
passive NN O O
heat NN O O
retention NN O O
by NN O O
low-flow NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
alone NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
thermal NN O O
insulation NN O O
by NN O O
reflective NN O O
blankets NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
forced-air NN O O
warming NN O O
preventing NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
hypothermia NN O O
during NN O O
combined NN O O
epidural-general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN 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
Inpatient NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
orthopedic NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
physical NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
free NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
epidural NN O O
block NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
T10 NN O O
by NN O O
alkalinized NN O I-INT
lidocaine NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
general NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
means NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
low-flow NN O I-INT
rebreathing NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O O
fresh NN O O
gas NN O O
flow NN O O
= NN O O
1 NN O O
L/min NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
procedures NN O O
started NN O O
between NN O O
8 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
AM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
operating NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
OR NN O O
) NN O O
temperature NN O O
was NN O O
maintained NN O O
between NN O O
21 NN O O
degrees NN O O
and NN O O
23 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
relative NN O O
humidity NN O O
ranging NN O O
between NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
heat NN O O
retention NN O O
or NN O O
warming NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
low-flow NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
low-flow NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
additional NN O I-INT
reflective NN O I-INT
blankets NN O I-INT
( NN O O
blanket NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
low-flow NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
forced-air NN O I-INT
warming NN O I-INT
( NN O O
forced-air NN O O
, NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Tympanic NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
OR NN O O
arrival NN O O
( NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
; NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
60 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
minutes NN O O
from NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
; NN O O
and 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

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
invasiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
afterwards NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
progressively NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
blankets NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
of NN O O
2.0 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
and NN O O
1.6 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
forced-air NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
vs. NN O O
baseline NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
core NN O I-OUT
temperature NN O I-OUT
progressively NN O O
increased NN O O
to NN O O
35.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
preoperative NN O O
values NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
or NN O O
blankets NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
During NN O O
combined NN O O
epidural-general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
for NN O O
elective NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
knee NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
passive NN O O
heat NN O O
retention NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
low-flow NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
reflective NN O I-INT
blankets NN O I-INT
is NN O O
ineffective NN O O
in NN O O
maintaining NN O I-OUT
intraoperative NN O I-OUT
normothermia NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
definitely NN O O
inferior NN O O
to NN O O
active NN O O
forced-air NN O O
warning NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9293648)

Intravenous NN O O
pretreatment NN O O
of NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
can NN O O
prevent NN O O
systemic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
induced NN O O
by NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Hypertonic NN O O
saline NN O O
improves NN O O
organ NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
hemorrhagic NN O O
shock NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
expands NN O O
plasma NN O O
volume NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
tissue NN O O
oxygenation NN O O
. NN O O

Its NN O O
beneficial NN O O
results NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
suffering NN O O
from NN O O
hypotension NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
between NN O O
prehydration NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
changes NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
electrolyte NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixty NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
class NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
herniorrhapy NN O I-INT
under NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prehydrated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
isotonic NN O I-INT
lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
Group NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
prehydration NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
ml/kg NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
prehydration NN O O
, NN O O
arterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
17/30 NN O O
( NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
isotonic NN O O
lactated NN O O
Ringer NN O O
's NN O O
solution NN O O
group NN O O
as NN O O
against NN O O
7/30 NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hypertonic NN O O
saline NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
relation NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
maximal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
electrolyte NN O I-OUT
imbalance NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
hydration NN O O
with NN O O
small NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
hypertonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
to NN O O
minimize NN O O
hypotension NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

If NN O O
so NN O O
administered NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
bodily NN O O
sodium NN O O
load NN O O
and NN O O
unlike NN O O
isotonic NN O O
crystalloid NN O O
solution NN O O
it NN O O
dose NN O O
not NN O O
cause NN O O
accumulation NN O O
of NN O O
water NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
body NN O O
on NN O O
equipollent NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9296510)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
hand-sewn NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
esophagogastric NN O I-INT
anastomosis NN O I-INT
after NN O O
esophageal NN O O
resection NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
hand-sewn NN O I-INT
and NN O O
stapled NN O I-INT
methods NN O O
in NN O O
esophagogastric NN O I-INT
anastomosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SUMMARY NN O O
BACKGROUND NN O O
DATA NN O O
After NN O O
esophageal NN O O
resection NN O O
for NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
merits NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
hand-sewn NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
esophagogastric NN O O
anastomosis NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
regarding NN O O
leakage NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
have NN O O
not NN O O
adequately NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
in NN O O
122 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
squamous NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
thoracic NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Lewis-Tanner NN O I-INT
esophagectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
stratified NN O O
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
esophageal NN O I-PAR
size NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
diameter NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
divided NN O I-PAR
esophagus NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
hand-sewn NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
stapled NN O I-INT
anastomosis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
operating NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
hand-sewn NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
used NN O O
were NN O O
214 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
217 NN O O
( NN O O
3.4 NN O O
) NN O O
minutes NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
[ NN O O
NS NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
respective NN O O
in NN O O
vivo NN O I-OUT
proximal NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
margins NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
8 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
and NN O O
7.6 NN O O
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
cm NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Leakage NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
4.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Excluding NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
deaths NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
leakage NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
radiation NN O O
therapy NN O O
to NN O O
histologically NN O O
infiltrated NN O O
resection NN O O
margin NN O O
, NN O O
anastomotic NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
9.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
55 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
hand-sewn NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
stapler NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
small NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
large NN O O
esophagi NN O O
. NN O O

Anastomotic NN O I-OUT
recurrence NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
both NN O O
methods NN O O
were NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
stapled NN O O
technique NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
more NN O O
stricture NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9301391)

Plasma NN O I-OUT
dilution NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
fluid NN O O
space NN O O
expanded NN O O
by NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
of NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
have NN O O
been NN O O
analysed NN O O
recently NN O O
using NN O O
mathematical NN O O
models NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
such NN O O
analyses NN O O
allow NN O O
simulation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dilution NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
infusion NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
solution NN O O
at NN O O
different NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
obtain NN O O
basic NN O O
kinetic NN O O
data NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
simulations NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
dilution-time NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
during NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
25 NN O O
ml NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
over NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
15 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
80 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Based NN O O
on NN O O
these NN O O
experiments NN O O
, NN O O
nomograms NN O O
were NN O O
constructed NN O O
from NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
time NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
a NN O O
defined NN O O
plasma NN O O
dilution NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
males NN O O
and NN O O
females NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
estimated NN O O
together NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
rate NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
dilution NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
reached NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9303285)

Dose-response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concentration-response NN O I-OUT
relation NN O O
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
during NN O O
propofol-nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane-nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-OUT
dose-response NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
concentration-response NN O I-OUT
relation NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rocuronium NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
was NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
propofol-nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
isoflurane NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
MAC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-nitrous NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Neuromuscular NN O O
block NN O O
was NN O O
kept NN O O
constant NN O O
, NN O O
initially NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
closed-loop NN O I-INT
feedback NN O I-INT
controller NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
block NN O O
the NN O O
steady-state NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-INT
rocuronium NN O I-INT
was NN O O
0.55 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.16 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
h-1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O I-INT
concentration NN O I-OUT
1714 NN O O
+/- NN O O
281 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
block NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
0.27 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.11 NN O O
mg NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
h-1 NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
1077 NN O O
+/- NN O O
244 NN O O
ng NN O O
mL-1 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
block NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
59 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
at NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
block NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
infusion NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
35 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.005 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
clearance NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
block NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
it NN O O
was NN O O
4.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.6 NN O O
and NN O O
4.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.7 NN O O
mL NN O O
kg-1 NN O O
min-1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
receiving NN O O
propofol NN O I-INT
and NN O O
isoflurane NN O I-INT
anaesthesia NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
isoflurane NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
rocuronium NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
changing NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O O
behaviour NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9308064)

Postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
with NN O O
preoperative NN O O
oral NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
or NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
myringotomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
over NN O O
70 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
require NN O O
analgesics NN O I-INT
following NN O O
bilateral NN O I-PAR
myringotomy NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
tube NN O I-PAR
placement NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
analgesic NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
administered NN O O
oral NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Forty NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
ASA NN O I-PAR
I NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
paracetamol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg.kg-1 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
Children NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
Hospital NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
Eastern NN O I-OUT
Ontario NN O I-OUT
Pain NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CHEOPS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
upon NN O O
arrival NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
PACU NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

CHEOP NN O O
scores NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time 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
number NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
rescue NN O I-OUT
analgesia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
administered NN O O
oral NN O O
ibuprofen NN O I-INT
10 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
or NN O O
acetaminophen NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
mg.kg-1 NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
BM NN O I-PAR
& NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9314855)

The NN O O
nature NN O O
and NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
toe-brachial NN O O
pressure NN O O
indices NN O O
following NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
for NN O O
leg NN O O
ischaemia NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
document NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
toe-brachial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
TBPI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
following NN O O
percutaneous NN O I-INT
transluminal NN O I-INT
angioplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PTA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
relate NN O O
these NN O O
changes NN O O
to NN O O
restenosis NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
administering NN O O
a NN O O
vasodilator NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
glyceryl NN O I-INT
trinitrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
PTA NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Eighty-three NN O I-PAR
technically NN O I-PAR
successful NN O I-PAR
PTA NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Fifty-six NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
intermittent NN O I-PAR
claudication NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
ischaemic NN O I-PAR
rest NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
13 NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
non-healing NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immediately NN O O
following NN O O
balloon NN O I-INT
dilatation NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
intra-arterial NN O I-INT
bolus NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
150 NN O I-INT
micrograms NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
GTN NN O I-INT
patch NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

TBPI NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
PTA NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
at NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
this NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
patency NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
PTA NN O O
site NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
arteriography NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
continuing NN O O
TBPI NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
following NN O O
PTA NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
given NN O O
GTN NN O I-INT
, NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
TBPI NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
corresponded NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
TBPI NN O I-OUT
observed NN O O
immediately NN O O
following NN O O
GTN NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Restenosis NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
27 NN O O
( NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
frequent NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
rest NN O O
pain NN O O
or NN O O
ulceration NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
where NN O O
a NN O O
TBPI NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
of NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
0.15 NN O O
by NN O O
1 NN O O
week NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Haemodynamic NN O O
changes NN O O
following NN O O
PTA NN O O
continue NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
GTN NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
predictive NN O O
of NN O O
subsequent NN O O
restenosis NN O O
. NN O O

Measuring NN O O
the NN O O
TBPI NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
following NN O O
PTA NN O O
underestimates NN O O
total NN O O
improvement NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
may NN O O
give NN O O
false NN O O
reassurance NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
recurrent NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9315428)

Design NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
study NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
LIPID NN O O
Trial NN O O
for NN O O
Secondary NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
IHD NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Long-term NN O O
Intervention NN O O
with NN O O
Pravastatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Ischemic NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Long-term NN O O
Intervention NN O O
with NN O O
Pravastatin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
Ischemic NN O I-PAR
Heart NN O I-PAR
Disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
LIPID NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
coronary NN O O
mortality NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
unstable NN O I-PAR
angina-ischemic NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
It NN O O
is NN O O
planned NN O O
to NN O O
run NN O O
for NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
five NN O O
years NN O O
with NN O O
9014 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
85 NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
New NN O I-PAR
Zealand NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
trial NN O O
will NN O O
monitor NN O O
cause-specific NN O O
mortality NN O O
and NN O O
major NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Running NN O O
in NN O O
parallel NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
economic NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
objectives NN O O
of NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QOL NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
quality-adjusted NN O I-OUT
life-years NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
QALY NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
the NN O O
resource NN O O
usage NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo-in NN O I-INT
particular NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
whether NN O O
it NN O O
alters NN O O
resource NN O O
usage NN O O
through NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
use NN O O
this NN O O
information NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
cost-utility NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
cost NN O O
per NN O O
quality-adjusted NN O O
life-year NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
unit NN O O
of NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
novel NN O O
aspect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
best-guess NN O O
values NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
analysis NN O O
over NN O O
plausible NN O O
ranges NN O O
to NN O O
guide NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
subsample NN O O
size NN O O
. NN O O

Some NN O O
data NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
collected NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
LIPID NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
subsamples NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
study NN O O
will NN O O
include NN O O
information NN O O
on NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
off NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
resources NN O I-OUT
used NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
such NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
taken NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
methods NN O O
and NN O O
sample NN O O
sizes NN O O
for NN O O
these NN O O
substudies NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
a NN O O
crucial NN O O
issue NN O O
in NN O O
validity NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9322632)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
with NN O O
continuous NN O I-INT
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
ripening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
vaginal NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
misoprostol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cytotec NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cervidil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
ripening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
indications NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
induction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labor NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
unfavorable NN O I-PAR
cervical NN O I-PAR
examinations NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
vaginally NN O O
administered NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
prostaglandin NN O I-INT
E2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaginal NN O O
insert NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-five NN O O
microgram NN O O
tablets NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
were NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
vaginal NN O O
fornix NN O O
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
six NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Additional NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O O
either NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
rupture NN O O
of NN O O
membranes NN O O
, NN O O
adequate NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
( NN O O
Bishop NN O O
score NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
8 NN O O
or NN O O
cervical NN O O
dilatation NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
3 NN O O
cm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
labor NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaginal NN O O
insert NN O O
, NN O O
Cervidil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
containing NN O O
10 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
timed-release NN O O
preparation NN O O
was NN O O
placed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
posterior NN O O
vaginal NN O O
formix NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
hours NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
vaginal NN O O
insert NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
for NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
rupture NN O O
of NN O O
membranes NN O O
, NN O O
entry NN O O
into NN O O
active NN O O
labor NN O O
, NN O O
adequate NN O O
cervical NN O O
ripening NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
abnormality NN O O
of NN O O
uterine NN O O
contractile NN O O
pattern NN O O
or NN O O
fetal NN O O
cardiac NN O O
activity NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
99 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
misoprostol NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
start NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
vaginal NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
1296.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
722.1 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
1360.0 NN O O
+/- NN O O
792.0 NN O O
minutes NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but 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
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.97 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oxytocin NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O O
( NN O O
50.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
misoprostol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
43 NN O O
( NN O O
43.5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
dinoprostone-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
1.14 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.86 NN O O
to NN O O
1.51 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.35 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
routes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
or NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Overall NN O O
, NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
19.3 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
cesarean NN O I-OUT
deliveries NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
prevalence NN O O
of NN O O
tachysystole NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
six NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
uterine NN O O
contractions NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
10-minute NN O O
window NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
consecutive NN O O
10-minute NN O O
periods NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
7.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
18.4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
0.52 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.31 NN O O
to NN O O
0.89 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
uterine NN O I-OUT
hyperstimulation NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
hypertonus NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Abnormal NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
tracings NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O O
( NN O O
23.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
misoprostol-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
35 NN O O
( NN O O
35.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
dinoprostone-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
relative NN O O
risk NN O O
0.73 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
0.52 NN O O
to NN O O
1.01 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0546 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
meconium NN O I-OUT
passage NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
1- NN O O
or NN O O
5-minute NN O O
Apgar NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
neonatal NN O I-OUT
resuscitations NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
admissions NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
neonatal NN O I-OUT
intensive NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
unit NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Vaginally NN O O
administered NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
is NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
dinoprostone NN O O
for NN O O
cervical NN O I-OUT
ripening NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
induction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
labor NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Mean NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
need NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
oxytocin NN O I-OUT
augmentation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
routes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
delivery NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
tachysystole NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
misoprostol NN O I-INT
every NN O O
4 NN O O
hours NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
dinoprostone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9327193)

An NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
parallel NN O O
group NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
diuretic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tolerability NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
first-dose NN O I-OUT
blood-pressure NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
diuretic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
elderly NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomised NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
being NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
inclusion NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
outpatient NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Following NN O O
a NN O O
starting NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
once-daily NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
or NN O O
6.25 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
at NN O O
two-weekly NN O O
intervals NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
clinical NN O O
assessment NN O O
a NN O O
decision NN O O
was NN O O
made NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
titrate NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
medication NN O O
stage NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
enter NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
16-week NN O O
maintenance NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
six-minute NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
New NN O I-OUT
York NN O I-OUT
Heart NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
NYHA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
class NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
functional NN O I-OUT
lifescale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FLS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
questionnaire NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
cardiothoracic NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CTR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-at NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
entry NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
maintenance NN O I-OUT
phase NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
h NN O O
post-first-dose NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
: NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
and NN O O
31 NN O O
to NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Following NN O O
withdrawals NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
36 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
20 NN O O
on NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
16 NN O O
on NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
distance NN O I-OUT
walked NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
six-minute NN O I-OUT
walking NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
improved NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
FLS NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CTR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NYHA NN O O
status NN O O
from NN O O
study NN O O
entry NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
end NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Five NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
hypotension NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
5 NN O O
h NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
shown NN O O
heart NN O O
failure NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
controlled NN O O
by NN O O
once-daily NN O O
quinapril NN O I-INT
as NN O O
by NN O O
twice-daily NN O O
captopril NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
comparable NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
first-dose NN O I-OUT
blood-pressure NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9330779)

Lack NN O O
of NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMS-181101 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
antidepressant NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
food NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMS-181101 NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
anti-depressant NN O O
under NN O O
development NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
subject NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
15 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BMS-181101 NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
( NN O O
q NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
morning NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
BMS-181101 NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
12 NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
BMS-181101 NN O I-INT
under NN O O
fasted NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
then NN O I-PAR
crossed NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
fed NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
other NN O O
six NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
the NN O O
reverse NN O O
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
fed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
1-6 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
fasted NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
7-12 NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Serial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
trough NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
collected NN O O
on NN O O
days NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

Plasma NN O I-OUT
samples NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
intact NN O I-OUT
BMS-181101 NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
a NN O O
validated NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
method NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
electrochemical NN O O
detector NN O O
. NN O O

BMS-181101 NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistical NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Cmin NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
BMS-181101 NN O I-INT
was NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
fourth NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
dosing NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
subject NN O O
was NN O O
fasted NN O O
or NN O O
fed NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
BMS-181101 NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
, NN O O
Cmax NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
about NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
tmax NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
1 NN O O
h. NN O O
However NN O O
, NN O O
AUCtau NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
t1/2 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
attain NN O I-OUT
steady NN O I-OUT
state NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
BMS-181101 NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
by NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
summary NN O O
, NN O O
BMS-181101 NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
with NN O O
food NN O O
without NN O O
adversely NN O O
impacting NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9332112)

Intravenous NN O I-INT
magnesium NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
intravenous NN O I-INT
Magnesium NN O I-INT
sulfate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Pediatric NN O I-PAR
emergency NN O I-PAR
service NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
teaching NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SUBJECTS NN O O
47 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1-12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
showing NN O I-PAR
inadequate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
poor NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
nebulized NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
given NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
interval NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
min NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
The NN O O
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O I-INT
0.2 NN O I-INT
ml/kg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
50 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
intravenous NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
over NN O O
35 NN O O
minutes NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
infusion NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
rate NN O O
. NN O O

MgSO4 NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O O
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
were NN O O
coded NN O O
and NN O O
dispensed NN O O
in NN O O
identical NN O O
containers NN O O
. NN O O

Decoding NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
oxygen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
nebulized NN O I-INT
salbutamol NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
aminophylline NN O I-INT
and NN O O
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
showed NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
in NN O O
PEFR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SaO2 NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
30 NN O O
min NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
to NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
group NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
stopping NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Addition NN O O
of NN O O
MgSO4 NN O I-INT
to NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
helps NN O O
in NN O O
achieving NN O O
earlier NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
PEFR NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
not NN O I-PAR
responding NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
conventional NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9337835)

Exhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
during NN O O
graded NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
inhaled NN O O
oxygen NN O O
in NN O O
man NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Nitric NN O I-INT
oxide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
NO NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
exhaled NN O O
air NN O O
of NN O O
animals NN O O
and NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
isolated NN O O
animal NN O O
lungs NN O O
the NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
exhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
is NN O O
decreased NN O O
during NN O O
hypoxia NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
oxygen NN O O
tension NN O O
affect NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
exhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
inhale NN O I-INT
different NN O I-INT
gas NN O I-INT
mixtures NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Eight NN O O
gas NN O I-INT
mixtures NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
oxygen NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
nitrogen NN O I-INT
( NN O O
fractional NN O O
inspired NN O O
oxygen NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
FiO2 NN O O
) NN O O
0.1 NN O O
to NN O O
1.0 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Exhaled NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
chemiluminescence NN O O
detector NN O O
from NN O O
end NN O O
expiratory NN O O
single NN O O
breath NN O O
exhalation NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
dose-dependent NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
exhaled NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
graded NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0012 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
exhaled NN O I-OUT
NO NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
31 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
ppb NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
39 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
ppb NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
FiO2 NN O O
of NN O O
1.0 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
ppb NN O O
at NN O O
an NN O O
FiO2 NN O O
of NN O O
0.1 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
NO NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
exhaled NN O O
air NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
oxygen NN O O
tension NN O O
. NN O O

Hyperoxia NN O O
increases NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O O
of NN O O
exhaled NN O O
NO NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
indicates NN O O
increased NN O O
NO NN O O
production NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mechanism NN O O
behind NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
remains NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
elucidated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9349928)

A NN O O
drug NN O O
interaction NN O O
study NN O O
between NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
heart NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Previous NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
suggested NN O O
an NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
major NN O O
antiplatelet NN O O
agent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
heart- NN O O
and NN O O
kidney-transplant NN O O
recipients 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
to NN O O
examine NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
possible NN O O
interaction NN O O
between NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
250 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
heart-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
heart-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
drawn NN O O
for NN O O
time-course NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O O
blood NN O O
levels NN O O
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
intake NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
and NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
platelet NN O O
aggregation NN O O
studies NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O O
four-hour NN O O
urine NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
for NN O O
6-beta-hydroxycortisol NN O O
measurements NN O O
, NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
ticlopidine NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Although NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
half NN O O
the NN O O
recommended NN O O
daily NN O O
dosage NN O O
, NN O O
ticlopidine NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
aggregation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
parameters NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
cyclosporin NN O I-OUT
A NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ticlopidine NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
withdrawn NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
fall NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
cyclosporin NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
6-beta-hydroxycortisol NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
augmented NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ticlopidine 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
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
induction NN O O
of NN O O
drug NN O O
metabolism NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
occurred NN O O
. NN O O

Data NN O O
also NN O O
show NN O O
quite NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O O
intra-individual NN O O
variability NN O O
in NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
poor NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
formulation NN O O
and/or NN O O
poor NN O O
compliance NN O O
might NN O O
have NN O O
contributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
decreased NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
previous NN O O
uncontrolled NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Cyclosporin NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
clearly NN O O
modified NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
half NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
recommend NN O O
closely NN O O
monitoring NN O O
cyclosporin NN O O
blood NN O O
levels NN O O
when NN O O
prescribing NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Further NN O O
studies NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
needed NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
formulations NN O O
of NN O O
cyclosporin NN O I-INT
or NN O O
when NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
full NN O O
dosage NN O O
of NN O O
ticlopidine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9351754)

Postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
following NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
tubal NN O I-PAR
sterilization NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
silastic NN O O
bands NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
relief NN O O
of NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
tubal NN O I-PAR
sterilization NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
silastic NN O I-PAR
bands NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
laparoscopic NN O I-PAR
tubal NN O I-PAR
sterilization NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
silastic NN O I-PAR
bands NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
one NN O O
received NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
ketorolac NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
fallopian NN O O
tubes NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
received NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
received NN O O
intramuscular NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
, NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recovery NN O O
were NN O O
conducted NN O O
with NN O O
standardized NN O O
protocols NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
perception NN O O
was NN O O
graded NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
modified NN O O
McGill NN O O
pain NN O O
intensity NN O O
scale NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
morning NN O O
by NN O O
telephone NN O O
interview NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
measured NN O O
variables NN O O
included NN O O
postoperative NN O O
vomiting NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
analgesia NN O O
requirement NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
spent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Only NN O O
topical NN O O
bupivacaine NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
over NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
at NN O O
30 NN O O
minutes NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
2 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.002 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
discharge NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
score NN O O
2 NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
intramuscular NN O O
ketorolac NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
morning NN O O
phone NN O O
call NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
requirements NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
supplemental NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
medications NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
recovery NN O O
room NN O O
, NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
spent NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
room NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Topical NN O O
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
decreases NN O O
postoperative NN O O
pain NN O O
scores NN O O
significantly NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
women NN O O
undergoing NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
tubal NN O O
sterilization NN O O
with NN O O
silastic NN O O
bands NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9366821)

Effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
norgestimate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
in NN O O
treating NN O O
moderate NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
excess NN O O
of NN O O
androgen NN O O
is NN O O
believed NN O O
to NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
acne NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
contraceptives NN O I-INT
( NN O O
OCs NN O O
) NN O O
may NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
androgen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
hormonal NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
OCs NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
used NN O O
successfully NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
although NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
has NN O O
previously NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
Our NN O O
purpose NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
triphasic NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ORTHO NN O I-INT
TRI-CYCLEN NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
Ortho-McNeil NN O I-INT
Pharmaceutical NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Raritan NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
N.J. NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
norgestimate/ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O O
acne NN O O
vulgaris NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
fifty-seven NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
49 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
moderate NN O I-PAR
acne NN O I-PAR
vulgaris NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
month NN O O
for NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
3 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
( NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
tablets NN O O
containing NN O O
a NN O O
fixed NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
[ NN O I-INT
0.035 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
increasing NN O I-INT
doses NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
norgestimate NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
0.180 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
0.215 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
0.250 NN O O
mg NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
inactive NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
color-matched NN O O
tablets NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
facial NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
an NN O O
investigator NN O O
's NN O O
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
a NN O O
subject NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
an NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
within-cycle NN O I-OUT
variation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
6 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
counts NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
160 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
whom NN O O
efficacy NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
improvement NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
all NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
inflammatory NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
cycle NN O O
6 NN O O
was NN O O
11.8 NN O O
( NN O O
62.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
7.6 NN O O
( NN O O
38.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
29.1 NN O O
( NN O O
53.1 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
14.1 NN O O
( NN O O
26.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
investigator NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
93.7 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
active NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
versus NN O O
65.4 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
improved 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
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Six NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
seven NN O O
secondary NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
comedones NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
open NN O I-OUT
comedones NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
closed NN O I-OUT
comedones NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
papules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pustules NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
subject NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
self-assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
study NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O O
group NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
An NN O O
OC NN O O
containing NN O O
0.035 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
ethinyl NN O I-INT
estradiol NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
triphasic NN O O
regimen NN O O
of NN O O
norgestimate NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
acne NN O I-OUT
vulgaris NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
known NN O I-PAR
contraindication NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (937075)

Maximal NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-PAR
digoxin NN O I-INT
from NN O I-PAR
tablets NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
solution NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
steady NN O I-PAR
state NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Comparison NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
made NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
digoxin NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
Lanoxin NN O I-INT
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
absorption NN O O
of NN O O
international NN O O
chemical NN O O
reference NN O O
substance NN O O
digoxin NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
oral NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
areas NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
24-hour NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
excretion NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
formulations NN O O
in NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

78 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
digoxin NN O I-OUT
administered NN O O
was NN O O
absorbed NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
tablets NN O O
and NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Rapid NN O O
dissolution NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
intestinal NN O O
fluids NN O O
accounts NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
high NN O O
digoxin NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
the NN O O
tablets NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9393424)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
type NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
success NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
implant NN O I-PAR
integration NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
uncovering NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
1991 NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Dental NN O O
Implant NN O O
Clinical NN O O
Research NN O O
Group NN O O
comprising NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Veterans NN O I-PAR
Affairs NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
dental NN O I-PAR
schools NN O I-PAR
initiated NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
long-term NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
investigate NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
performance NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-INT
within NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Spectra-System NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Core-Vent NN O I-PAR
Corporation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Las NN O I-PAR
Vegas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
NV NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
article NN O O
focuses NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
portion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
database NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
incision NN O O
type NN O O
, NN O O
implant NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
of NN O O
crestal NN O O
bone NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
uncovering NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
crestal NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1,705 NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
381 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
remote NN O I-INT
incision NN O I-INT
for NN O I-PAR
593 NN O I-PAR
implants NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
141 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.092 NN O O
chi-square NN O O
statistic NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
implant NN O I-OUT
integration NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
crestal NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9394942)

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
replication NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
learning NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
expanded NN O O
upon NN O O
previous NN O O
work NN O O
on NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
assessed NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
learning NN O O
measures NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Eleven 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
3.0 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
8.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
school NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
outpatient NN O O
laboratory NN O O
, NN O O
bringing NN O O
to NN O O
24 NN O O
the NN O O
combined NN O O
study NN O O
sample NN O O
. NN O O

Naltrexone NN O I-INT
, NN O O
1.0 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
daily 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
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Dependent NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
Naltrexone NN O I-OUT
Side NN O I-OUT
Effects NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
SE NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Conners NN O I-OUT
Parent NN O I-OUT
Impulsivity/Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
Factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Teacher NN O I-OUT
Hyperactivity NN O I-OUT
Factor NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
laboratory NN O O
CGI NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
videotaped NN O O
behavior NN O O
. NN O O

Learning NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
Early NN O I-OUT
Intervention NN O I-OUT
Developmental NN O I-OUT
Profile-Language NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
paired-associate NN O I-OUT
learning NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Comparisons NN O O
between NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
on NN O O
parent NN O O
and NN O O
teacher NN O O
ratings NN O O
showed NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
improved NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
mild NN O O
. NN O O

Administering NN O O
naltrexone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
a NN O O
challenge NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combined NN O O
study NN O O
sample NN O O
showed NN O O
improvement NN O O
on NN O O
all NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
Teacher NN O I-OUT
CGI NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
SE-Restlessness NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Eleven NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
improved NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
settings NN O O
. NN O O

Scores NN O O
on NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
across NN O O
conditions NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Naltrexone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
modest NN O O
improvement NN O O
of NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
11 NN O O
of NN O O
24 NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
learning NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
improve NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9395031)

Long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
comparing NN O O
idarubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
as NN O O
induction NN O O
therapies NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
myeloid NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Most NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
for NN O O
acute NN O O
leukemia NN O O
have NN O O
reported NN O O
results NN O O
after NN O O
2-3 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Comparisons NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
data NN O O
and NN O O
longer-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
data NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
interest NN O O
, NN O O
particularly NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
promising NN O O
new NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-PAR
data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
updated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
comparisons NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
idarubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
daunorubicin NN O I-INT
that NN O I-PAR
began NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
1984 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1985 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
These NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Memorial NN O I-PAR
Sloan-Kettering NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Center NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MSKCC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
Multicenter NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Southeastern NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SEG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
original NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
trials NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
1991 NN O O
and NN O O
1992 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
original NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SEG NN O O
trial NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
idarubicin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
daunorubicin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
updated NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
similar NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
MSKCC NN O O
trial NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
advantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
idarubicin NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
daunorubicin NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
updated NN O O
analyses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
U.S. NN O O
Multicenter NN O O
trial NN O O
found NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
favoring NN O O
idarubicin NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
original NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
updated NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
essential NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
be NN O O
clearly NN O O
stated NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
obtained NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
particularly NN O O
promising NN O O
new NN O O
drug NN O O
or NN O O
procedure NN O O
are NN O O
presented NN O O
early NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
1-2 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
investigators NN O O
should NN O O
strongly NN O O
consider NN O O
a NN O O
repeat NN O O
evaluation NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
3-5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9399611)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O O
care NN O O
provided NN O O
by NN O O
community NN O I-INT
pharmacists NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
setting NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
monitored NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
specially NN O I-INT
trained NN O I-INT
community NN O I-INT
pharmacists NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
practice NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
participating NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
skill NN O I-INT
development NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
, NN O O
pharmacists NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
interdisciplinary NN O O
team NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
rural NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
objective NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
evaluating NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
25 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
also NN O O
evaluated NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
outcome NN O O
variables NN O O
remained NN O O
constant NN O O
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Systolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
reduced NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
151 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
baseline NN O O
, NN O O
140 NN O O
mm NN O O
Hg NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
mo 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
diastolic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
months NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Ratings NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
peer NN O O
review NN O O
panel NN O O
indicated NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
appropriateness NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
regimen NN O O
, NN O O
going NN O O
from NN O O
8.7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.7 NN O O
to NN O O
10.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.5 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
they NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Several NN O O
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
after NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
included NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
functioning NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
61.6 NN O O
vs NN O O
70.7 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
role NN O I-OUT
limitations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
56.8 NN O O
vs NN O O
72.8 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
bodily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
60.0 NN O O
vs NN O O
71.7 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
consistently NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
when NN O O
community NN O I-INT
pharmacists NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinic NN O O
setting NN O O
are NN O O
trained NN O O
and NN O O
included NN O O
as NN O O
members NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
team NN O O
, NN O O
significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
patient NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (939970)

Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CCNU NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
high-grade NN O O
supratentorial NN O O
astrocytomas NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-one NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
supratentorial NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
Grade NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
astrocytomas NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
giant-cell NN O I-PAR
astrocytoma NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
insufficient NN O I-PAR
tissue NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
within NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
totaling NN O O
4000 NN O O
to NN O O
4500 NN O O
rads NN O O
in NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
2 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
1- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
2-chloroethyl NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-3-cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea NN O I-INT
CCNU NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
130 NN O O
mg/sq NN O O
m NN O O
orally NN O O
every NN O O
6 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Group NN O O
3 NN O O
( NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
CCNU NN O I-INT
as NN O O
for NN O O
Groups NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
the NN O O
disease NN O O
progressed NN O O
, 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
were NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
CCNU NN O I-INT
and NN O O
irradiation NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
these NN O O
groups NN O O
was NN O O
188 NN O O
, NN O O
259 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
252 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
263 NN O O
, NN O O
262 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
329 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
diagnosis NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
crossover NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Groups NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Group NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
163 NN O O
, NN O O
99 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
220 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
time NN O O
was NN O O
172 NN O O
, NN O O
108 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
231 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
means NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
medians NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
situations NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9400786)

MSL-109 NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Monoclonal NN O O
Antibody NN O O
Cytomegalovirus NN O O
Retinitis NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
Studies NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Ocular NN O I-PAR
Complications NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
AIDS NN O I-PAR
Clinical NN O I-PAR
Trials NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
human NN O O
monoclonal NN O O
antibody NN O O
to NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
( NN O O
CMV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
MSL-109 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
as NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
active NN O I-PAR
CMV NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
phase NN O I-PAR
2/3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
MSL-109 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
intravenously NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Randomization NN O O
was NN O O
stratified NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
untreated NN O O
or NN O O
relapsed NN O O
retinitis NN O O
. NN O O

Primary NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
treating NN O O
physician NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
retinitis NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
as NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
masked NN O O
fashion NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
3.04/person-year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MSL-109-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
3.05/person-year NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
P=.98 NN O O
; NN O O
Wald NN O O
test NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O O
times NN O O
to NN O O
progression NN O O
were NN O O
67 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MSL-109-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
65 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
retinal NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
involved NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
acuity NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
MSL-109-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
0.68/person-year NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
0.31/person-year NN O O
( NN O O
P=.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
explained NN O O
by NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
variables NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
concurrent NN O O
antiretroviral NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
newly NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
retinitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
( NN O O
MSL-109 NN O O
, NN O O
0.41/person-year NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
0.42/person-year NN O O
; NN O O
P=.95 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
among NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
relapsed NN O O
retinitis NN O O
the NN O O
MSL-109-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
MSL-109 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.83/person-year NN O O
; NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
0.24/person-year NN O O
; NN O O
P=.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
with NN O O
relapsed NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
newly NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
other NN O O
trials NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
relapsed NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Intravenous NN O O
MSL-109 NN O I-INT
, NN O O
60 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
appeared NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
ineffective NN O I-OUT
adjuvant NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
CMV NN O O
retinitis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MSL-109-treated NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
reasons NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
difference NN O O
remain NN O O
uncertain NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9403746)

Lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
comatose NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
in NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
( NN O O
ICU NN O O
) NN O O
comatose NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
, NN O O
unblinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
A NN O O
mixed NN O O
medical/surgical NN O O
ICU NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
university NN O O
hospital NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
comatose NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
admitted NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ICU NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
central NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
signs NN O O
of NN O O
thrombotic NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
On NN O O
catheter NN O O
removal NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
lower-extremity NN O O
bilateral NN O O
phlebographic NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

MEASUREMENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
MAIN NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
After NN O O
randomization NN O O
, NN O O
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
30 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
axillary NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
jugular NN O I-PAR
vein NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cannulation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Single NN O I-INT
lumen NN O I-INT
polyurethane NN O I-INT
catheters NN O I-INT
were NN O O
inserted NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
7.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
4.6 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
9.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.5 NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
signs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
venous NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
embolism NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
, NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
bilateral NN O I-OUT
phlebography NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
catheter NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Leg NN O I-OUT
phlebographies NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
normal NN O O
in NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
26 NN O O
( NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
vena NN O O
cava NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Fibrin NN O I-OUT
sleeves NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
developed NN O O
around NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
catheters NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
23.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
and NN O O
in NN O O
no NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Three NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
femoral NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
two NN O O
nonobstructive NN O O
thromboses NN O O
, NN O O
adherent NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
common NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
wall NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
3.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O O
nonobstructive NN O O
thrombosis NN O O
which NN O O
developed NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superficial NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Lower NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
extremities NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
developed NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
16.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
femoral NN O O
vein NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
five NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
superior NN O O
vena NN O O
cava NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
NS NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
catheterization NN O I-INT
with NN O O
a NN O O
polyurethane NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
extremity NN O I-OUT
deep NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
which NN O O
is NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
observed NN O O
after NN O O
superior NN O O
vena NN O O
cannulation NN O O
in NN O O
comatose NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sedated NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Femoral NN O I-OUT
vein NN O I-OUT
thrombosis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
6.6 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
superior NN O I-INT
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Given NN O O
the NN O O
acceptable NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
clinically NN O O
important NN O O
complication NN O O
, NN O O
femoral NN O I-INT
vein NN O I-INT
cannulation NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
an NN O O
attractive NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
insertion NN O O
via NN O O
the NN O O
vena NN O I-INT
cava NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
critically NN O O
ill NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9405728)

Biochemical NN O O
markers NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O O
mineral NN O O
density NN O O
changes NN O O
after NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
bone NN O O
biochemical NN O O
markers NN O O
as NN O O
predictors NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
hormone NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HRT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
we NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O O
changes NN O O
induced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
cessation NN O O
and NN O O
return NN O O
of NN O O
ovarian NN O O
function NN O O
in NN O O
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
GnRH NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
model NN O O
reproduced NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
turnover NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
HRT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
Z NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
1.8 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.3 NN O O
for NN O O
Crosslaps NN O O
( NN O O
CTx NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
deoxypyridinoline NN O O
( NN O O
D-Pyr NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
1.1 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.2 NN O O
for NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
B-ALP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
osteocalcin NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
OC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
indicated NN O O
an NN O O
imbalance NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
remodeling NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
resorption NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Bone NN O I-OUT
mineral NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
by NN O O
4.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.5 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
6th NN O O
and NN O O
12th NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

34 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.24 NN O O
and NN O O
-1.73 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.25 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
femoral NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
except NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
calcium NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
hydroxyproline NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
positively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
lumbar NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
the NN O O
resumption NN O O
of NN O O
menstruation NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
of NN O O
28 NN O O
women NN O O
displayed NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
spine NN O I-OUT
BMD NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
6th NN O O
and NN O O
12th NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Stepwise NN O O
regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
B-ALP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
D-Pyr NN O I-OUT
measured NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
explained NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
BMD NN O I-OUT
variance NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
association NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
B-ALP NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
PTH NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
estradiol NN O I-OUT
56 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
measuring NN O O
individual NN O O
biochemical NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
markers NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
help NN O O
to NN O O
predict NN O O
the NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
estradiol NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
deficiency NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9407259)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
creatine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
repetitive NN O O
sprint NN O O
performance NN O O
and NN O O
body NN O O
composition NN O O
in NN O O
competitive NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
and NN O O
randomized NN O O
manner NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
female NN O I-PAR
junior NN O I-PAR
competitive NN O I-PAR
swimmers NN O I-PAR
supplemented NN O O
their NN O O
diets NN O O
with NN O O
21 NN O O
g.day-1 NN O O
of NN O O
creatine NN O I-INT
monohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Cr NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
a NN O O
maltodextrin NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
P NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
9 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Prior NN O O
to NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
supplementation NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
three NN O O
100-m NN O O
freestyle NN O O
sprint NN O O
swims NN O O
( NN O O
long NN O O
course NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
s NN O O
rest/recovery NN O O
between NN O O
heats NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
performed NN O O
three NN O O
20-s NN O O
arm NN O O
ergometer NN O O
maximal-effort NN O O
sprint NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prone NN O O
position NN O O
with NN O O
60 NN O O
s NN O O
rest/recovery NN O O
between NN O O
sprint NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
among NN O O
swim NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
Cr NN O O
subjects NN O O
swimming NN O O
significantly NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
P NN O O
subjects NN O O
following NN O O
supplementation NN O O
in NN O O
Heat NN O O
1 NN O O
and NN O O
significantly NN O O
decreasing NN O O
swim NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
100-m NN O O
sprint NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
some NN O O
evidence NN O O
that NN O O
cumulative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
perform NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
three NN O I-OUT
100-m NN O I-OUT
swims NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Cr NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
9 NN O O
days NN O O
of NN O O
Cr NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O O
during NN O O
swim NN O O
training NN O O
may NN O O
provide NN O O
some NN O O
ergogenic NN O O
value NN O O
to NN O O
competitive NN O O
junior NN O O
swimmers NN O O
during NN O O
repetitive NN O O
sprint NN O O
performance NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9411221)

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
antiarrhythmic-drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
implantable NN O I-INT
defibrillators NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
resuscitated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
near-fatal NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
arrhythmias NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Antiarrhythmics NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
Implantable NN O I-INT
Defibrillators NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AVID NN O O
) NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
survive NN O O
life-threatening NN O O
ventricular NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
are NN O O
at NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
recurrent NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
. NN O O

They NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillator NN O I-INT
or NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
relative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
address NN O O
this NN O O
issue NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
strategies NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
resuscitated NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
near-fatal NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
cardioversion NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
serious NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
along NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
left NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
ejection NN O I-PAR
fraction NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
0.40 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
One NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
implantation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillator NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
the NN O O
other NN O O
received NN O O
class NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
primarily NN O I-INT
amiodarone NN O I-INT
at NN O O
empirically NN O O
determined NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

Fifty-six NN O O
clinical NN O O
centers NN O O
screened NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
presented NN O O
with NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
or NN O O
ventricular NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
during NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
nearly NN O O
four NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O I-PAR
1016 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
55 NN O I-PAR
percent NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
507 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillators NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
509 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
antiarrhythmic-drug NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
was NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
complete NN O O
for NN O O
1013 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
99.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
defibrillator NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
unadjusted NN O O
estimates NN O O
of NN O O
89.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
82.3 NN O O
percent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
antiarrhythmic-drug NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
, NN O O
81.6 NN O O
percent NN O O
versus NN O O
74.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
at NN O O
two NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
75.4 NN O O
percent NN O O
versus NN O O
64.1 NN O O
percent NN O O
at NN O O
three NN O O
years NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
corresponding NN O O
reductions NN O O
in NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
with NN O O
95 NN O O
percent NN O O
confidence NN O O
limits NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
defibrillator NN O I-INT
were NN O O
39+/-20 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
27+/-21 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
31+/-21 NN O O
percent NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Among NN O O
survivors NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
fibrillation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
sustained NN O I-PAR
ventricular NN O I-PAR
tachycardia NN O I-PAR
causing NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
implantable NN O I-INT
cardioverter-defibrillator NN O I-INT
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
for NN O O
increasing NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9413463)

Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
liver-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
Oral NN O O
Ganciclovir NN O I-INT
International NN O O
Transplantation NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
[ NN O O
corrected NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Cytomegalovirus NN O O
( NN O O
CMV NN O O
) NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequent NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
serious NN O O
morbidity NN O O
after NN O O
solid-organ NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
regimens NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
CMV NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
disease NN O O
have NN O O
shown NN O O
limited NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
seronegative NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O O
disease NN O O
following NN O O
orthotopic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
December NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1993 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
April NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
304 NN O I-PAR
liver-transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
1000 NN O I-INT
mg NN O O
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
three NN O O
times NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

Seronegative NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
seronegative NN O I-PAR
livers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
excluded NN O O
. NN O O

Study NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
as NN O O
soon NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
medication NN O O
by NN O O
mouth NN O O
( NN O O
no NN O O
later NN O O
than NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
until NN O O
the NN O O
98th NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
transplantation NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
at NN O O
specified NN O O
times NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
for NN O O
evidence NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rejection NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
opportunistic NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
possible NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FINDINGS NN O O
The NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
estimate NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
6-month NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
29 NN O O
( NN O O
18.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
154 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
4.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
high-risk NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
seronegative NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
R- NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
seropositive NN O O
livers NN O O
( NN O O
D+ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
44.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
25 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
three NN O O
( NN O O
14.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
antibodies NN O O
to NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
, NN O O
where NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
12 NN O O
( NN O O
32.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
37 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
( NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
44 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CMV NN O I-OUT
infection NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
79 NN O O
[ NN O O
51.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
154 NN O O
; NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
37 NN O O
[ NN O O
24.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
150 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
also NN O O
reduced NN O O
symptomatic NN O I-OUT
herpes-simplex NN O I-OUT
infections NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
Kaplan-Meier NN O O
estimates NN O O
: NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
36 NN O O
[ NN O O
23.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
154 NN O O
; NN O O
ganciclovir NN O O
five NN O O
[ NN O O
3.5 NN O O
% NN O O
] NN O O
of NN O O
150 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Oral NN O O
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
safe NN O O
and NN O O
effective NN O O
method NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
CMV NN O O
disease NN O O
after NN O O
orthotopic NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9427455)

Safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
combined NN O O
pentavalent NN O I-INT
diphtheria NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
pertussis NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
inactivated NN O I-INT
poliovirus NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Haemophilus NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
b-tetanus NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
whole NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
pertussis NN O I-INT
pentavalent NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
immunogenicity NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
combined NN O I-INT
diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-inactivated NN O I-INT
poliovirus NN O I-INT
vaccines NN O I-INT
containing NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
acellular NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pa NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
SmithKline NN O I-INT
Beecham NN O I-INT
Biologicals NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Pw NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Pasteur NN O I-INT
Merieux NN O I-INT
Connaught NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
pertussis NN O I-INT
components NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
mixed NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
Haemophilus NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
polysaccharide NN O I-INT
polyribosylribitol NN O I-INT
phosphate-tetanus NN O I-INT
conjugate NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
The NN O O
combined NN O O
vaccines NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
ages NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
and NN O O
13 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Adverse NN O O
events NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
diary NN O O
cards NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
Pa NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
101 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
clearly NN O I-PAR
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
local NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Pw NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Immunogenicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
diphtheria NN O O
and NN O O
tetanus NN O O
components NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
for NN O O
pertussis NN O I-OUT
toxin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
filamentous NN O I-OUT
hemagglutinin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pertactin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
polioviruses NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Pa NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
groups NN O O
had NN O O
an NN O O
appropriate NN O O
response NN O O
with NN O O
regard NN O O
to NN O O
H. NN O O
influenzae NN O O
type NN O O
b NN O O
polysaccharide NN O O
polyribosylribitol NN O O
phosphate NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
dynamics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
: NN O O
geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
micrograms NN O O
per NN O O
ml NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
booster NN O O
doses NN O O
were NN O O
1.27 NN O O
, NN O O
5.06 NN O O
and NN O O
23.12 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Pa NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
2.72 NN O O
, NN O O
6.66 NN O O
and NN O O
13.59 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Pw NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0002 NN O O
after NN O O
second NN O O
dose NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.0005 NN O O
after NN O O
booster NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
presently NN O O
studied NN O O
diphtheria NN O O
, NN O O
tetanus NN O O
, NN O O
acellular NN O O
pertussis-H. NN O O
influenzae NN O O
b NN O O
vaccine NN O O
conjugated NN O O
to NN O O
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
was NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
immunogenic NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
diphtheria NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
whole NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
pertussis-H. NN O I-INT
influenzae NN O I-INT
b NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
conjugated NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
tetanus NN O I-INT
toxoid NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
better NN O O
safety NN O O
profile NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
obvious NN O O
importance NN O O
in NN O O
countries NN O O
where NN O O
inactivated NN O O
poliovirus NN O O
vaccine NN O O
is NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
infant NN O O
immunization NN O O
programs NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9428861)

Postoperative NN O O
analgesia NN O O
by NN O O
D-myo-inositol-1,2,6-trisphosphate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
UNLABELLED NN O O
D-myo-inositol-1,2,6-trisphosphate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1,2,6-IP3 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
possesses NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
reduced NN O O
eicosanoid NN O O
synthesis NN O O
and NN O O
inhibition NN O O
of NN O O
inflammation-induced NN O O
edema NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
properties NN O O
suggest NN O O
possible NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1,2,6-IP3 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
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
24 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
1,2,6-IP3 NN O I-INT
as NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
( NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

) NN O O
bolus NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
240 NN O O
mg NN O O
, NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

infusion NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
corresponding NN O O
volumes NN O O
of NN O O
isotonic NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Postoperative NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
VAS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
opiate NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ketobemidon NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
during NN O O
five NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
five NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O O
with NN O O
1,2,6-IP3 NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
VAS NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
requirements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
analgesics NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
three NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days 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
drug-related NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrate NN O O
a NN O O
potent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
long-lasting NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
1,2,6-IP3 NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
its NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
properties NN O O
. NN O O

IMPLICATIONS NN O O
A NN O O
new NN O O
antiinflammatory NN O O
drug NN O O
under NN O O
investigation NN O O
, NN O O
inositol-1,2,6-trisphosphate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
analgesic NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
cholecystectomized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Results NN O O
showed NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
opioid NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
should NN O O
encourage NN O O
further NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9430799)

A NN O O
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
vasoconstrictor NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
lower NN O O
body NN O O
subatmospheric NN O O
pressure NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
( NN O O
CV NN O O
) NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
meal NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
and NN O O
orthostasis NN O O
are NN O O
well NN O O
established NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
meal NN O O
ingestion NN O O
and NN O O
meal NN O O
composition NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CV NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
orthostasis NN O O
are NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
high NN O I-INT
carbohydrate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
high NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
CV NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
simulated NN O O
orthostatic NN O O
stress NN O O
( NN O O
using NN O O
graded NN O O
lower NN O O
body NN O O
subatmospheric NN O O
pressure NN O O
( NN O O
LBSP NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cardiac NN O I-OUT
output NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FABF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
LBSP NN O O
while NN O O
fasted NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
eating NN O I-INT
HC NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
HF NN O I-INT
meals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
meals NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
CO NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HR NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Both NN O O
meals NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
but NN O O
only NN O O
HC NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
BP 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

HF NN O O
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CV NN O O
responses NN O O
to NN O O
LBSP NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
HC NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
attenuated NN O I-OUT
FABF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
forearm NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
responses 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

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
ingestion NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
HC NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
significantly NN O O
attenuates NN O O
the NN O O
forearm NN O O
vascular NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
orthostatic NN O O
stress NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
hypotensive NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
orthostasis NN O O
is NN O O
additive NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
occurring NN O O
after NN O O
an NN O O
HC NN O O
meal NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9437974)

The NN O O
accuracy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
neurosensory NN O I-OUT
testing NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
nerve NN O O
injury NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-INT
neurosensory NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
to NN O O
diagnose NN O O
trigeminal NN O O
nerve NN O O
injuries NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
statistically NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
statistical NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
clinical NN O I-OUT
neurosensory NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
surgical NN O O
findings NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
gold NN O O
standard NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
correlation NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
sensory NN O O
impairment NN O O
score NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
preoperative NN O O
testing NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
nerve NN O O
injury NN O O
found NN O O
at NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

MATERIALS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
multisite NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
on NN O O
130 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inferior NN O I-PAR
alveolar NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
IAN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lingual NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
provided NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sensory NN O I-INT
impairment NN O I-INT
score NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
three-level NN O I-INT
drop-out NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
neurosensory NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NST NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
blind NN O I-INT
comparisons NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
made NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
surgical NN O I-INT
findings NN O I-INT
postoperatively NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
predictive NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
LN-injured NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
positive NN O O
predictive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
values NN O O
for NN O O
IAN NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
77 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
injury NN O O
, NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
injury NN O O
, NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
neuropathic NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
presence NN O O
of NN O O
trigger NN O O
pain NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
injury NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
IAN NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
LN NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
populations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
relationship NN O I-OUT
found NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sensory NN O I-OUT
impairment NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
injury NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
NST NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
useful NN O O
method NN O O
to NN O O
diagnose NN O O
IAN NN O O
and NN O O
LN NN O O
injuries NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
NST NN O I-INT
results NN O O
are NN O O
less NN O I-OUT
efficient NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
IAN NN O O
injuries NN O O
than NN O O
LN NN O O
injuries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
false-positive NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
false-negative NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
results NN O O
when NN O O
testing NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
IAN NN O I-PAR
injuries NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
different NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
statistical NN O I-OUT
efficiency NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
attributable NN O O
to NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
prevalence NN O O
and NN O O
biologic NN O O
covariates NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9438269)

Electrical NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
P300 NN O O
event-related NN O O
brain NN O O
potentials NN O O
revealed NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
resolution NN O O
electromagnetic NN O O
tomography NN O O
. NN O O

2 NN O O
. NN O O

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
nootropic NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
age-associated NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
Actovegin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
frontal NN O O
and NN O O
parietal NN O O
electrical NN O O
P300 NN O O
sources NN O O
revealed NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
resolution NN O O
electromagnetic NN O O
tomography NN O O
( NN O O
LORETA NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
in NN O O
age-associated NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AAMI NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Actovegin NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
protein-free NN O O
metabolically NN O O
active NN O O
hemoderivative NN O O
improving NN O O
oxygen NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
utilization NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
patient NN O O
had NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
randomized NN O O
order NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
Actovegin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Auditory NN O I-INT
ERPs NN O I-INT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
administration NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
( NN O O
acute NN O O
effect NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
15 NN O O
( NN O O
subacute NN O O
and NN O O
superimposed NN O O
effect NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
age- NN O O
and NN O O
sex-matched NN O O
normal NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
AAMI NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
showed NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
P300 NN O I-OUT
latency NN O I-OUT
prolongation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
P300 NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
field NN O I-OUT
power NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
GFP NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Maximal NN O I-OUT
LORETA NN O I-OUT
source NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
from NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
Actovegin NN O I-OUT
parietal NN O I-OUT
P300 NN O I-OUT
scalp NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
frontal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
temporal NN O I-OUT
amplitudes NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
hilliness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
GFP NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
parietal NN O I-OUT
P300 NN O I-OUT
source NN O I-OUT
strength NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
after NN O O
acute NN O O
, NN O O
subacute NN O O
and NN O O
superimposed NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
Actovegin NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
may NN O O
reflect NN O O
improved NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
cognitive NN O O
processing NN O O
resources NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
parietal NN O O
cortex NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
that NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
one NN O O
hand NN O O
plays NN O O
an NN O O
important NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
fundamental NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
attention NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
hand NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
functionally NN O O
impaired NN O O
in NN O O
dementia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9449870)

Randomised NN O O
community-based NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
annual NN O O
single-dose NN O O
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
against NN O O
Wuchereria NN O I-PAR
bancrofti NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
beings NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mosquitoes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
WHO NN O O
has NN O O
targeted NN O O
lymphatic NN O O
filariasis NN O O
for NN O O
elimination NN O O
. NN O O

Studies NN O O
of NN O O
vector-parasite NN O O
relations NN O O
of NN O O
Wuchereria NN O O
bancrofti NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
microfilarial NN O O
reservoir NN O O
by NN O O
mass NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
may NN O O
interrupt NN O O
transmission NN O O
and NN O O
thereby NN O O
eliminate NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
field NN O O
data NN O O
exist NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
alone NN O O
on NN O O
vector NN O O
efficiency NN O O
and NN O O
transmission NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
W NN O O
bancrofti NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
annual NN O I-INT
community-wide NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ivermectin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
rate NN O O
and NN O O
intensity NN O O
of NN O O
microfilaraemia NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
transmission NN O O
intensity NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
area NN O O
of NN O O
Papua NN O O
New NN O O
Guinea NN O O
endemic NN O O
for NN O O
intense NN O O
W NN O O
bancrofti NN O O
transmission NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
We NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
clinical NN O O
and NN O O
parasitological NN O O
surveys NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
matched NN O I-PAR
pairs NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
People NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-PAR
mg/kg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
seven NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
6 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
plus NN O O
ivermectin NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
micrograms/kg NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
made NN O O
physical NN O O
examinations NN O O
for NN O O
hydroceles NN O O
and NN O O
leg NN O O
oedema NN O O
and NN O O
investigated NN O O
microfilarial NN O O
densities NN O O
by NN O O
membrane NN O O
filtration NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
selected NN O O
five NN O I-PAR
communities NN O I-PAR
for NN O O
monthly NN O O
entomological NN O O
surveys NN O O
between NN O O
September NN O O
, NN O O
1993 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
September NN O O
, NN O O
1995 NN O O
. NN O O

Mosquitoes NN O O
were NN O O
collected NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
communities NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
all-night NN O O
landing NN O O
catch NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
individually NN O O
dissected NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
infectiveness NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
2219 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
87.6 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2534 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
people NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Microfilarial NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
had NN O O
decreased NN O O
1 NN O O
year NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
14 NN O O
communities NN O O
; NN O O
this NN O O
decrease NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
communities NN O O
given NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
given NN O O
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
decreases NN O O
57.5 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
30.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0013 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
community-specific NN O I-OUT
microfilarial NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
reductions NN O O
91.1 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
69.8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.0047 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leg NN O I-OUT
oedema NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
altered NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
frequency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
advanced NN O I-OUT
hydroceles NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

26,641 NN O O
Anopheles NN O O
punctulatus NN O O
mosquitoes NN O O
were NN O O
caught NN O O
during NN O O
499 NN O O
person-nights NN O O
of NN O O
landing NN O O
catches NN O O
. NN O O

Exposure NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
infective NN O I-OUT
third-stage NN O I-OUT
larvae NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
monitored NN O O
five NN O O
communities NN O O
. NN O O

Annual NN O I-OUT
transmission NN O I-OUT
potential NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
by NN O O
between NN O O
75.7 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
98.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
combined-therapy NN O O
communities NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
75.6 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
79.4 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
communities NN O O
given NN O O
diethylcarbamazine NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Transmission NN O O
was NN O O
almost NN O O
interrupted NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
communities NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
combined NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Annual NN O I-INT
single-dose NN O I-INT
community-wide NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
diethylcarbamazine NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ivermectin NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
of NN O O
lymphatic NN O O
filariasis NN O O
in NN O O
highly NN O O
endemic NN O O
areas NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
brings NN O O
about NN O O
greater NN O O
decreases NN O O
in NN O O
rates NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
microfilaraemia NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9469367)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
oral NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
intravenous NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
induced NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
moderately NN O I-OUT
emetogenic NN O I-OUT
chemotherapy NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
parallel NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
single-dose NN O O
oral NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with 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
in NN O O
chemotherapy-naive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
moderately NN O I-INT
emetogenic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
naive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
emetogenic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
N NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1,085 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
cyclophosphamide- NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
500 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
1,200 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
carboplatin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
300 NN O I-PAR
mg/m2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
based NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
oral NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
542 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
I.V NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
543 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
with NN O O
total NN O O
control NN O I-INT
over NN O O
the NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
following NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
initiation NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
severity NN O O
of NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emesis NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
rescue NN O O
medication NN O O
. NN O O

Prophylactic NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
allowed NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Safety NN O O
assessment NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
patients NN O O
' NN O O
reports NN O O
of NN O O
adverse NN O O
experiences NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Approximately NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
prophylactic NN O I-INT
corticosteroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Single-dose NN O O
oral NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
I.V NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
32 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
equivalent NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
after NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
proportion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
nausea- NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emesis-free NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
24 NN O O
and NN O O
48 NN O O
hours NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
approximately NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
most NN O O
commonly NN O O
reported NN O O
adverse NN O O
experiences NN O O
were NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
asthenia NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
constipation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
ondonsetron NN O I-INT
than NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
reported NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
9.6 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
5.4 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
abnormal NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
4.2 NN O O
% NN O O
v NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
A NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
granisetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
equivalent NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
antiemetic NN O I-OUT
protection NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
I.V NN O O
. NN O O

ondansetron NN O I-INT
( NN O O
32 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
dizziness NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
abnormal NN O I-OUT
vision NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
reported NN O O
with NN O O
ondansetron NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Because NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
antiemetic NN O O
regimens NN O O
exhibited NN O O
equivalent NN O O
efficacies NN O O
, NN O O
additional NN O O
factors NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
convenience NN O O
and NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9474454)

Twice-a-day NN O O
versus NN O O
four-times-a-day NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O O
ocular NN O O
infection NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacies NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
ofloxacin NN O O
eyedrops NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
given NN O O
twice-a-day NN O O
( NN O O
BID NN O O
) NN O O
versus NN O O
four-times-a-day NN O O
( NN O O
QID NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O O
ocular NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
blepharitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
conjuctivitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
blepharoconjunctivitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
0.3 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
ofloxacin NN O I-INT
eyedrops NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
BID NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
QID NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Signs NN O O
, NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
cultures NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
beginning 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

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
outcome NN O O
was NN O O
virtually NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
BID NN O O
and NN O O
QID NN O O
groups NN O O
by NN O O
days NN O O
3 NN O O
to NN O O
5 NN O O
( NN O O
2.6-3.0 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
further NN O O
decrease NN O O
by NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
( NN O O
4.3-5.0 NN O O
points NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Microbiologic NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
colony-forming NN O I-OUT
units NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
BID NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
80 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
QID NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
external NN O I-OUT
ocular NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
ofloxacin NN O I-OUT
eyedrops NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
equally NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
when NN O I-OUT
given NN O I-OUT
BID NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
QID NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9481466)

Randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
customized NN O O
preventive NN O O
medicine NN O O
reminder NN O O
letters NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
community NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
customized NN O O
, NN O O
family-oriented NN O O
reminder NN O O
letters NN O O
in NN O O
activating NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
seek NN O O
appropriate NN O O
preventive NN O O
services NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
computer-generated NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
customized NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
explaining NN O I-INT
recommended NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
family NN O I-INT
member NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
second NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
form NN O I-INT
letter NN O I-INT
listing NN O I-INT
recommendations NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
preventive NN O I-INT
procedures NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
age NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
sex NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
third NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
SETTING NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
private NN O I-PAR
medical NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
university NN O I-PAR
affiliation NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
rural NN O I-PAR
Quebec NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
8770 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
719 NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Data NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
available NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
1971 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1998 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
these NN O I-PAR
families NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
MAIN NN O O
OUTCOME NN O O
MEASURES NN O O
The NN O I-OUT
Family NN O I-OUT
Received NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
family NN O O
was NN O O
overdue NN O O
that NN O O
they NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Family NN O I-OUT
End-of-study NN O I-OUT
Up-to-date NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
procedures NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
family NN O O
was NN O O
eligible NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
up-to-date 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

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
Family NN O I-OUT
Received NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
families NN O O
mailed NN O O
customized NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
was NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
double NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O O
mailed NN O O
letters NN O O
( NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0139 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Family NN O I-OUT
End-of-study NN O I-OUT
Up-to-date NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
families NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
sent NN O O
customized NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
up-to-date NN O O
than NN O O
families NN O O
not NN O O
sent NN O O
letters NN O O
( NN O O
Kruskal-Wallis NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.0054 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
appeared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
preventive NN O O
measures NN O O
received NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
form-letter NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
a NN O O
clinically NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
value NN O O
to NN O O
customizing NN O I-INT
reminder NN O I-INT
letters NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9493479)

The NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subjective NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
physical NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba/panax NN O I-INT
ginseng NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
neurasthenic NN O I-PAR
complaints NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
Ginkgo NN O I-INT
biloba/ginseng NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
this NN O O
90-day NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Sixty-four NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
65 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
selected NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
basis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fulfilling NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ICD-10 NN O I-PAR
F48.0 NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
neurasthenia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
randomly NN O O
to NN O O
four NN O O
equal NN O O
dosing NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
receiving NN O O
80 NN O O
, NN O O
160 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
320 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
b.i.d NN O O
. NN O O

or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
before NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
again NN O O
at NN O O
Days NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
90 NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
morning NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
afternoon NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
assessments NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
Cognitive NN O I-OUT
Drug NN O I-OUT
Research NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CDR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
computerized NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Vienna NN O I-OUT
Determination NN O I-OUT
Unit NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cycle NN O I-OUT
ergometry NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
various NN O I-OUT
questionnaires NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
treatments NN O O
were NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
all NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
Day NN O O
90 NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
post NN O O
morning NN O O
dosing NN O O
, NN O O
dose-related NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
seen NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
CDR NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
320 NN O O
mg NN O O
dose NN O O
being NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
effects NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
reversed NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
afternoon NN O O
dose NN O O
, NN O O
possibly NN O O
suggesting NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
longer NN O O
inter-dosing NN O O
interval NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
preferable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
80-mg NN O O
dose NN O O
produced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
ergometry NN O I-OUT
assessment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
maximum NN O O
load NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
several NN O O
supporting NN O O
changes NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
assessments NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
an NN O O
advantage NN O O
of NN O O
320 NN O O
mg NN O O
over NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O O
score NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Symptom NN O O
Checklist-90-revised NN O O
( NN O O
SCL-90-R NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
Day NN O O
90 NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9495616)

A NN O O
plaque NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
occlusal NN O I-INT
surfaces NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
fissures NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Measurement NN O O
of NN O O
repeatability NN O O
and NN O O
plaque NN O O
removal NN O O
. NN O O

Plaque NN O O
indices NN O O
have NN O O
largely NN O O
been NN O O
developed NN O O
for NN O O
buccal NN O O
and NN O O
lingual NN O O
tooth NN O O
surfaces NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
minimal NN O O
interest NN O O
in NN O O
plaque NN O O
accumulation NN O O
on NN O O
occlusal NN O O
surfaces NN O O
despite NN O O
the NN O O
predilection NN O O
for NN O O
caries NN O O
at NN O O
these NN O O
sites NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
numerical NN O O
plaque NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
0-5 NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
described NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
distribution NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
fissures NN O O
and NN O O
over NN O O
the NN O O
occlusal NN O O
surfaces NN O O
of NN O O
permanent NN O O
molar NN O O
and NN O O
premolar NN O O
teeth NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
repeatability NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
examiner NN O O
in NN O O
scoring NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
using NN O O
4 NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
volunteers NN O I-PAR
suspended NN O I-INT
tooth NN O I-INT
cleaning NN O I-INT
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
scored NN O O
after NN O O
disclosing NN O O
plaque NN O O
deposits NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
index NN O O
was NN O O
rescored NN O O
60-90 NN O O
min NN O O
later NN O O
. NN O O

Plaque NN O O
area NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
drawing NN O O
the NN O O
outline NN O O
of NN O O
plaque NN O O
onto NN O O
grids NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
condition NN O O
of NN O O
repeatability NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
4 NN O O
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
repeatability NN O O
in NN O O
scoring NN O O
the NN O O
index NN O O
were NN O O
met NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
4 NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
area NN O I-OUT
recordings NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
detect NN O O
plaque NN O O
removed NN O O
by NN O O
brushing NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
plaque NN O I-INT
scored NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
index NN O I-INT
and NN O O
area NN O O
after NN O O
suspending NN O O
toothcleaning NN O O
for NN O O
48 NN O O
h. NN O O
Subjects NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
brush NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
brush NN O O
their NN O O
teeth NN O O
and NN O O
plaque NN O O
rescored NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
experiment NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
repeated NN O O
and NN O O
brushing NN O I-INT
or NN O O
not NN O I-INT
brushing NN O I-INT
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
. NN O O

Highly NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
brushing NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
brushing NN O O
plaque NN O I-OUT
indices NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
areas NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
occlusal NN O I-OUT
fissure NN O I-OUT
plaque NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
easy NN O O
to NN O O
apply NN O O
, NN O O
repeatable NN O O
and NN O O
sufficiently NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
plaque NN O O
removed NN O O
by NN O O
brushing NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
index NN O O
could NN O O
find NN O O
use NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
measure NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
hygiene NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
on NN O O
plaque NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
epidemiological NN O O
studies NN O O
relating NN O O
to NN O O
caries NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9497116)

The NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
dual-switch NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
hydrocephalus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Since NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
1995 NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O I-PAR
hydrostatic NN O I-INT
dual-switch NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DSV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-PAR
implanted NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
35 NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
hydrocephalus NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
etiology NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
suffered NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
normotensive NN O I-PAR
hydrocephalus NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
idiopathic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
hypertensive NN O I-PAR
hydrocephalus NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
various NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
21 NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
cohort NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
comparable NN O O
group NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O O
hydrocephalic NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
a NN O O
conventional NN O I-INT
differential-pressure NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DP- NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
CT NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
shunting NN O O
, NN O O
14 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O I-OUT
size NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Evans NN O O
Index NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
CT NN O O
follow-up NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
an NN O O
only NN O O
minimal NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
only NN O O
slight NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
) NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
size NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
vast NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
cases NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
21 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
DP NN O I-INT
valves NN O I-INT
, NN O O
evaluated NN O O
by NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Evans NN O I-OUT
Index NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
revealed NN O O
a NN O O
distinctly NN O O
higher NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
significant NN O O
regressions NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DP NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
collective NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
doubt NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
chronic NN O O
overdrainage NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
overall NN O O
clinical NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
our NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
a NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
was NN O O
excellent NN O O
and NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
31 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
preshunt NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
brain NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
on NN O O
hydrocephalic NN O I-OUT
aspects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
neglegible NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
subdural NN O I-OUT
effusions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
group NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
11 NN O O
cases NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DP NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
collective NN O O
reflects NN O O
the NN O O
ability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
overdrainage NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
capability NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
DSV NN O I-INT
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
the NN O O
IVP NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
physiological NN O O
limits NN O O
after NN O O
shunting NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
upright NN O O
position NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
documented NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
possible NN O I-OUT
unphysiological NN O I-OUT
IVP NN O I-OUT
variations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
other NN O O
valve NN O O
constructions NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
depend NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
level NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
implantation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
subcutaneous NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
CSF NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
through NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
valve NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9499947)

[ NN O O
Value NN O O
of NN O O
absorbable NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

Most NN O O
surgeons NN O O
use NN O O
metal NN O O
clips NN O O
in NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absorbable NN O I-OUT
clips NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
elective NN O I-OUT
laparoscopic NN O I-OUT
cholecystectomy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
gallstones NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
complications NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
T NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
two NN O I-INT
metal NN O I-INT
clips NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
titan NN O I-INT
clip NN O I-INT
ETHICONR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
group NN O I-PAR
R NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
laproclipR NN O I-INT
Davis NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Geck NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
had NN O O
one NN O I-INT
absorbable NN O I-INT
clip NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
cystic NN O I-INT
duct NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cystic NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
concerning NN O O
operative NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
absorbable NN O I-OUT
clips NN O I-OUT
seem NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
metal NN O I-OUT
clips NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
providing NN O O
hemostasis NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
cystic NN O O
artery NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
cystic NN O O
duct NN O O
ligation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9507846)

Incidence NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
false-negative NN O I-PAR
sextant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
Since NN O O
most NN O O
patients NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
undergo NN O O
repeat NN O O
sextant NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsies NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
biopsy NN O O
is NN O O
positive NN O O
for NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
true NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
false-negative NN O O
biopsies NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
well NN O O
defined NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
false-negative NN O I-PAR
sextant NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
biopsies NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
radical NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
118 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
biopsy NN O I-PAR
proved NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
repeat NN O I-INT
sextant NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
biopsy NN O I-INT
before NN O O
enrollment NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
radical NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
neoadjuvant NN O I-INT
hormonal NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
potential NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
bias NN O O
. NN O O

Pathological NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
prostate NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
false-negative NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
118 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
27 NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
repeat NN O O
sextant NN O O
biopsy NN O O
. NN O O

Except NN O O
for NN O O
initial NN O O
clinical NN O O
stage NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
pathological NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
or NN O O
prostate NN O I-OUT
specific NN O I-OUT
antigen NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
negative NN O O
versus NN O O
positive NN O O
repeat NN O O
biopsies NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Our NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
false-negative NN O O
biopsies NN O O
represents NN O O
significant NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
relatively NN O O
high NN O O
incidence NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
to NN O O
consider NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
modalities NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
prostate NN O O
biopsy NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9512218)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
hyperinsulinaemia NN O O
in NN O O
polycystic NN O O
ovary NN O O
syndrome NN O O
? NN O O


-DOCSTART- (9513236)

Histopathologic NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eyelid NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
trichloroacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
chemical NN O I-INT
peel NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
trichloroacetic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
periorbital NN O O
and NN O O
eyelid NN O O
peel NN O O
for NN O O
skin NN O O
rejuvenation NN O O
is NN O O
gaining NN O O
significant NN O O
acceptance NN O O
among NN O O
oculoplastic NN O O
surgeons NN O O
, NN O O
dermatologists NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
surgery NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
enthusiasm NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
remain NN O O
potentially NN O O
serious NN O O
complications NN O O
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
any NN O O
periorbital NN O O
peel NN O O
. NN O O

Cases NN O O
of NN O O
cicatricial NN O O
ectropion NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
phenol-peeled NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
and NN O O
lower NN O O
eyelid NN O O
ectropion NN O O
has NN O O
reportedly NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
deep NN O I-PAR
eyelid NN O I-PAR
peel NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
conjunction NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
blepharoplasty NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1,2 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
avoid NN O O
this NN O O
complication NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
necessary NN O O
to NN O O
better NN O O
understand NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
wound NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
different NN O O
strengths NN O O
and NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
peeling NN O O
agents NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
living NN O O
eyelid NN O O
tissue NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
important NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
TCA NN O I-INT
that NN O O
are NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
cicatricial NN O O
ectropion NN O O
when NN O O
applied NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
consistent NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
chose NN O O
upper-eyelid NN O O
skin NN O O
because NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
easier NN O O
to NN O O
obtain NN O O
for NN O O
histopathologic NN O O
study NN O O
than NN O O
lower-eyelid NN O O
skin NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
experience NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
sensitive NN O O
to NN O O
hypertrophic NN O O
changes NN O O
after NN O O
chemical NN O O
peeling NN O O
or NN O O
carbon NN O O
dioxide NN O O
laser NN O O
resurfacing NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
applied NN O O
TCA NN O I-INT
to NN O O
the NN O O
preseptal NN O O
skin NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
48 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
standard NN O I-PAR
upper-eyelid NN O I-PAR
blepharoplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
acid NN O O
was NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
frost NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
varying NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
ranging NN O O
from NN O O
20 NN O O
to NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
treated NN O O
skin NN O O
removed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
blepharoplasty NN O O
was NN O O
reviewed NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
masked NN O O
fashion NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
dermatopathologist NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
necrosis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
superficial NN O I-OUT
peels NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
necrosis NN O I-OUT
involving NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
epidermis NN O O
were NN O O
produced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
lowest-concentration NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
TCA NN O I-INT
applied NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
the NN O O
strength NN O I-OUT
increased NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
so NN O O
did NN O O
the NN O O
depth NN O O
of NN O O
peel NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
produced NN O O
the NN O O
deepest NN O I-OUT
peel NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
necrosis NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
papillary NN O O
dermis NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
finding NN O O
would NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
chance NN O O
of NN O O
developing NN O O
cicatricial NN O O
ectropion NN O O
with NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
tested NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
TCA NN O I-INT
should NN O O
be NN O O
very NN O O
remote NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9529556)

Pruritus NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
drugs NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
dysregulation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Pruritus NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
HIV-1+ NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
common NN O O
and NN O O
increases NN O O
with NN O O
disease NN O O
progression NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
pruritus NN O O
are NN O O
numerous NN O O
including NN O O
xerosis NN O O
, NN O O
drug NN O O
and NN O O
photoeruptions NN O O
, NN O O
follicular NN O O
and NN O O
papular NN O O
eruptions NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
infestations NN O O
and NN O O
infections NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
other NN O O
possible NN O O
factor NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
pruritus NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
immune NN O O
dysregulation NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
advancing NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
disease NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
Th1 NN O O
to NN O O
Th2 NN O O
cytokine NN O O
switching NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
some NN O O
positive NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
prostaglandin NN O O
inhibitors NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
we NN O O
randomly NN O O
placed NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
forms NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
their NN O I-PAR
pruritus NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
therapies NN O O
included NN O O
hydroxyzine NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
doxepin NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
night NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
pentoxifylline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
indomethacin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
moisturization NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
medium-strength NN O I-INT
topical NN O I-INT
steroids NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
subjective NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Patients NN O O
placed NN O O
on NN O O
indomethacin NN O O
obtained NN O O
relief NN O I-OUT
more NN O O
consistently NN O O
and NN O O
more NN O O
completely NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
pentoxifylline NN O I-PAR
had NN O O
the NN O O
fewest NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
oral NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
on NN O O
antihistamines NN O O
with NN O O
or NN O O
without NN O O
doxepin NN O O
had NN O O
the NN O O
highest NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
although NN O O
more NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
greater NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
pentoxifylline NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
oral NN O O
therapy NN O O
overall NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
patients NN O O
using NN O O
topical NN O O
steroids NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
systemic NN O O
therapies NN O O
which NN O O
may NN O O
modulate NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
dysregulation NN O I-OUT
seen NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-1 NN O O
disease NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
beneficial NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
pruritus NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
late-stage NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9531360)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
surgical NN O I-INT
staging NN O I-INT
in NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
radiotherapeutic NN O O
outcome NN O O
in NN O O
RTOG NN O O
# NN O O
77-06 NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
for NN O O
T1BN0M0 NN O O
( NN O O
A2 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
T2N0M0 NN O O
( NN O O
B NN O O
) NN O O
prostate NN O O
carcinoma NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
metastatic NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
localized NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
Phase NN O I-INT
III NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
RT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Radiation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
Oncology NN O I-INT
Group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
77-06 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T18N0M0 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
A2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
T2N0M0 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
lymphangiogram NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
LAG NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
staging NN O I-PAR
laparotomy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
SL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
radiation NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
pelvic NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
nodes NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
bed NN O I-PAR
alone NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
LAG NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
SL NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
updated NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
449 NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
RTOG NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
7706 NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1978 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1983 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Lymph NN O O
node NN O O
staging NN O O
was NN O O
mandatory NN O O
but NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
's NN O O
discretion NN O O
; NN O O
117 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
SL NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
332 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
LAG NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Follow-up NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
years NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
16 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodal NN O O
irradiation NN O O
, NN O O
45 NN O O
Gy NN O O
of NN O O
megavoltage NN O O
RT NN O O
was NN O O
delivered NN O O
via NN O O
multiple NN O O
portals NN O O
in NN O O
4.5-5 NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
65 NN O O
Gy NN O O
in NN O O
6.5-8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prostatic NN O O
bed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS 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
survival NN O I-OUT
whether NN O O
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
or NN O O
prostate NN O O
and NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymph NN O O
nodes NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
SL NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
greater NN O O
12-year NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
the NN O O
LAG NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Disease-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
SL NN O O
group NN O O
vs. NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
LAG NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bone NN O I-OUT
metastasis NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
common NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
SL NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
LAG NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
27 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
At NN O O
12-year NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
still NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
survival NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pelvic NN O O
nodes NN O O
and NN O O
prostatic NN O O
bed NN O O
vs. NN O O
the NN O O
prostatic NN O O
bed NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
patients NN O O
not NN O O
surgically NN O O
staged NN O O
with NN O O
only NN O O
LAG NN O O
for NN O O
lymph NN O O
node NN O O
evaluation NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
accurately NN O O
staged NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
reduced NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
earlier NN O O
metastases NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9532967)

Interfering NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O O
executive NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
repetition NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Four NN O O
dual-task NN O O
experiments NN O O
are NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
a NN O O
short-term NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
is NN O O
performed NN O O
concurrently NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
random NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
repetition NN O I-INT
task NN O I-INT
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
functions NN O O
normally NN O O
attributed NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
central NN O I-PAR
executive NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
model NN O O
of NN O O
Baddeley NN O O
and NN O O
Hitch NN O O
( NN O O
1974 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
task NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
interfere NN O O
with NN O O
supra-span NN O O
serial NN O O
recall NN O O
and NN O O
with NN O O
backward NN O I-OUT
memory NN O I-OUT
span NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
disrupt NN O O
performance NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
forward-memory-span NN O I-OUT
task NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
dissociation NN O O
with NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
articulatory NN O O
suppression NN O O
and NN O O
matrix NN O O
tapping NN O O
, NN O O
so NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
locus NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
task NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
slave NN O O
systems NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
single-task NN O I-INT
random-interval NN O I-INT
repetition NN O O
performance NN O O
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
performance NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
dual-task NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
four NN O O
experiments NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
quality NN O O
of NN O O
tapping NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
differed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
single-task NN O I-INT
and NN O O
the NN O O
dual-task NN O I-INT
conditions NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
recall NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
All NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
discussed NN O O
with NN O O
reference NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
working NN O O
memory NN O O
model NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9532999)

The NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
catheter-tip NN O I-INT
transducers NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
intrauterine NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
reliability NN O O
of NN O O
intrauterine NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
labour NN O O
, NN O O
catheter-tip NN O I-INT
transducers NN O I-INT
were NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
20 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
allocated NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
group NN O O
two NN O O
catheters NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tied NN O O
together NN O O
and NN O O
introduced NN O O
transcervically NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
uterine NN O O
cavity NN O O
after NN O O
delivery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placenta NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
case NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
two NN O O
catheters NN O O
were NN O O
inserted NN O O
independently NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
uterine NN O O
cavity NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cumulative NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
pairs NN O O
of NN O O
catheters NN O I-INT
within NN O O
each NN O O
uterine NN O O
cavity NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
readings NN O O
from NN O O
separate NN O O
transducers NN O O
revealed NN O O
good NN O O
agreement NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
catheters NN O I-INT
were NN O O
tied NN O O
together NN O O
or NN O O
were NN O O
separate NN O O
. NN O O

Cumulative NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
very NN O O
similar NN O O
when NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
each NN O O
catheter NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
uterus NN O O
. NN O O

Intrauterine NN O I-INT
catheter-tip NN O I-INT
transducers NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
reliably NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
uterine NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
third NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
labour NN O I-PAR
although NN O O
there NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
minor NN O O
contraction NN O O
by NN O O
contraction NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
recordings NN O O
of NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
pressures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9546119)

Amoxicillin/metronidazole/omeprazole/clarithromycin NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
short NN O O
quadruple NN O O
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
regimens NN O O
including NN O O
two NN O O
antibiotics NN O O
plus NN O O
acid NN O O
suppression NN O O
have NN O O
become NN O O
the NN O O
new NN O O
standard NN O O
therapy NN O O
in NN O O
Helicobacter NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
success NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
about NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
regimens NN O O
are NN O O
still NN O O
costly NN O O
, NN O O
duration NN O O
is NN O O
about NN O O
one NN O O
week NN O O
or NN O O
less NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
side-effects NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
negligible NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
therefore NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
quadruple NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
because NN O O
theoretically NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
duration NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
reduced NN O O
costs NN O O
, NN O O
fewer NN O O
side-effects NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
possibly NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
antibiotic NN O O
resistances NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Controlled NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
including NN O O
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori-positive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
ulcers NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
erosive NN O I-PAR
gastritis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dual NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
proton-pump-inhibitors NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
ranitidine NN O I-PAR
plus NN O I-PAR
amoxicillin NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
first NN O I-PAR
time NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
They NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
one NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
metronidazole NN O I-INT
400 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
clarithromycin NN O I-INT
250 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
newly NN O I-INT
created NN O I-INT
quadruple-regimen NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
which NN O I-INT
adds NN O I-INT
amoxicillin NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
g NN O I-INT
bid NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
above NN O I-INT
triple NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
four NN O O
drugs NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
checked NN O O
by NN O O
13C NN O I-OUT
urea NN O I-OUT
breath NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
four NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
71 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
quadruple NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
42 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
triple NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
eradication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
under NN O O
quadruple NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
without NN O O
vs. NN O O
with NN O O
previous NN O O
dual NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
96 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
92 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42/44 NN O O
vs. NN O O
22/24 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
per NN O O
protocol NN O O
and NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
88 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
42/46 NN O O
vs. NN O O
22/25 NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
( NN O O
comparisons NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
major NN O O
side-effects NN O O
were NN O O
reported NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Five-day NN O O
quadruple NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O O
, NN O O
metronidazole NN O O
, NN O O
clarithromycin NN O O
and NN O O
amoxicillin NN O O
) NN O O
represents NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
new NN O O
regimen NN O O
for NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
eradication NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9547958)

Simulating NN O O
a NN O O
memory NN O O
impairment NN O O
: NN O O
can NN O O
amnesics NN O I-PAR
implicitly NN O O
outperform NN O O
simulators 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
examine NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
a NN O O
variety NN O O
of NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
differentiating NN O O
simulating NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
performances NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
genuine NN O O
memory-impaired NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
normal NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
test NN O O
performances NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
A NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
was NN O O
implemented NN O O
, NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
analogue NN O O
design NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
normal NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
given NN O O
experimental NN O O
instructions NN O O
to NN O O
feign NN O O
a NN O O
mental NN O O
impairment NN O O
and NN O O
are NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
other NN O O
normal NN O O
participants NN O O
with NN O O
instructions NN O O
to NN O O
perform NN O O
honestly NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
b NN O O
) NN O O
a NN O O
comparison NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
example NN O O
, NN O O
acquired NN O I-PAR
brain-injured NN O I-PAR
persons NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
similar NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

METHOD NN O O
Forty NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
simulating NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O I-INT
assigned NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
simulating NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
groups NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
memory-impaired NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
whom NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
suffering NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
memory NN O I-PAR
impairment NN O I-PAR
following NN O I-PAR
acquired NN O I-PAR
brain NN O I-PAR
damage NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
memory-impaired NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-INT
simulation NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
imitate NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
person NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
memory NN O I-INT
impairment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measure NN O I-OUT
involved NN O O
identifying NN O I-OUT
those NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
if NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
where NN O I-OUT
simulators NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
different NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
memory-impaired NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
On NN O O
5 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
15 NN O O
tasks NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
simulators NN O I-OUT
performed NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
differently NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
memory-impaired NN O I-OUT
participants NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
5 NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
coin-in-the-hand NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
in NN O O
conjunction NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
autobiographical NN O O
interview NN O O
, NN O O
identified NN O O
95 NN O O
per NN O O
cent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
simulators NN O O
without NN O O
misclassifying NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
memory-impaired NN O O
or NN O O
normal NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
It NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
administered NN O O
jointly NN O O
, NN O O
might NN O O
be NN O O
of NN O O
use NN O O
in NN O O
clinical NN O O
settings NN O O
to NN O O
assist NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
malingerers NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9553664)

The NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmastectomy NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
randomized NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
frequently NN O O
prescribed NN O O
physical NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
affected NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
postmastectomy NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
but NN O O
, NN O O
despite NN O O
its NN O O
wide NN O O
use NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
efficacy NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
performed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
comparing NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
no NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
postmastectomy NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
monolateral NN O I-PAR
postmastectomy NN O I-PAR
lymphedema NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
two NN O O
cycles NN O O
of NN O O
intermittent NN O O
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
( NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
i.e. NN O O
, NN O O
five NN O O
two-hour NN O O
sessions NN O O
per NN O O
week NN O O
for NN O O
two NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
repeated NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
five-week NN O O
interval NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
no NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
instructed NN O O
as NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
hygienic NN O O
care NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
limb NN O O
. NN O O

Lymphedema NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
sum NN O O
of NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
circumference NN O I-OUT
measurements NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
affected NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
normal NN O I-OUT
limbs NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
'delta NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Response NN O O
was NN O O
defined NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
delta NN O O
value NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Eighty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
entered NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
: NN O O
20 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
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
9 NN O O
% NN O O
-36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
: NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
-41 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.59 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
absolute NN O O
mean NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
delta NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.7 NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PC NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
0.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
3.3 NN O O
cm NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
We NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
intermittent NN O I-INT
pneumatic NN O I-INT
compression NN O I-INT
has NN O O
a NN O O
limited NN O O
clinical NN O O
role NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
postmastectomy NN O O
lymphedema NN O O
. NN O O

Efforts NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
this NN O O
complication NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
undertaken NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9553982)

Determinants NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O O
and NN O O
specific NN O O
IgE NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ETAC NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Atopic NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ETAC NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
Early NN O I-PAR
Treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Atopic NN O I-PAR
Child NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
multi-centre NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
investigate NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
potential NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
cetirizine NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
prevent NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
development NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
completed NN O O
enrollment NN O O
: NN O O
817 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
been NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
' NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
either NN O O
active NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
subsequent NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
effects NN O O
will NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
available NN O O
for NN O O
some NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
has NN O O
provided NN O O
an NN O O
opportunity NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
influences NN O O
on NN O O
sensitization NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
allergens NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O O
large NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1-2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
olds NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
already NN O I-PAR
established NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
resident NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
environments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
study NN O O
shows NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
atopic NN O I-PAR
dermatitis NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
raised NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
determinants NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
allergen NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
infancy NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
IgE NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
more NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
factors NN O O
increasing NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
intercurrent NN O O
infection NN O O
and NN O O
non-specific NN O O
airway NN O O
inflammation NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
environmental NN O O
tobacco NN O O
smoke NN O O
exposure 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
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
gas NN O O
cookers NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Specific NN O O
allergen NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
represented NN O O
by NN O O
detectable NN O O
IgE NN O I-OUT
antibodies NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
influenced NN O O
primarily NN O O
by NN O O
allergen NN O O
exposure NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
Sweden NN O O
, NN O O
low NN O O
level NN O O
exposure NN O O
to NN O O
allergens NN O O
is NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
reduced NN O O
specific NN O I-OUT
allergen NN O I-OUT
sensitization NN O I-OUT
rates NN O O
even NN O O
though NN O O
the NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
already NN O O
have NN O O
atopic NN O O
dermatitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9558860)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
normothermic NN O I-INT
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
systemic NN O O
metabolism NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
temperature NN O O
during NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
elective NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
hypothermia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
normothermia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Serial NN O O
hemodynamic NN O O
parameters NN O O
and NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

CPB NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
CPB NN O I-INT
[ NN O O
= NN O O
( NN O O
platelets NN O O
before NN O O
CPB-platelets NN O O
after NN O O
CPB NN O O
) NN O O
/platelets NN O O
before NN O O
CPB NN O O
] NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
normothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
dependent NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
rectal NN O O
temperature NN O O
during NN O O
CPB NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
operation NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
CPB NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
postoperative NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
hypothermic NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
abnormally NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
reduced NN O I-OUT
cardiac NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
compared NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
normothermic NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
2 NN O O
groups NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hepatic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
renal NN O I-OUT
functions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
oxygen NN O I-OUT
consumption NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
arterial-venous NN O I-OUT
PCO2 NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
arterial-venous NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
gradient NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
suggested NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
normothermic NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hemodynamics NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Normothermic NN O I-INT
CPB NN O I-INT
was NN O O
not NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
metabolic NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9562733)

[ NN O O
Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
vascular NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
cerebral NN O O
ischemia NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
origin NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
ESPRIT NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
mild NN O I-INT
anticoagulant NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
? NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
European NN O O
and NN O O
Australian NN O O
Stroke NN O O
Prevention NN O O
in NN O O
Reversible NN O O
Ischaemia NN O O
Trial NN O O
( NN O O
ESPRIT NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
ischaemia NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
arterial NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
will NN O O
be NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
anticoagulation NN O I-INT
( 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
: NN O O
2.0-3.0 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
dose NN O O
between NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O O
dipyridamole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
400 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
acetylsalicylic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
only NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
dose NN O O
between NN O O
30 NN O O
and NN O O
325 NN O O
mg NN O O
per NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
is NN O O
planned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
enroll NN O I-PAR
4500 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Primary NN O O
outcome NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
composite NN O I-OUT
event NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
myocardial NN O I-OUT
infarction NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O O
assessment NN O O
will NN O O
be NN O O
blinded NN O O
. NN O O

ESPRIT NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
international NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
multicentre NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
which NN O I-PAR
60-80 NN O I-PAR
hospitals NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Europe NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Australia NN O I-PAR
will NN O I-PAR
participate NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9564194)

The NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
measurement NN O O
error NN O O
in NN O O
multisite NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
implementation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
multisite NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
psychopharmacologic NN O O
trial NN O O
involves NN O O
a NN O O
substantial NN O O
investment NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
and NN O O
effort NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
participants NN O O
. NN O O

Because NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
complexity NN O O
, NN O O
such NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
present NN O O
unique NN O O
methodological NN O O
and NN O O
design NN O O
challenges NN O O
. NN O O

Indeed NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
uncommon NN O O
for NN O O
such NN O O
studies NN O O
to NN O O
conclude NN O O
with NN O O
uninterpretable NN O O
results NN O O
, NN O O
due NN O O
in NN O O
part NN O O
to NN O O
such NN O O
methodological NN O O
pitfalls NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
clarification NN O O
of NN O O
such NN O O
methodologic NN O O
dilemmas NN O O
is NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
important NN O O
challenges NN O O
facing NN O O
the NN O O
future NN O O
of NN O O
industry-sponsored NN O O
psychopharmacologic NN O O
drug NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

Among NN O O
the NN O O
many NN O O
factors NN O O
that NN O O
may NN O O
contribute NN O O
to NN O O
problematic NN O O
clinical NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
error NN O O
in NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
phenomena NN O O
being NN O O
studied NN O O
is NN O O
of NN O O
particular NN O O
concern NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
article NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O I-INT
series NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
interrater NN O I-INT
reliability NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
sessions NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
17-item NN O I-INT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
conducted NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
Phase NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
multisite NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
drug NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
data NN O O
underscore NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
error NN O I-OUT
present NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
such NN O O
a NN O O
test NN O O
setting NN O O
and NN O O
provide NN O O
preliminary NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
problem NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
clinical NN O O
change NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9570244)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
eradication NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
is NN O O
often NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
three-drug NN O O
regimen NN O O
comprising NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
has NN O O
been NN O O
proposed NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
therapy NN O O
. 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
comparative NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Sixty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
gastric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
duodenal NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
recurrence NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
dual NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
three NN O O
times NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
with NN O O
metronidazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
) NN O O
plus NN O I-INT
amoxycillin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
given NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
dosages NN O O
as NN O O
dual NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
discontinued NN O O
because NN O O
of NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
in NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
three NN O O
patients NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
the NN O O
basis NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
triple NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
20/23 NN O I-OUT
cases NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
87.0 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
95 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
confidence NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
0.664-0.972 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
dual NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
13/25 NN O O
, NN O O
52.0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
0.313-0.722 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
an NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
basis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
marginally NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.06 NN O O
[ NN O O
0.028-0.512 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
reported NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
five NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
triple NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
; NN O O
nausea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
; NN O O
headache NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
; NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
receiving NN O I-OUT
dual NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
skin NN O I-OUT
rash NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
two NN O O
; NN O O
abdominal NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
; NN O O
diarrhoea NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
one NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
resolved NN O I-OUT
spontaneously NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
termination NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
no NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
between NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
two NN O I-OUT
regimens NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Triple NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
metronidazole NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
amoxycillin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
omeprazole NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
eradication NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
H. NN O I-OUT
pylori NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
dual NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
amoxycillin NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
omeprazole NN O I-OUT
alone NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
regimens NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
triple NN O O
therapy NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
clinically NN O O
acceptable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9572066)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
myocardial NN O O
metabolism NN O O
: NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
open NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiac NN O O
performance NN O O
after NN O O
open NN O O
heart NN O O
surgery NN O O
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
balanced NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
in NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preoperative NN O O
haemodynamic NN O O
status NN O O
was NN O O
good NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
. NN O O

Seventeen NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
mitral NN O I-INT
valve NN O I-INT
replacement NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
19 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
coronary NN O I-INT
artery NN O I-INT
bypass NN O I-INT
grafting NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Five NN O O
grams NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
were NN O O
given NN O O
intravenously NN O O
over NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
for NN O O
5 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
moreover NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
g NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
1500 NN O I-INT
ml NN O I-INT
cardioplegia NN O I-INT
were NN O O
administered NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
aortic NN O O
root NN O O
after NN O O
aortic NN O I-INT
cross-clamping NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Surgery NN O O
was NN O O
always NN O O
planned NN O O
on NN O O
treatment NN O O
day NN O O
3 NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
post-ischaemic NN O O
functional NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
heart NN O O
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
by NN O O
clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
by NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
ultrastructure NN O O
evaluations NN O O
on NN O O
biopsy NN O O
specimens NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
all NN O O
clinical NN O O
parameters NN O O
of NN O O
cardiac NN O O
performance NN O O
after NN O O
cardiopulmonary NN O O
bypass NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
anaesthesia NN O O
induction NN O O
, NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
carnitine NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
in NN O O
treated NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
carnitine NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
atrial NN O O
biopsy NN O O
obtained NN O O
just NN O O
before NN O O
aortic NN O O
declamping NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
mitral NN O O
valve NN O O
replacement NN O O
, NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
pyruvate NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
ATP NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
creatine NN O I-OUT
phosphate NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
papillary NN O O
muscle NN O O
. NN O O

Glycogen NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Myocardial NN O O
ultrastructure NN O O
on NN O O
septal NN O O
biopsies NN O O
, NN O O
obtained NN O O
within NN O O
5 NN O O
min NN O O
from NN O O
weaning NN O O
from NN O O
extracorporeal NN O O
circulation NN O O
, NN O O
showed NN O O
better NN O O
preservation NN O O
scores NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
considered NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
nucleus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
sarcoplasmic NN O I-OUT
reticulum NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
mitochondria NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cellular NN O I-OUT
oedema NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
reached NN O O
statistical NN O O
significance NN O O
only NN O O
for NN O O
nuclei NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
biochemical NN O O
and NN O O
ultrastructural NN O O
data NN O O
are NN O O
considered NN O O
, NN O O
these NN O O
findings NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
L-carnitine NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
myocardial NN O I-OUT
metabolism NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
can NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
L-carnitine NN O O
provides NN O O
an NN O O
advantageous NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
well-compensated NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
cardiac NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
L-carnitine NN O O
on NN O O
cardiac NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
bypass NN O O
might NN O O
become NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
surgical NN O O
setting NN O O
for NN O O
haemodynamically NN O I-PAR
compromised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
further NN O O
investigations NN O O
are NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9572900)

Scintigraphic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O I-INT
capsule-type NN O I-INT
colon NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Colonic NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
is NN O O
intended NN O O
for NN O O
local NN O O
or NN O O
systemic NN O O
therapies NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
predictive NN O O
in NN O O
vitro NN O O
or NN O O
animal NN O O
model NN O O
leads NN O O
to NN O O
considerable NN O O
time NN O O
delays NN O O
in NN O O
colonic NN O O
product NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
scintigraphic NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
proof NN O O
of NN O O
concept NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
capsule-type NN O I-INT
colonic NN O I-INT
delivery NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Colon-Targeted NN O I-INT
Delivery NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
human NN O O
data NN O O
validates NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
concept NN O O
behind NN O O
the NN O O
release NN O O
mechanism NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
that NN O O
capsule NN O O
disintegration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
hence NN O O
drug NN O I-OUT
release NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
start NN O O
until NN O O
5 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
gastric NN O O
emptying NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
product NN O O
was NN O O
administered NN O O
to NN O O
fasted NN O O
or NN O O
fed NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
potential NN O O
for NN O O
prolonged NN O O
gastric NN O O
residence NN O O
for NN O O
large NN O O
enteric NN O O
coated NN O O
products NN O O
intended NN O O
for NN O O
intestinal NN O O
targeting NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
; NN O O
overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
provides NN O O
a NN O O
focus NN O O
for NN O O
subsequent NN O O
product NN O O
development NN O O
and NN O O
highlights NN O O
the NN O O
role NN O O
of NN O O
scintigraphy NN O O
in NN O O
dynamically NN O O
visualizing NN O O
the NN O O
drug NN O O
delivery NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9581739)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
single- NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dual-coil NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
pectoral NN O I-INT
defibrillation NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
systems NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
compare NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
with NN O O
lead NN O O
systems NN O O
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
left NN O O
pectoral NN O O
electrode NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
single NN O I-INT
or NN O O
dual NN O I-INT
transvenous NN O I-INT
coils NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Lead NN O O
systems NN O O
that NN O O
include NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
pectoral NN O O
pulse NN O O
generator NN O O
reduce NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
thresholds NN O O
and NN O O
permit NN O O
transvenous NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
in NN O O
nearly NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
further NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
desirable NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
for NN O O
smaller NN O O
pulse NN O O
generators NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
reduced NN O O
maximal NN O O
output NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
in NN O O
50 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
with NN O O
two NN O O
lead NN O I-INT
configurations NN O I-INT
with NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
of NN O O
testing NN O O
randomized NN O O
. NN O O

Shocks NN O O
were NN O O
delivered NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
coil NN O O
and NN O O
either NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
can NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O O
can NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
proximal NN O O
atrial NN O O
coil NN O O
( NN O I-INT
dual NN O I-INT
coil NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

The NN O O
right NN O O
ventricular NN O O
coil NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
cathode NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
biphasic NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
waveform NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Delivered NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
10.1+/-5.0 NN O O
J NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
single-coil NN O I-INT
configuration NN O O
and NN O O
8.7+/-4.0 NN O O
J NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
dual-coil NN O I-INT
configuration NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Moreover NN O O
, NN O O
98 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
J NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
thresholds NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
the NN O O
dual-coil NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-PAR
system NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
88 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
single-coil NN O I-INT
configuration NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
p=0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Leading NN O I-OUT
edge NN O I-OUT
voltage NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
shock NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
decreased NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
dual-coil NN O I-INT
configuration NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
current NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
increased NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
A NN O O
dual-coil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
active NN O O
pectoral NN O O
lead NN O O
system NN O O
reduces NN O O
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
energy NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
single-coil NN O I-INT
, NN O O
unipolar NN O O
configuration NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9585295)

Quantifying NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
analgesic NN O I-INT
consumption NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O O
method NN O O
and NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
patient-controlled NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-PAR
analgesic NN O I-INT
consumption NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9587285)

Evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
inferior NN O I-PAR
alveolar NN O I-PAR
nerve NN O I-PAR
block NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
3.6 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
% NN O O
lidocaine NN O I-INT
solutions NN O I-INT
with NN O O
either NN O O
1:50,000 NN O O
, NN O O
1:80,000 NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
1:100,000 NN O O
for NN O O
inferior NN O O
alveolar NN O O
nerve NN O O
block NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
obtained NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
1.8 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
solutions NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
received NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
inferior NN O I-INT
alveolar NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
at NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
successive NN O I-PAR
appointments NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
first NN O O
molar NN O O
, NN O O
first NN O O
premolar NN O O
, NN O O
lateral NN O O
incisor NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
contralateral NN O O
canine NN O O
( NN O O
control NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
blindly NN O O
tested NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
Analytic NN O O
Technology NN O O
pulp NN O O
tester NN O O
at NN O O
3-min NN O O
cycles NN O O
for NN O O
50 NN O O
min NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
anesthesia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
comparable NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
solutions NN O O
following NN O O
the NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
3.6 NN O O
ml NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
solution NN O O
. NN O O

Retrospective NN O O
evaluation NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
solution NN O O
influenced NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9589305)

Anti-tumor NN O I-INT
necrosis NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
alpha NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Crohn NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
guided NN O O
missile NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9607867)

Humoral NN O I-OUT
immune NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
tetanus-diphtheria NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
given NN O O
during NN O O
extended NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
primaquine NN O I-INT
malaria NN O I-INT
chemoprophylaxis NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Immune NN O I-OUT
suppression NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
prolonged NN O O
chemoprophylaxis NN O O
and NN O O
potential NN O O
drug-vaccine NN O O
interaction NN O O
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
context NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
that NN O O
compared NN O O
daily NN O O
primaquine NN O I-INT
or NN O O
weekly NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
for NN O O
malaria NN O O
prevention NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
, NN O O
adult NN O I-PAR
male NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
a NN O O
tetanus-diphtheria NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Td NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prophylaxis NN O O
continued NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
longer NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-tetanus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-diphtheria NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
ELISA NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
7 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
Td NN O O
vaccination NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
comparable NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
. NN O O

Immunization NN O O
triggered NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
anti-tetanus NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anti-diphtheria NN O I-OUT
IgG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
over NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
's NN O O
pre-Td NN O O
baseline NN O O
levels NN O O
and NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
an NN O O
unvaccinated NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Geometric NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
anti-tetanus 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
primaquine NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Anti-tetanus NN O I-OUT
GMTs NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
chloroquine NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
declined NN O O
over NN O O
14 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
levels NN O O
comparable NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
of NN O O
unvaccinated NN O O
controls NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primaquine NN O O
group NN O O
remained NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
controls NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9609624)

Long-term NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
in NN O O
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
extension NN O O
of NN O O
phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Tamsulosin NN O O
Investigator NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
once-daily NN O O
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.4 NN O O
and NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
unique NN O O
selective NN O O
alpha1A-adrenoceptor NN O O
antagonist NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
prostatic NN O I-PAR
hyperplasia NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
BPH NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
trial NN O O
extended NN O O
a NN O O
13-week NN O O
, NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
multicenter NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
outpatient NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
additional NN O O
40 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
618 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
418 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
continued NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
extension NN O O
phase NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
double-blind NN O O
medication NN O O
and NN O O
dose NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameters NN O O
were NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
American NN O I-OUT
Urological NN O I-OUT
Association NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Qmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
mean NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
AUA NN O I-OUT
symptom NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
to NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
were NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
improvements NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
Qmax NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
both NN O O
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
groups NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
improvements NN O I-OUT
from NN O O
baseline NN O O
in NN O O
efficacy NN O O
parameters NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
tamsulosin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
13-week NN O O
Phase NN O O
III NN O O
trial NN O O
were NN O O
maintained NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
extension NN O O
phase NN O O
. NN O O

Tamsulosin NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
dosages NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
maintenance NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
orthostatic NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
not NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Vital NN O I-OUT
sign NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
hypertensive NN O O
or NN O O
normotensive NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
clinically NN O O
significantly NN O O
different NN O O
across NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Tamsulosin NN O I-INT
once-daily NN O O
at NN O O
0.4 NN O O
or NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
effective NN O O
, NN O O
safe NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
target NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
population NN O I-PAR
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
use NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9632036)

A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
nefazodone NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
There NN O O
are NN O O
few NN O O
published NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
newer NN O O
antidepressants NN O O
in NN O O
markedly NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
severely NN O I-PAR
depressed NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
demonstrates NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
nefazodone NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHOD NN O O
Nefazodone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
were NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
6-week NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
120 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
hospitalized NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
DSM-III-R NN O I-PAR
diagnosed NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
psychosis NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
centers NN O O
. NN O O

Efficacy NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
using NN O O
standard NN O I-OUT
psychiatric NN O I-OUT
rating NN O I-OUT
scales NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
safety NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Nefazodone NN O O
treatment NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
17-item NN O I-OUT
Hamilton NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
HAM-D-17 NN O O
) NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
treatment NN O O
week NN O O
through 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
-12.2 NN O O
nefazodone NN O I-INT
vs. NN O O
-7.7 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

At NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
nefazodone-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
responded NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
indicated NN O O
by NN O O
their NN O O
Clinical NN O I-OUT
Global NN O I-OUT
Impressions-Improvement NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.021 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
by NN O O
a NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
HAM-D-17 NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.017 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significantly NN O O
more NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nefazodone NN O I-INT
( NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
HAM-D-17 NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
10 NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
.004 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Significant NN O O
treatment NN O O
differences NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
favor NN O O
of NN O O
nefazodone NN O O
were NN O O
also NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
Montgomery-Asberg NN O I-OUT
Depression NN O I-OUT
Rating NN O I-OUT
Scale NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
HAM-D NN O I-OUT
retardation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
anxiety NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sleep NN O I-OUT
disturbance NN O I-OUT
factors NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
HAM-D NN O I-OUT
item NN O I-OUT
1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
depressed NN O O
mood NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
dysthymia NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
addition NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-OUT
depression NN O I-OUT
also NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
improvement NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
when NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
nefazodone NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
rates NN O O
seen NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
nefazodone NN O I-OUT
dose NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
491 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
week NN O O
2 NN O O
and NN O O
503 NN O O
mg/day NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Nefazodone NN O O
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
discontinuing NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
safety NN O O
issues NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Fewer NN O O
nefazodone-treated NN O I-INT
than NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
discontinued NN O O
owing NN O O
to NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Nefazodone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
marked NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
severe NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
depression NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
requiring NN O I-PAR
hospitalization NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
nefazodone NN O I-INT
was NN O O
evident NN O O
as NN O O
early NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
judged NN O O
by NN O O
several NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
efficacy NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
from NN O O
placebo NN O O
sustained NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9642484)

Proposed NN O O
synergistic NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blockers NN O I-INT
with NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
retarding NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
now NN O O
has NN O O
undoubtedly NN O O
proven NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
modality NN O O
to NN O O
retard NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
An NN O O
additional NN O O
approach NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
channel NN O I-INT
blocker NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CCB NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Evidence NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
inhibit NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
is NN O O
less NN O O
unequivocal NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
clear NN O O
evidence NN O O
for NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Many NN O O
investigations NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
view NN O O
that NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
key NN O O
processes NN O O
in NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
. NN O O

From NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
and NN O O
positive NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
performed NN O O
in NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
we NN O O
must NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
apparently NN O O
some NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
all NN O O
, NN O O
types NN O O
or NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atherosclerotic NN O O
process NN O O
are NN O O
inhibited NN O O
by NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
. NN O O

To NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
lipid-lowering NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
may NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
additive NN O O
or NN O O
synergistic NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
human NN O O
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
is NN O O
conceivable NN O O
because NN O O
their NN O O
anti-atherosclerotic NN O O
properties NN O O
differ NN O O
, NN O O
data NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
angiographic NN O I-PAR
lipid-lowering NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
REGRESS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
vs. NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
reviewed NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
REGRESS NN O O
, NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
cotreated NN O O
with NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
cotreatment NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
new NN O I-OUT
lesion NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
less NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
new NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
if NN O O
cotreated NN O O
with NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
cotreatment NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
again NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
CCB NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
2-year NN O O
study NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
view NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
angiographic NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
in NN O O
several NN O O
large NN O O
trials NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
unrealistic NN O O
to NN O O
also NN O O
anticipate NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
events NN O O
with NN O O
longer NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
REGRESS NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
combination NN O O
therapy NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
CCBs NN O I-INT
to NN O O
HMG-CoA NN O O
reductase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
therapy NN O O
( NN O I-INT
pravastatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
acts NN O O
synergistically NN O O
in NN O O
retarding NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
established NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
atherosclerosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
These NN O O
results NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
warrant NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trials NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
definitive NN O O
manner NN O O
the NN O O
merits NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of 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 I-OUT
Currently NN O O
a NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
studies NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
fields NN O O
are NN O O
being NN O O
designed NN O O
or NN O O
are NN O O
already NN O O
underway NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9647338)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
aldose NN O I-INT
reductase NN O I-INT
inhibition NN O O
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
diabetic NN O I-PAR
autonomic NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
over NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
period NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
aldose NN O O
reductase NN O O
inhibitor NN O O
tolrestat NN O I-INT
to NN O O
ameliorate NN O O
definite NN O O
diabetic NN O O
autonomic NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
( NN O O
DAN NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
defined NN O O
by NN O O
standard NN O O
cardiovascular NN O O
autonomic NN O O
function NN O O
tests NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
in NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
over NN O O
a NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
years NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
repeated NN O O
measurements NN O O
at NN O O
3-month NN O O
intervals NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
tolrestat NN O I-INT
( NN O O
200 NN O O
mg NN O O
a NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
on NN O O
35 NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
diabetes NN O I-PAR
mellitus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
similar NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gender NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
glycemic NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
deterioration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
indices NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
exception NN O O
of NN O O
Valsalva NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
tolrestat NN O I-INT
induced NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
beneficial NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
values NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
deep NN O I-OUT
breathing NN O I-OUT
tests NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
expiration-inspiration NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
standard NN O I-OUT
deviation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
circular NN O I-OUT
resultant NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
R-R NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
postural NN O I-OUT
index NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postural NN O I-OUT
hypotension NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
favorably NN O O
affected NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O O
of NN O O
35 NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
tolrestat NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8.6 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
developed NN O O
high NN O I-OUT
transaminases NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
threefold NN O O
the NN O O
upper NN O O
normal NN O O
limit NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
withdrawn NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
tolrestat NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
autonomic NN O I-OUT
nervous NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
function NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
definite NN O I-PAR
DAN NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
comparison NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
placebo NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
clinical NN O O
importance NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
finding NN O O
needs NN O O
further NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9647873)

Prevention NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
stroke NN O O
by NN O O
transfusions NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
transcranial NN O I-PAR
Doppler NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Blood NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
prevent NN O O
recurrent NN O O
stroke NN O O
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
transfusions NN O O
in NN O O
preventing NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
stroke NN O O
is NN O O
unknown NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
used NN O O
transcranial NN O O
Doppler NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
to NN O O
identify NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
high NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
them NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
or NN O O
transfusions NN O O
to NN O O
prevent NN O O
a NN O O
first NN O O
stroke NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
To NN O O
enter NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
history NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
stroke NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
transcranial NN O I-PAR
Doppler NN O I-PAR
studies NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
showed NN O I-PAR
that NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
time-averaged NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
blood-flow NN O I-PAR
velocity NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
internal NN O I-PAR
carotid NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
middle NN O I-PAR
cerebral NN O I-PAR
artery NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
200 NN O I-PAR
cm NN O I-PAR
per NN O I-PAR
second NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
higher NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
transfusions NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
S NN O O
concentration NN O O
to NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
30 NN O O
percent NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O O
hemoglobin NN O O
concentration NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
( NN O O
cerebral NN O O
infarction NN O O
or NN O O
intracranial NN O O
hemorrhage NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
130 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
[ NN O I-PAR
+/-SD NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
8.3+/-3.3 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
transfusions NN O O
and NN O O
67 NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
standard NN O O
care NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
base NN O O
line NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
hemoglobin NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
7.2 NN O O
vs. NN O O
7.6 NN O O
g NN O O
per NN O O
deciliter NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
hematocrit NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20.4 NN O O
vs. NN O O
21.7 NN O O
percent NN O O
, NN O O
P=0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O O
patients NN O O
dropped NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
two NN O O
patients NN O O
crossed NN O O
over NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
standard-care NN O O
group NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
10 NN O O
cerebral NN O I-OUT
infarctions NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
1 NN O O
intracerebral NN O I-OUT
hematoma NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
standard-care NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
1 NN O O
infarction NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
transfusion NN O O
group NN O O
-- NN O O
a NN O O
92 NN O O
percent NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
stroke NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
result NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
termination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Transfusion NN O I-INT
greatly NN O O
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sickle NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
anemia NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
abnormal NN O I-PAR
results NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
transcranial NN O I-PAR
Doppler NN O I-PAR
ultrasonography NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9648960)

Bronchodilator NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
after NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
recovery NN O O
from NN O O
nonspecific NN O O
bronchial NN O O
provocation NN O O
tests NN O O
in NN O O
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
by NN O O
bronchoprovocation NN O O
and NN O O
bronchodilatation NN O O
tests NN O O
is NN O O
important NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
work-up NN O O
protocol NN O O
of NN O O
bronchial NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
it NN O O
would NN O O
be NN O O
convenient NN O O
to NN O O
undertake NN O O
both NN O O
tests NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
occasion NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
whether NN O O
this NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
done NN O O
accurately NN O O
. NN O O

Therefore NN O O
, NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
evaluated NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prior NN O O
bronchial NN O O
provocation NN O O
test NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
after NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
recovery NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
second NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
On NN O O
two NN O O
separate NN O O
occasions NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
time NN O O
of NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
concentration-response NN O O
studies NN O O
with NN O O
inhaled NN O O
histamine NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
methacholine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
sham NN O I-INT
challenge NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
normal NN O I-INT
saline NN O I-INT
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
manner NN O O
. NN O O

Changes NN O O
in NN O O
airway NN O O
calibre NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
as NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
agonist NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
provocative NN O O
concentration NN O O
causing NN O O
a NN O O
20 NN O O
% NN O O
fall NN O O
in NN O O
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
PC20 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
either NN O O
spontaneous NN O O
recovery NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
fixed-duration NN O O
wait NN O O
of NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
when NN O O
appropriate NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
2x100 NN O O
microg NN O O
of NN O O
salbutamol NN O I-INT
from NN O O
a NN O O
metered NN O O
dose NN O O
inhaler NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
spacer NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
was NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
percentage NN O O
of NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
FEV1 NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
deltaFEV1 NN O O
% NN O O
init NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Bronchial NN O O
challenge NN O O
with NN O O
both NN O O
agonists NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
alter NN O O
significantly NN O O
the NN O O
airway NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
deltaFEV1 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
init NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
range NN O O
) NN O O
being NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
9.0-31.9 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
17.5 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
11.6-31.2 NN O O
) NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
sham NN O O
and NN O O
histamine/methacholine NN O O
challenge NN O O
day NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

It NN O O
was NN O O
shown NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
bronchodilatation NN O O
achieved NN O O
after NN O O
salbutamol NN O O
200 NN O O
microg NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
prior NN O O
bronchoprovocation NN O O
testing NN O O
when NN O O
enough NN O O
time NN O O
is NN O O
allowed NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
airways NN O O
to NN O O
recover NN O O
spontaneously NN O O
to NN O O
baseline NN O O
forced NN O O
expiratory NN O O
volume NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
second NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
airway NN O O
responsiveness NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
bronchial NN O O
provocation NN O O
tests NN O O
and NN O O
bronchodilator NN O O
testing NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
reliably NN O O
within NN O O
a NN O O
few NN O O
hours NN O O
in NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9652561)

Randomised NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
rhesus-human NN O I-INT
reassortant NN O I-INT
rotavirus NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
rotavirus NN O I-OUT
gastroenteritis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Rotavirus NN O O
is NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
common NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
childhood NN O O
gastroenteritis NN O O
. NN O O

Vaccination NN O O
with NN O O
live NN O O
oral NN O O
heterologous NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
vaccines NN O O
may NN O O
prevent NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
gastroenteritis NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
assessed NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
rhesus-human NN O I-INT
reassortant NN O I-INT
rotavirus NN O I-INT
tetravalent NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
RRV-TV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
against NN O O
severe NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
gastroenteritis NN O O
in NN O O
Finnish NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
RRV-TV NN O I-INT
( NN O O
titre NN O O
4x10 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
plaque-forming NN O O
units NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
given NN O O
to NN O O
infants NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
children NN O O
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
epidemic NN O O
seasons NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
protection NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
rotavirus NN O I-OUT
gastroenteritis NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
score NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=11 NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
20-point NN O O
severity NN O O
scale NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

2398 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
received NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
RRV-TV NN O O
( NN O O
n=1191 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=1207 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
children NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
three NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
RRV-TV NN O O
( NN O O
n=1128 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
n=1145 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
256 NN O O
episodes NN O O
of NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
gastroenteritis NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
; NN O O
65 NN O O
were NN O O
among NN O O
1191 NN O O
RRV-TV NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
191 NN O O
among NN O O
1207 NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
vaccine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
66 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
55-74 NN O O
] NN O O
; NN O O
intention-to-treat NN O O
analysis NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

226 NN O O
episodes NN O O
were NN O O
included NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
fully NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
children NN O O
( NN O O
54 NN O O
among NN O O
1128 NN O O
RRV-TV NN O O
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
172 NN O O
among NN O O
1145 NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
; NN O O
vaccine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
68 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
57-76 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

100 NN O O
episodes NN O O
were NN O O
severe NN O O
, NN O O
eight NN O O
in NN O O
RRV-TV NN O I-INT
recipients NN O O
and NN O O
92 NN O O
in NN O O
placebo NN O O
recipients NN O O
( NN O O
vaccine NN O O
efficacy NN O O
91 NN O O
% NN O O
[ NN O O
82-96 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
RRV-TV NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
highly NN O O
effective NN O O
against NN O O
severe NN O O
rotavirus NN O O
gastroenteritis NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Incorporation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
vaccine NN O O
into NN O O
routine NN O O
immunisation NN O O
schedules NN O O
of NN O O
infants NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
rotavirus NN O I-OUT
gastroenteritis NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
90 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
gastroenteritis NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
all NN O O
causes NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O O
children NN O O
by NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9652612)

Randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
gangrenous NN O I-PAR
cholecystitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Laparoscopic NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
has NN O O
become NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
elective NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
controversy NN O O
persists NN O O
over NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O I-PAR
cholecystitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
We NN O O
undertook NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
comparison NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
safety NN O O
and NN O O
outcome NN O O
of NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
open NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
cholecystitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
63 NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
68 NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
met NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
cholecystitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
OC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
LC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
work NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

Suspected NN O I-OUT
bile-duct NN O I-OUT
stones NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
by NN O O
preoperative NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
retrograde NN O O
cholangiography NN O O
( NN O I-INT
LC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
intraoperative NN O I-INT
cholangiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
OC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
The NN O O
two NN O O
randomised NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
demographic NN O O
, NN O O
physical NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
. NN O O

48 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
59 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
were NN O O
older NN O O
than NN O O
60 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

13 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
gangrene NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
empyema NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
one NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
perforation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
gallbladder NN O I-OUT
causing NN O I-OUT
diffuse NN O I-OUT
peritonitis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Five NN O O
( NN O O
16 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
required NN O O
conversion NN O O
to NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
most NN O O
because NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
distorted NN O O
the NN O O
anatomy NN O O
of NN O O
Calot NN O O
's NN O O
triangle NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
deaths NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bile-duct NN O I-OUT
lesions NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complication NN O I-OUT
rate NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.0048 NN O O
) NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
: NN O O
seven NN O O
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
major NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
( NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
minor NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
only NN O O
one NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
minor NN O O
complication NN O O
occurred NN O O
after NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
than NN O O
the NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
median NN O O
4 NN O O
[ NN O O
IQR NN O O
2-5 NN O O
] NN O O
vs NN O O
6 NN O O
[ NN O O
5-8 NN O O
] NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
p=0.0063 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
length NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
sick NN O I-OUT
leave NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
shorter NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
13.9 NN O O
vs NN O O
30.1 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
for NN O O
difference NN O O
10.9-21.7 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
Even NN O O
though NN O O
LC NN O I-INT
for NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
gangrenous NN O O
cholecystitis NN O O
is NN O O
technically NN O O
demanding NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
experienced NN O O
hands NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
effective NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
morbidity NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
even NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
OC NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
However NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
moderately NN O O
high NN O O
conversion NN O O
rate NN O O
must NN O O
be NN O O
accepted NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9660035)

Zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
311C90 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
interact NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Zomig NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
formerly NN O I-INT
311C90 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
selective NN O I-INT
5-hydroxytryptamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-HT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
1B/1D-receptor NN O I-INT
agonist NN O I-INT
with NN O O
central NN O O
and NN O O
peripheral NN O O
activity NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
migraine NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pharmacokinetics NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
pharmacodynamics NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zolmitriptan NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
given NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
doses NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
identical NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
28 NN O I-PAR
days NN O I-PAR
prior NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mg NN O I-PAR
oral NN O I-PAR
dose NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Sixteen NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
phases NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
pharmacokinetic NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zolmitriptan NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
its NN O I-OUT
metabolites NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
pharmacodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
zolmitriptan NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
also NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
pretreatment NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
small NN O O
, NN O O
clinically NN O O
insignificant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
which NN O O
were NN O O
unaltered NN O O
by NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
was NN O O
well NN O I-OUT
tolerated NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
given NN O O
alone NN O O
or NN O O
concomitantly NN O O
with NN O O
fluoxetine NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
no NN O O
contraindication NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
concurrently NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
selective NN O I-INT
serotonin NN O I-INT
reuptake NN O I-INT
inhibitors NN O I-INT
and NN O O
that NN O O
no NN O O
adjustment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
zolmitriptan NN O I-INT
dose NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
in NN O O
these NN O O
circumstances NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9664917)

Diet NN O O
design NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
controlled NN O O
feeding NN O O
trial NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O O
DELTA NN O O
program NN O O
. NN O O

Delta NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
describe NN O O
the NN O O
process NN O O
and NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
standardization NN O O
, NN O O
diet NN O O
validation NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
composition NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
were NN O O
key NN O O
components NN O O
of NN O O
protocol NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
Dietary NN O O
Effects NN O O
on NN O O
Lipoproteins NN O O
and NN O O
Thrombogenic NN O O
Activity NN O O
( NN O O
DELTA-1 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O O
protocol NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
program NN O O
of NN O O
multicenter NN O O
human NN O O
feeding NN O O
studies NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
amount NN O O
and NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
on NN O O
lipoproteins NN O O
and NN O O
hemostasis NN O O
parameters NN O O
in NN O O
various NN O I-PAR
demographic NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
DELTA-1 NN O O
was NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
blinded NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
experimental NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

Three NN O I-INT
diets NN O I-INT
were NN O O
fed NN O O
for NN O O
8 NN O O
weeks NN O O
to NN O O
103 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
22 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
67 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
field NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Diet NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
an NN O I-INT
average NN O I-INT
American NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
provide NN O I-INT
37 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
saturated NN O I-INT
fatty NN O I-INT
acids NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SFAs NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
step NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
provide NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
9 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
SFA NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
and NN O O
diet NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
low NN O I-INT
SFA NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
designed NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
provide NN O I-INT
26 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
% NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
energy NN O I-INT
from NN O O
SFA NN O O
. NN O O

Key NN O O
features NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
standardization NN O O
included NN O O
central NN O O
procurement NN O O
of NN O O
fat-containing NN O O
foods NN O O
, NN O O
inclusion NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O O
ingredients NN O O
, NN O O
precision NN O O
weighing NN O O
of NN O O
foods NN O O
-- NN O O
especially NN O O
sources NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
and NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
-- NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
standardized NN O O
written NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
For NN O O
menu NN O O
validation NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
set NN O O
of NN O O
12 NN O O
menus NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
diet NN O O
was NN O O
prepared NN O O
in NN O O
duplicate NN O O
and NN O O
chemically NN O O
assayed NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
monitoring NN O O
of NN O O
diet NN O O
composition NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
an NN O O
8-day NN O O
diet NN O O
cycle NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
weekday NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
weekend NN O O
menus NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
sampled NN O O
by NN O O
every NN O O
field NN O O
center NN O O
twice NN O O
during NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
feeding NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

STATISTICAL NN O O
ANALYSES NN O O
Means NN O O
( NN O O
+/- NN O O
standard NN O O
error NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
target NN O O
nutrient NN O O
specifications NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
DELTA-1 NN O O
was NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
provide NN O O
a NN O O
standardized NN O O
diet NN O O
that NN O O
met NN O O
nutrient NN O I-OUT
specifications NN O I-OUT
across NN O O
4 NN O O
field NN O O
centers NN O O
over NN O O
24 NN O O
weeks NN O O
of NN O O
participant NN O O
feeding NN O O
spanning NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

APPLICATIONS NN O O
Prestudy NN O O
chemical NN O O
validation NN O O
of NN O O
menus NN O O
and NN O O
continuous NN O O
sampling NN O O
and NN O O
assay NN O O
of NN O O
diets NN O O
throughout NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
are NN O O
essential NN O O
to NN O O
standardize NN O O
experimental NN O O
diets NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
ensure NN O O
that NN O O
nutrient NN O O
target NN O O
goals NN O O
are NN O O
met NN O O
and NN O O
maintained NN O O
throughout NN O O
a NN O O
controlled NN O O
multicenter NN O O
feeding NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9665186)

Improved NN O O
survival NN O O
with NN O O
early NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
results NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
childhood NN O O
ALL NN O O
randomised NN O I-PAR
trials NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
UKALL NN O O
X NN O O
and NN O O
UKALL NN O O
XI NN O O
. NN O O

Medical NN O O
Research NN O O
Council NN O O
Working NN O O
Party NN O O
on NN O O
Childhood NN O O
Leukaemia NN O O
. NN O O

The 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
United NN O O
Kingdom NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
childhood NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukaemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
UKALL NN O I-PAR
X NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
0-14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
inclusive NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
white NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
count NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/l NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
block NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
neither NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
next NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
UKALL NN O I-PAR
XI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
1-14 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
between NN O O
different NN O I-INT
central NN O I-INT
nervous NN O I-INT
system NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CNS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
directed NN O I-INT
therapies NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
also NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
late NN O I-INT
intensification NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
both NN O I-INT
early NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
late NN O I-INT
blocks NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
block NN O O
in NN O O
UKALL NN O O
X NN O O
alone NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
previously NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
paper NN O O
examines NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
intensification NN O O
block NN O O
to NN O O
treatment NN O O
which NN O O
included NN O O
late NN O O
intensification NN O O
, NN O O
combining NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
UKALL NN O O
X NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
UKALL NN O O
XI NN O O
. NN O O

Early NN O O
intensification NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
fewer NN O O
bone NN O I-OUT
marrow NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
odds NN O O
of NN O O
death NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
0.63 NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
confidence NN O O
interval NN O O
: NN O O
0.46-0.87 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
improved NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
of NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
from NN O O
79 NN O O
to NN O O
87 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
this NN O O
demonstration NN O O
that NN O O
early NN O O
intensification NN O O
improves NN O O
survival NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
third NN O O
intensification NN O O
block NN O O
is NN O O
under NN O O
investigation NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9669262)

Effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
recurrent NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
CARE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
on NN O O
recurrent NN O I-OUT
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
after 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
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Little NN O O
information NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
lipid NN O O
lowering NN O O
in NN O O
secondary NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
coronary NN O I-PAR
heart NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
particular NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
those NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
CHD NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
Cholesterol NN O O
and NN O O
Recurrent NN O O
Events NN O O
( NN O O
CARE NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
576 NN O I-PAR
postmenopausal NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
240 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
density NN O I-PAR
lipoprotein NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
115 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
174 NN O I-PAR
mg/dl NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
pravastatin NN O I-INT
40 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
or NN O O
matching NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
outcome NN O O
measures NN O O
were NN O O
combined NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percutaneous NN O I-OUT
transluminal NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
angioplasty NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
PTCA NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
artery NN O I-OUT
bypass NN O I-OUT
graft NN O I-OUT
surgery NN O I-OUT
[ NN O I-OUT
CABG NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
primary NN O I-OUT
trial NN O I-OUT
end NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
death NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
nonfatal NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
stroke NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Women NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
pravastatin NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
43 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
primary NN O O
end NN O O
point NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.035 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
combined NN O O
coronary NN O O
events NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
PTCA NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.025 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
40 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
CABG NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.14 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
56 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
stroke NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.07 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
3,583 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
CARE NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
also NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
less NN O O
. NN O O

Pravastatin NN O I-INT
improved NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
lipids NN O I-OUT
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
between NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

Minor NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
women NN O O
were NN O O
present NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
characteristics NN O O
and NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
MI NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
general NN O O
, NN O O
conferring NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
risk NN O O
status NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
lower NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
CABG NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
women NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Pravastatin NN O I-INT
led NN O O
to NN O O
significant NN O O
early NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
wide NN O O
range NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
post-MI NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
average NN O I-PAR
cholesterol NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9670112)

Glucosamine NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
myocardial NN O I-PAR
infarction NN O I-PAR
subjected NN O O
to NN O O
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
This NN O O
paper NN O O
presents NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
on NN O O
glucosamine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
male NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
after 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
aged NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
38 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
: NN O O
the NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
staying NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
Cardiac NN O I-PAR
Rehabilitation NN O I-PAR
Department NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
11 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
discharged NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
for NN O O
3 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Each NN O O
group NN O O
received NN O O
identical NN O O
dietary NN O O
instructions NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
performed NN O O
exercises NN O I-INT
every NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5 NN O I-INT
times NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
week NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
overall-conditioning NN O I-INT
exercises NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
walking NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O I-INT
administering NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
later NN O I-INT
all NN O I-INT
MI NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
bicycle NN O I-INT
ergometer NN O I-INT
exercise NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
until NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
ventilatory NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
reached NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Before NN O I-INT
that NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
its NN O I-INT
termination NN O I-INT
capillary NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
venous NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
drawn NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
capillary NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
samples NN O I-INT
indices NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
acid-base NN O I-OUT
balance NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
lactate NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucose NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
venous NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
the NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
immunoreactive NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
C-peptide NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
glucosamine NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
binding NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
125I-insulin NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
erythrocyte NN O I-OUT
receptors NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Obtained NN O O
results NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
administered NN O O
therapy NN O O
increased NN O O
physical NN O I-OUT
fitness NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
of NN O O
glucosamine NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulinaemia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9676351)

[ NN O O
Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
theophylline NN O O
in NN O O
sustained-release NN O O
formulation NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

Pharmacokinetics NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CAS NN O I-INT
58-55-9 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sustained NN O I-INT
release NN O I-INT
preparations NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
T NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Bronchoretard NN O I-INT
Capsules/R NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
Capsule NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
US NN O I-INT
market NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
were NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
randomised NN O O
two-way NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
capsules NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
were NN O O
opened NN O O
and NN O O
administered NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
tablespoonful NN O O
of NN O O
apple NN O O
sauce NN O O
. NN O O

Nineteen NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
100-300 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
theophylline NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
pharmacokinetic NN O I-INT
profile NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
derived NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
seven NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
multiple NN O I-INT
dosing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-INT
relevant NN O I-OUT
parameters NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Cmax NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Cmin NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Cav NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plateau NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
peak-trough NN O I-OUT
fluctuation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nocturnal NN O I-OUT
excess NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
tmax NN O I-OUT
ss NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-INT
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
absorption NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AUCss NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
calculated NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
formulations NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
With NN O O
long NN O O
plateau NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
T NN O O
: NN O O
17.3 NN O O
h NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
small NN O I-OUT
peak-trough NN O I-OUT
fluctuations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
T NN O O
: NN O O
49.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
established NN O O
quality NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
high NN O O
quality NN O O
theophylline NN O O
preparations NN O O
were NN O O
fulfilled NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
symmetrical NN O I-OUT
peaks NN O I-OUT
resulted NN O O
after NN O O
morning NN O O
and NN O O
evening NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
test NN O O
formulation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
smooth NN O O
and NN O O
predictable NN O O
concentration/time NN O I-OUT
profiles NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
achieved NN O O
, NN O O
enabling NN O O
an NN O O
efficacious NN O O
and NN O O
safe NN O O
therapy NN O O
of NN O O
asthma NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
individual NN O O
mode NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
allows NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
a NN O O
perfect NN O O
dose NN O O
titration NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
asthmatics NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
is NN O O
also NN O O
helpful NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
difficulty NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
swallowing NN O I-PAR
large NN O I-PAR
dosage NN O I-PAR
forms NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9676408)

A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
vaporization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
as NN O O
a NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
alternative NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
The NN O O
common NN O O
goals NN O O
of NN O O
new NN O O
surgical NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
benign NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
hyperplasia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
are NN O O
to NN O O
improve NN O O
subjective NN O O
and NN O O
objective NN O O
symptoms NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
short NN O O
hospitalization NN O O
. NN O O

Transurethral NN O I-INT
electrovaporization NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TUVP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
, NN O O
minimally NN O O
invasive NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
promising NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
transurethral NN O I-INT
resection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TURP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
BPH NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
alternatives NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
symptomatic NN O I-PAR
BPH NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Preoperative NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
International NN O I-OUT
Prostate NN O I-OUT
Symptom NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IPSS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
flow NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Qmax NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
each NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
volume NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
preoperatively NN O O
and NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
using NN O O
transrectal NN O I-OUT
ultrasound NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
underwent NN O O
TURP NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
was NN O O
4.5 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Foley NN O I-OUT
catheter NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
removed NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
day NN O O
4 NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

IPSS NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
21.6 NN O O
to NN O O
5.2 NN O O
, NN O O
Qmax NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
9.2 NN O O
to NN O O
19.2 NN O O
ml/s NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
51.7 NN O O
to NN O O
26.2 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
49.3 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
. NN O O

Of NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
undergoing NN O O
TUVP NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
hospital NN O O
stay NN O O
was NN O O
2.5 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
catheter NN O O
was NN O O
removed NN O O
within NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
following NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Postoperative NN O I-OUT
urinary NN O I-OUT
retention NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
occur NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
patient NN O O
. NN O O

IPSS NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
19.4 NN O O
to NN O O
4.1 NN O O
and NN O O
Qmax NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
7.9 NN O O
to NN O O
17.7 NN O O
ml/s NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
prostatic NN O I-OUT
volume NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
from NN O O
48.9 NN O O
to NN O O
27.8 NN O O
g NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
43.1 NN O O
% NN O O
reduction NN O O
at NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
TUVP NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
required NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
developed NN O O
clinical NN O I-OUT
transurethral NN O I-OUT
resection NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O I-OUT
major NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sphincteric NN O I-OUT
incontinence NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
urethral NN O I-OUT
strictures NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
bladder NN O I-OUT
neck NN O I-OUT
contractures NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
postoperatively NN O O
, NN O O
13 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TURP NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TUVP NN O O
group NN O O
had NN O O
retrograde NN O I-OUT
ejaculation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Our NN O O
initial NN O O
experience NN O O
of NN O O
TUVP NN O O
suggests NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
conventional NN O O
TURP NN O O
through NN O O
reduced NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
shorter NN O I-OUT
hospital NN O I-OUT
stay NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
an NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
BPH NN O O
; NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
long-term NN O O
results NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9683043)

White NN O O
coat NN O O
effect NN O O
detected NN O O
using NN O O
self-monitoring NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
pressure NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
home NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
ambulatory NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
objective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
investigate NN O O
whether NN O O
home NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
HBP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
a NN O O
reliable NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
ambulatory NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
ABP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
white NN O O
coat NN O O
effect NN O O
( NN O O
WCE NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Hypertensive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
measure NN O O
HBP NN O I-INT
for NN O O
2 NN O O
weeks NN O O
or NN O O
ABP NN O I-INT
for NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
alternative NN O O
measurement NN O O
was NN O O
then NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

Clinic NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CBP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
beginning NN O O
and NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
difference NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
systolic NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
Hg NN O I-PAR
diastolic NN O I-PAR
BP NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
CBP NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
awake NN O I-PAR
ABP NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
CBP NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
HBP NN O I-INT
, NN O O
were NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
clinic NN O O
reactors NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
189 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
79 NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
stable NN O I-PAR
antihypertensive NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
magnitude NN O O
of NN O O
WCE NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
ABP NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
HBP NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
discrepancy NN O O
, NN O O
systolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
-1.5 NN O O
+/- NN O O
11.7 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
-3.2 NN O O
, NN O O
0.2 NN O O
; NN O O
diastolic NN O I-OUT
BP NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
0.9 NN O O
+/- NN O O
7.0 NN O O
, NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
-0.1 NN O O
, NN O O
1.9 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
existed NN O O
between NN O O
WCE NN O I-OUT
calculated NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
HBP NN O I-OUT
or NN O O
the NN O O
ABP NN O I-OUT
method NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.64/0.59 NN O O
systolic/diastolic 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
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
classified NN O O
as NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
reactors NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
identical NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
HBP NN O I-INT
or NN O O
the NN O O
ABP NN O I-INT
method NN O O
( NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Agreement NN O O
between NN O O
methods NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
classification NN O O
of NN O O
clinic NN O O
reactors NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
147 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
HBP NN O I-INT
method NN O O
to NN O O
classify NN O O
correctly NN O O
clinic NN O I-OUT
reactors NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-INT
ABP NN O I-INT
method NN O O
used NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
standard NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
its NN O O
positive NN O O
and NN O O
negative NN O O
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
were NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
HBP NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
appropriate NN O O
as NN O O
an NN O O
alternative NN O O
to NN O O
ABP NN O I-INT
diagnostic NN O O
testing NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
WCE NN O O
. NN O O

Nevertheless NN O O
, NN O O
HBP NN O I-OUT
appears NN O O
useful NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
screening NN O O
test NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
phenomenon NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9683400)

The NN O O
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
quality NN O O
and NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
fat NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
density NN O I-OUT
lipoprotein NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
monounsaturated NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MUFA-diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
diet NN O I-INT
rich NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
polyunsaturated NN O I-INT
fat NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PUFA-diet NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
SUBJECTS NN O O
29 NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
After NN O O
consuming NN O O
a NN O O
run-in NN O O
diet NN O O
[ NN O O
37 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
energy NN O O
( NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
18 NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
saturated NN O O
fat NN O O
] NN O O
for NN O O
three NN O O
weeks NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
either NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
MUFA-diet NN O O
( NN O O
40 NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
19 NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
monounsaturated NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
PUFA-diet NN O O
( NN O O
34 NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
fat NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
E NN O O
% NN O O
polyunsaturated NN O O
fat NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
eight NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
by NN O O
challenging NN O O
LDL NN O O
with NN O O
hemin NN O O
and NN O O
H2O2 NN O O
and NN O O
measuring NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
reaction NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
reach NN O I-OUT
maximum NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Results NN O O
are NN O O
expressed NN O O
as NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
minutes NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
PUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
) NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
tended NN O O
to NN O O
decrease NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
diet NN O O
( NN O O
97 NN O O
+/- NN O O
28 NN O O
vs NN O O
90 NN O O
+/- NN O O
25 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
s.d. NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.073 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
( NN O O
lag NN O O
time NN O O
96 NN O O
+/- NN O O
24 NN O O
vs NN O O
100 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.408 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
-7 NN O O
+/- NN O O
14 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
-7.2 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
+4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
16 NN O O
min NN O O
( NN O O
+4.0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.029 NN O O
, NN O O
PUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
vs NN O O
MUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
alpha-tocopherol NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
diet NN O O
groups NN O O
relative NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
run-in NN O O
diet NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
LDL NN O I-OUT
particle NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
diet NN O O
groups NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
intervention NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
impaired NN O I-PAR
glucose NN O I-PAR
tolerance NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
PUFA-rich NN O I-INT
diet NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
moderate NN O O
amount NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
tended NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
LDL NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
fat NN O O
diet NN O O
rich NN O O
in NN O O
MUFA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
negative NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
lag NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
oxidation NN O I-OUT
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
PUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
differed NN O O
significantly NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
slightly NN O O
positive NN O O
mean NN O O
change NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
MUFA-diet NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9690103)

Impact NN O O
of NN O O
work NN O I-INT
site NN O I-INT
health NN O I-INT
promotion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
stages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
dietary NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
Working NN O O
Well NN O O
Trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
construct NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
applied NN O O
to NN O O
healthful NN O O
dietary NN O O
behavior NN O O
in NN O O
cross-sectional NN O O
studies NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
examines NN O O
associations NN O O
of NN O O
stages NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
with NN O O
diet NN O O
prospectively NN O O
and NN O O
addresses NN O O
whether NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
baseline NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
predicts NN O O
participation NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
forward NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
movement NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
work NN O O
sites NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
adoption NN O O
of NN O O
healthful NN O O
diets NN O O
, NN O O
using NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
cohort NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
11,237 NN O I-PAR
employees NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Findings NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
persons NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
later NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
reported NN O O
higher NN O O
participation NN O O
levels NN O O
. NN O O

Employees NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
intervention NN O I-PAR
work NN O I-PAR
sites NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
preaction NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
baseline NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
much NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
shift NN O O
into NN O O
action NN O O
and NN O O
maintenance NN O O
stages NN O O
than NN O O
controls NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Changes NN O O
in NN O O
dietary NN O O
stage NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
were NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
decreases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fat NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
increases NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
fiber NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
fruit NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vegetable NN O I-OUT
intake NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Net NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
diet NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
modest NN O O
. NN O O

Stage NN O O
of NN O O
change NN O O
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
useful NN O O
for NN O O
understanding NN O O
mediators NN O O
of NN O O
health NN O O
promotion NN O O
intervention NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9690266)

The NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Lead-exposed NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
TLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
trial NN O O
: NN O O
design NN O O
and NN O O
recruitment NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
chelation NN O I-INT
on NN O O
growth NN O O
and NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
toddlers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exposure NN O O
to NN O O
lead NN O O
impairs NN O O
cognitive NN O O
development NN O O
in NN O O
young NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
but NN O O
the NN O O
benefits NN O O
of NN O O
lowering NN O O
blood NN O O
lead NN O O
pharmacologically NN O O
are NN O O
not NN O O
clear NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
report NN O O
describes NN O O
the NN O O
design NN O O
, NN O O
recruitment NN O O
, NN O O
enrolment NN O O
and NN O O
baseline NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
Lead-Exposed NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
TLC NN O O
) NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
multicentre NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
lead-exposed NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
succimer NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
drug NN O O
that NN O O
enhances NN O O
urinary NN O O
excretion NN O O
of NN O O
lead NN O O
, NN O O
on NN O O
cognitive NN O O
, NN O O
behavioural NN O O
and NN O O
physical NN O O
development NN O O
. NN O O

TLC NN O O
clinical NN O O
sites NN O O
were NN O O
in NN O O
Baltimore NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Cincinnati NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Columbus NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Newark NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
Philadelphia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
eligible NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
TLC NN O I-PAR
if NN O I-PAR
they NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
33 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
confirmed NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
concentration NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
44 NN O I-PAR
micrograms/dL NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
lived NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
residence NN O I-PAR
suitable NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
dust NN O I-PAR
reduction NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Randomised NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
received NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
three NN O O
26-day NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
succimer NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
were NN O O
then NN O O
followed NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
study NN O O
can NN O O
detect NN O O
a NN O O
three-point NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
full-scale NN O I-OUT
IQ NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
3-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Statistical NN O O
power NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
end NN O O
points NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
difficult NN O O
to NN O O
estimate NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
1854 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
780 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
August NN O I-PAR
1994 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
January NN O I-PAR
1997 NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
24 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
lead NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
micrograms/dL NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Three-quarters NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
African-American NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Most NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
poor NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
single NN O I-PAR
mothers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
fewer NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
school NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
lived NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
older NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
maintained NN O I-PAR
residences NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9697788)

Comparison NN O O
of NN O O
prostate-specific NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
corrected NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
transition NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O I-PAR
screening NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVES NN O O
To NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
potential NN O O
between NN O O
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
benign NN O I-PAR
conditions NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
population-based NN O O
screening NN O I-INT
study NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
serum NN O I-INT
prostate-specific NN O I-INT
antigen NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PSA NN O I-INT
corrected NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
both NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSA-D NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
transition NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PSA-T NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
population-based NN O O
screening NN O O
study NN O O
( NN O I-PAR
Rotterdam NN O I-PAR
section NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
Randomized NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
Screening NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
Prostate NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
10,865 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
screened NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
the NN O O
biopsy NN O I-INT
results NN O I-INT
of NN O I-PAR
1202 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
PSA NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
ng/mL NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
. NN O O

Planimetric NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prolate NN O I-INT
ellipsoid NN O I-INT
volumes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
well NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
transition NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
measured NN O O
volumes NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
volumes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
57 NN O I-INT
radical NN O I-INT
prostatectomy NN O I-INT
specimens NN O I-INT
through NN O O
Spearman NN O O
's NN O O
rank NN O O
correlation NN O O
coefficient NN O O
and NN O O
agreement NN O O
tests NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
receiver NN O O
operating NN O O
characteristic NN O O
( NN O O
ROC NN O O
) NN O O
curve NN O O
analysis NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
of NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
of NN O O
biopsy NN O O
indications NN O O
through NN O O
PSA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
PSA NN O I-INT
corrected NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
volumes NN O I-INT
measured NN O I-INT
with NN O O
transrectal NN O O
ultrasound NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
1202 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
361 NN O I-PAR
cases NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
prostate NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
diagnosed NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
PSA-D NN O O
and NN O O
PSA-T NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
area NN O I-OUT
under NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
ROC NN O I-OUT
curve NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.77 NN O O
and NN O O
0.79 NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
PSA NN O O
alone NN O O
( NN O O
area NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
PSA-D NN O O
and NN O O
PSA-T NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
PSA-D NN O O
threshold NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
0 NN O O
. NN O O

10 NN O O
ng/mL/cc NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
avoided NN O O
28 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
10 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
detectable NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
PSA-D NN O O
threshold NN O O
of NN O O
0.15 NN O O
ng/mL/cc NN O O
would NN O O
have NN O O
avoided NN O O
73.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
biopsies NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
cost NN O O
of NN O O
not NN O O
diagnosing NN O O
43.8 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
detectable NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
planimetrically NN O O
obtained NN O O
prostate NN O O
volume NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
more NN O O
favorable NN O O
agreement NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
radical NN O O
prostatectomy NN O O
volume NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
prolate NN O O
ellipsoid NN O O
volume NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
potential NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
corrected NN O O
PSA NN O I-OUT
value NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
better NN O O
at NN O O
predicting NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
needle NN O O
biopsy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prostate NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
PSA NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transition NN O I-INT
zone NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
for NN O O
this NN O O
correction NN O O
results NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
discriminatory NN O O
potential NN O O
when NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
total NN O I-INT
prostate NN O I-INT
volume NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
however NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
observed 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



-DOCSTART- (9700583)

A NN O O
double NN O O
blind NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
clodronate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Bisphosphonates NN O I-INT
are NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
oncology NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
decreasing NN O O
complications NN O O
due NN O O
to NN O O
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
in NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
anticancer NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
especially NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
breast NN O O
cancer NN O O
, NN O O
prostate NN O O
cancer NN O O
and NN O O
myeloma NN O O
. NN O O

Little NN O O
is NN O O
known NN O O
about NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
bisphosphonates NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bone NN O O
metastases NN O O
from NN O O
other NN O O
tumors NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
from NN O O
tumors NN O O
for NN O O
which NN O O
no NN O O
effective NN O O
treatment NN O O
is NN O O
available NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conducted NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
bone NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
aims NN O O
of NN O O
evaluating NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
bone NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
evolution NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Sixty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
poorly NN O I-PAR
responsive NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
such NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
non-small NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
lung NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
NSCLC NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
bladder NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
gastrointestinal NN O I-PAR
cancers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
kidney NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
melanoma NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
unknown NN O I-PAR
origin NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-INT
either NN O I-INT
clodronate NN O I-INT
1,600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
year NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
identical NN O I-INT
placebo-containing NN O I-INT
tablets NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Various NN O I-INT
parameters NN O I-INT
such NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
measured NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual-analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
analgesic NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
monthly NN O I-INT
intervals NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
66 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
9 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
observed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
month NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
less NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
only NN O I-PAR
50 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
more NN O I-PAR
than NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
could NN O I-PAR
be NN O I-PAR
adequately NN O I-PAR
evaluated NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
At NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
both NN O O
clodronate NN O I-INT
and NN O O
placebo-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Karnofsky NN O I-OUT
performance NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
being NN O O
more NN O O
evident NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
showed NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
and NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
pain NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
clodronate NN O I-INT
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
difference NN O O
failed NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
. NN O O

Analgesics NN O I-OUT
requirement NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.042 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
whom NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
opioid NN O O
requirements NN O O
was NN O O
particularly NN O O
evident NN O O
. NN O O

Toxicity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
with NN O O
occasional NN O I-OUT
gastroenteric NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
main NN O O
problem NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
difficulty NN O O
in NN O O
recruiting NN O O
an NN O O
adequate NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
following NN O O
them NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
sufficient NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
: NN O O
general NN O O
conditions NN O O
rapidly NN O O
deteriorated NN O O
in NN O O
many NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
approximately NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
66 NN O O
enrolled NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
considered NN O O
evaluable NN O O
; NN O O
few NN O O
patients NN O O
survived NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
length NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
might NN O O
partly NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
significance NN O O
of NN O O
some NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
parameters NN O O
under NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
these NN O O
limits NN O O
, NN O O
oral NN O O
clodronate NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
some NN O O
efficacy NN O O
in NN O O
symptom NN O O
control NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
need NN O O
for NN O O
analgesics NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9701205)

Pelvic NN O O
lymphocysts NN O O
following NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
: NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
no-closure NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ovarian NN O O
and NN O O
endometrial NN O O
cancers NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVES NN O O
Pelvic NN O O
lymphocysts NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
mainly NN O O
following NN O O
pelvic NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
for NN O O
cervical NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
attempted NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
whether NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
no-closure NN O I-INT
reduces NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocyst NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
following NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O O
lymphadenectomy NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Sixty-one NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
endometrial NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
retroperitoneal NN O I-PAR
lymph NN O I-PAR
node NN O I-PAR
resection NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
no-closure NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
closure NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
lymphocysts NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
as NN O O
determined NN O O
using NN O O
ultrasonography NN O O
was NN O O
compared NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Lymphocysts NN O I-OUT
appeared NN O O
in NN O O
23/61 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
closure NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
was NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
16/31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-closure NN O O
group NN O O
it NN O O
was NN O O
only NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
7/30 NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-closure NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fever NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
17 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
5/30 NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-closure NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
lower NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
closure NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
13/31 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
so NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.1 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
no-closure NN O O
group NN O O
required NN O O
surgical NN O O
procedures NN O O
such NN O O
as NN O O
needle NN O O
aspiration NN O O
or NN O O
cyst NN O O
drainage NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
partial NN O I-INT
no-closure NN O I-INT
appears NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
procedure NN O O
for NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
pelvic NN O I-OUT
lymphocysts NN O I-OUT
associated NN O O
with NN O O
retroperitoneal NN O I-INT
lymphadenectomy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9703286)

Therapy NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
either NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
treatment 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
cancer NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
relation NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
TP53 NN O I-PAR
gene NN O I-PAR
status NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cell NN O O
death NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
exerted NN O O
by NN O O
activation NN O O
of NN O O
apoptosis NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
p53 NN O O
protein NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
actively NN O O
participate NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
process NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
recent NN O O
focus NN O O
on NN O O
TP53 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
a NN O O
possible NN O O
determinant NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
therapy NN O O
response NN O O
has NN O O
raised NN O O
the NN O O
question NN O O
of NN O O
whether NN O O
or NN O O
not NN O O
mutations NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
TP53 NN O O
gene NN O O
have NN O O
an NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
TP53 NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
analysed NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
DNA NN O O
level NN O O
in NN O O
tumours NN O O
from NN O O
45 NN O I-PAR
ovarian NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
paclitaxel NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
obtained NN O O
for NN O O
38 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
clinically NN O I-PAR
evaluable NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
initial NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
positive NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
85 NN O O
% NN O O
vs NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
the NN O O
cyclophosphamide/cisplatin NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
favour NN O O
of NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
was NN O O
found NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
33 NN O O
tumour NN O O
samples NN O O
( NN O O
73 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
detectable NN O O
sequence NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
TP53 NN O I-OUT
gene NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
When NN O O
relapse-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
estimated NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
TP53 NN O I-OUT
alterations NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
their NN O O
tumours NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
better NN O O
outcome NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
group NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
patient NN O O
group NN O O
receiving NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
and NN O O
cisplatin NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.002 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
observe NN O O
an NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
TP53 NN O I-OUT
tumour NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
prognosis NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
who NN O O
received NN O O
paclitaxel/cisplatin NN O I-INT
combination NN O O
treatment NN O O
, NN O O
indicating NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
influenced NN O O
by NN O O
this NN O O
parameter NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9704200)

Postoperative NN O O
injection NN O O
of NN O O
phenylbutazone NN O I-INT
does NN O O
not NN O O
influence NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
shutdown NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
cholecystectomy NN O I-PAR
because NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
chronic NN O I-PAR
calculous NN O I-PAR
cholecystitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
phenylbutazone NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg/kg NN O I-INT
intramuscularly NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
control NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
( NN O O
vehicle-containing NN O O
local NN O O
anaesthetic NN O O
) NN O O
immediately NN O O
after NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
concentrated NN O I-OUT
euglobulins NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
determined NN O O
before NN O O
surgery NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
, NN O O
third NN O O
and NN O O
seventh NN O O
postoperative NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Phenylbutazone NN O I-INT
delayed NN O O
the NN O O
postoperative NN O O
rise NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
fibrinogen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

Fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
euglobulins NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
operation NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
great NN O O
dispersion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
activator NN O I-OUT
inhibitor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
the NN O O
plausible NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
lack NN O O
of NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
variable NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
postoperative NN O I-OUT
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
shutdown NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
reflected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
decrease NN O O
of NN O O
fibrinolytic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
was NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
phenylbutazone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
It NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
speculated NN O O
, NN O O
however NN O O
, NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
decline NN O O
of NN O O
plasminogen NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
its NN O O
stimulatory NN O O
influence NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
conversion NN O O
of NN O O
plasminogen NN O O
into NN O O
plasmin NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9706929)

Incidence NN O O
and NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
administration NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
intravenous NN O I-INT
fluids NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vasoconstrictors NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
UNLABELLED NN O O
We NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
arterial NN O O
hypotension NN O O
and/or NN O O
bradycardia NN O O
requiring NN O O
treatment NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O I-PAR
anesthesia NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
compared NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
vasoconstrictor NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
1066 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
volume NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
15 NN O O
mL/kg NN O O
within NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
dihydroergotamine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
10 NN O O
microg/kg NN O O
i.m NN O O
. NN O O

15 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
anesthesia NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
breathed NN O I-PAR
O2-enriched NN O I-PAR
air NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
spinal NN O I-INT
anesthesia NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
4 NN O I-PAR
mL NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
plain NN O I-PAR
0.5 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
bupivacaine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
With NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
incidence NN O O
22.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
45 NN O O
min NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Dihydroergotamine NN O I-INT
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
preferentially NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O O
ones NN O O
, NN O O
more NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
incidence NN O O
11.8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
fluid NN O O
administration NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
incidence NN O O
16.9 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
was NN O O
effective NN O O
only NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
of NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
arterial NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
15 NN O O
min NN O O
before NN O O
the NN O O
manifestation NN O O
of NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
greatly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
intraoperative NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
sedatives NN O O
and NN O O
opioids NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
may NN O O
occur NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

Fluid NN O O
administration NN O O
reduced NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
early NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
dihydroergotamine NN O O
the NN O O
late NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
IMPLICATIONS NN O O
Cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
requiring NN O O
treatment NN O O
occurred NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
time NN O O
during NN O O
spinal NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
in NN O O
our NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
study NN O O
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactic NN O O
regimen NN O O
( NN O I-INT
fluid NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
dihydroergotamine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9713225)

Laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
palliation NN O O
of NN O O
malignant NN O I-PAR
dysphagia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND/AIM NN O O
OF NN O O
STUDY NN O O
Laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
relieving NN O O
malignant NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
repeated NN O O
treatments NN O O
at NN O O
4 NN O O
to NN O O
6 NN O O
week NN O O
intervals NN O O
are NN O O
usually NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
addition NN O O
of NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
offers NN O O
any NN O O
advantages NN O O
over NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
inoperable NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
oesophagus NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomised NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
Nd NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
YAG NN O I-INT
laser NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
alone NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
laser NN O I-INT
followed NN O O
by NN O O
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
who NN O O
developed NN O O
worsening NN O O
dysphagia NN O O
during NN O O
follow-up NN O O
were NN O O
offered NN O O
further NN O O
treatment NN O O
as NN O O
appropriate NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Fourteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
laser NN O I-PAR
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Of NN O O
these NN O O
12 NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
was NN O O
lost NN O O
to NN O O
follow-up NN O O
and NN O O
four NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
receive NN O O
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
because NN O O
they NN O O
were NN O O
unfit NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
extension NN O O
into NN O O
the NN O O
cardia NN O O
or NN O O
had NN O O
mainly NN O O
extrinsic NN O O
compression NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
4 NN O O
are NN O O
included NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
'intention-to-treat NN O O
' NN O O
basis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
brachytherapy NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
, NN O O
83 NN O O
days NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
36 NN O O
days NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
laser NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.026 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
dysphagia NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
endoscopic NN O I-OUT
procedures NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
times NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
trial NN O O
suggest NN O O
that NN O O
brachytherapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
addition NN O O
to NN O O
laser NN O O
therapy NN O O
prolongs NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
no NN O O
long-term NN O O
advantages NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9718870)

Combined NN O I-INT
modality NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
in NN O O
advanced NN O O
Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
disease NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O I-PAR
report NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
218 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
follow-up NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
AND NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
monthly NN O O
alternating NN O O
ABVD/MOPP NN O I-INT
compared NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
ABVD/OPP NN O I-INT
regimens NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
well NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
early NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
systemic NN O I-PAR
symptoms NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
bulky NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
218 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
untreated NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
this NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
106 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
A NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
ABVD/MOPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
112 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
arm NN O I-PAR
B NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
ABVD/OPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Patients NN O O
received NN O O
eight NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
regimens NN O O
after NN O O
stratification NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
stage NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
in NN O O
complete NN O O
remission NN O O
( NN O O
CR NN O O
) NN O O
received NN O O
20 NN O O
Gy NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
involved NN O O
field NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
Gy NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
spleen NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
actuarial NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
curves NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
performed NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
Kaplan NN O O
and NN O O
Meier NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
observed NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
arms NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
analysis NN O O
of NN O O
total NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
revealed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
ABVD/OPP NN O I-INT
had NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
likelihood NN O O
of NN O O
achieving NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
ABVD/MOPP NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERPRETATION NN O O
AND NN O O
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Both NN O O
schemes NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
produce NN O O
high NN O O
percentages NN O O
of NN O O
CR NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
low NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapse NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
acceptable NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9720660)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
sequential NN O O
annual NN O O
vaccination NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
DHEA NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
on NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
influenza NN O I-PAR
vaccine NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
examined NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
repeated NN O O
vaccination NN O I-INT
and NN O O
of NN O O
dehydroepiandrosterone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
DHEA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
immune NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
influenza NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Seventy-one NN O I-PAR
elderly NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
61-89 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
DHEA NN O I-INT
( NN O O
50 NN O O
mg NN O O
qd NN O O
p.o NN O O
. NN O O

for NN O O
4 NN O O
consecutive NN O O
days NN O O
starting NN O O
2 NN O O
days NN O O
before NN O O
immunization NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Antibody NN O O
response NN O O
against NN O O
the NN O O
three NN O O
strains NN O O
of NN O O
vaccine NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
28 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
vaccination NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
compared NN O O
between NN O O
previously NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
and NN O O
non-vaccinated NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O

DHEA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
did NN O O
not NN O O
enhance NN O O
established NN O I-OUT
immunity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
significant NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
attainment NN O O
of NN O O
protective NN O I-OUT
antibody NN O I-OUT
titer NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
titer NN O O
of NN O O
1:40 NN O O
or NN O O
greater NN O O
) NN O O
against NN O O
A/Texas NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
non-protective NN O O
baseline NN O O
antibody NN O O
titer NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
following NN O O
DHEA NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O O
( NN O O
52 NN O O
vs. NN O O
84 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

Post-immunization NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
influenza NN O O
A NN O O
strains NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
never NN O O
immunized NN O O
before NN O O
. NN O O

Additionally NN O O
, NN O O
post-vaccination NN O I-OUT
protective NN O I-OUT
titers NN O I-OUT
against NN O O
the NN O O
A/Johannesburg NN O O
strain NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
prevalent NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
subjects NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
never NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
before NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
were NN O O
not NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
for NN O O
anti-B/Harbin NN O O
antibodies-repeated NN O O
vaccination NN O O
caused NN O O
a NN O O
non-significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
HI NN O O
titer NN O O
in NN O O
previously NN O O
vaccinated NN O O
subjects NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9732932)

Relationship NN O O
between NN O O
biliary NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
and NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
Ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
UDCA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
improves NN O O
liver NN O I-OUT
biochemistries NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
enriches NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
UDCA NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
biliary NN O I-PAR
cirrhosis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O O
of NN O O
enrichment NN O O
of NN O O
bile NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
either NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
measures NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
improvement NN O O
in NN O O
measures NN O O
of NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
biliary NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
bile NN O O
acid NN O O
analyses NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
entry NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
2 NN O O
yr NN O O
of NN O O
UDCA NN O I-INT
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
by NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
UDCA NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
61 NN O O
) NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
57 NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.0001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Measurement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
serum NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
placebo NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
yr NN O O
, NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
comprised NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treated NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Agreement NN O O
between NN O O
bile NN O O
and NN O O
serum NN O O
was NN O O
fair NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.75 NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
0.00002 NN O O
) NN O O
because NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
plasma NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
biliary NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
were NN O O
enriched NN O O
with NN O O
UDCA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
biliary NN O I-OUT
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
correlated NN O O
significantly NN O O
but NN O O
weakly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
alkaline NN O I-OUT
phosphatase NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
AST NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
bilirubin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
Mayo NN O I-OUT
risk NN O I-OUT
score NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Correlations NN O O
between NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O I-OUT
bile NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
composition NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
biochemical NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
even NN O O
weaker NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
biliary NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
is NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
serum NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
for NN O O
assessing NN O O
the NN O O
compliance NN O O
and NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
circulating NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
primary NN O I-OUT
biliary NN O I-OUT
cirrhosis NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Furthermore NN O O
, NN O O
measures NN O O
to NN O O
further NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
ursodeoxycholic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
in NN O O
circulating NN O O
bile NN O O
acids NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
explored NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9734727)

Aspartame NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
neuropsychologic NN O O
and NN O O
neurophysiologic NN O O
evaluation NN O O
of NN O O
acute NN O O
and NN O O
chronic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Neurobehavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
anecdotally NN O O
with NN O O
aspartame NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
This NN O O
study NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
aspartame NN O I-INT
can NN O O
disrupt NN O I-PAR
cognitive NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
neurophysiologic NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
behavioral NN O I-PAR
functioning NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
DESIGN NN O O
Forty-eight NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
was NN O O
aspartame NN O I-INT
free NN O O
. NN O O

Subjects NN O O
then NN O O
consumed NN O O
sodas NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
capsules NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
aspartame NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
sucrose NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
20 NN O I-INT
d NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Order NN O O
was NN O O
randomized NN O O
and NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
high- NN O O
( NN O O
45 NN O O
mg NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
body NN O O
wt NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
low- NN O O
( NN O O
15 NN O O
mg NN O O
x NN O O
kg NN O O
body NN O O
wt NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
d NN O O
( NN O O
-1 NN O O
) NN O O
) NN O O
dose NN O O
aspartame NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

Neuropsychologic NN O O
and NN O O
laboratory NN O O
testing NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
possible NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
and NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
20 NN O O
for NN O O
possible NN O O
chronic NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Plasma NN O O
phenylalanine NN O O
concentrations NN O O
increased NN O O
significantly NN O O
during NN O O
aspartame NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Neuropsychologic NN O O
results NN O O
; NN O O
adverse NN O O
experiences NN O O
; NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
glucose NN O O
values NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
electroencephalograms NN O O
were NN O O
compared NN O O
by NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
by NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
dependent NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Large NN O O
daily NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
aspartame NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
neuropsychologic NN O O
, NN O O
neurophysiologic NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
behavioral NN O O
functioning NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
young NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9735531)

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
a NN O O
result NN O O
of NN O O
wearing NN O O
ambient NN O I-INT
transitional NN O I-INT
prism NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
A NN O O
double-blind NN O O
crossover NN O O
design NN O O
was NN O O
used NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
wearing NN O I-INT
ambient NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
behavioral NN O O
symptoms NN O O
of NN O O
autism NN O O
. NN O O

Eighteen NN O I-PAR
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
ranging NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
7 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
participated NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Behavior NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
attention NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
orientation NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
evaluated NN O O
at NN O O
1 NN O O
1/2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

Compared NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
decrease NN O O
in NN O O
behavior NN O I-OUT
problems NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
1 NN O O
1/2 NN O O
and NN O O
2 NN O O
month NN O O
assessment NN O O
periods NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
loss NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
benefits NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
month NN O O
assessment NN O O
periods NN O O
. NN O O

These NN O O
findings NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
prediction NN O O
that NN O O
ambient NN O I-INT
lenses NN O I-INT
, NN O O
worn NN O O
without NN O O
engaging NN O O
in NN O O
visual-motor NN O O
exercises NN O O
, NN O O
have NN O O
positive NN O O
effects NN O O
on NN O O
autistic NN O I-PAR
individuals NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9735623)

Conservative NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
of NN O O
plantar NN O I-PAR
fasciitis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
conducted NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
individual NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
conservative 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
plantar NN O O
fasciitis NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
one NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
categories NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
accommodative NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
mechanical NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
for NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
follow-up NN O O
visits NN O O
at NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
85 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
a NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
mechanical NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
taping NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
orthoses NN O I-INT
proving NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
either NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
or NN O O
accommodative NN O I-INT
modalities NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9742715)

Memory NN O I-OUT
monitoring NN O O
by NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
authors NN O O
asked NN O O
whether NN O O
animals NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
would NN O O
use NN O O
similarly NN O O
an NN O O
uncertain NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
escape NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
memories NN O O
. NN O O

Monkeys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
performed NN O I-PAR
serial NN O I-INT
probe NN O I-INT
recognition NN O I-INT
tasks NN O I-INT
that NN O O
produced NN O O
differential NN O O
memory NN O O
difficulty NN O O
across NN O O
serial NN O O
positions NN O O
( NN O O
e.g. NN O O
, NN O O
primacy NN O O
and NN O O
recency NN O O
effects NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
given NN O O
an NN O O
escape NN O O
option NN O O
that NN O O
let NN O O
them NN O O
avoid NN O O
any NN O O
trials NN O O
they NN O O
wished NN O O
and NN O O
receive NN O O
a NN O O
hint NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
trial NN O O
's NN O O
answer NN O O
. NN O O

Across NN O O
species NN O O
, NN O O
across NN O O
tasks NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
even NN O O
across NN O O
conspecifics NN O O
with NN O O
sharper NN O O
or NN O O
duller NN O O
memories NN O O
, NN O O
monkeys NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
humans NN O I-PAR
used NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
escape NN O I-OUT
option NN O I-OUT
selectively NN O O
when NN O O
more NN O O
indeterminate NN O O
memory NN O O
traces NN O O
were NN O O
probed NN O O
. NN O O

Their NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
escaping NN O O
always NN O O
mirrored NN O O
the NN O O
pattern NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
primary NN O O
memory NN O O
performance NN O O
across NN O O
serial NN O O
positions NN O O
. NN O O

Signal-detection NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
confirm NN O O
the NN O O
similarity NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
animals NN O O
' NN O O
and NN O O
humans NN O O
' NN O O
performances NN O O
. NN O O

Optimality NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
assess NN O O
their NN O O
efficiency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Several NN O O
aspects NN O O
of NN O O
monkeys NN O O
' NN O O
performance NN O O
suggest NN O O
the NN O O
cognitive NN O O
sophistication NN O O
of NN O O
their NN O O
decisions NN O O
to NN O O
escape NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9745404)

Leptin NN O O
levels NN O O
in NN O O
protracted NN O I-PAR
critical NN O I-PAR
illness NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
effects NN O O
of NN O O
growth NN O I-INT
hormone-secretagogues NN O I-INT
and NN O O
thyrotropin-releasing NN O I-INT
hormone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Prolonged NN O O
critical NN O O
illness NN O O
is NN O O
characterized NN O O
by NN O O
feeding-resistant NN O O
wasting NN O O
of NN O O
protein NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
reesterification NN O O
, NN O O
instead NN O O
of NN O O
oxidation NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
, NN O O
allows NN O O
fat NN O O
stores NN O O
to NN O O
accrue NN O O
and NN O O
associate NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
low-activity NN O O
status NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
somatotropic NN O O
and NN O O
thyrotropic NN O O
axis NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
partly NN O O
of NN O O
hypothalamic NN O O
origin NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
further NN O O
unravel NN O O
this NN O O
paradoxical NN O O
metabolic NN O O
condition NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
search NN O O
of NN O O
potential NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
strategies NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
measured NN O O
serum NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
leptin NN O O
; NN O O
studied NN O O
the NN O O
relationship NN O O
with NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
, NN O O
cortisol NN O O
, NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormones NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
somatomedins NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
documented NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
hypothalamic NN O O
releasing NN O O
factors NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
, NN O O
GH-secretagogues NN O O
and NN O O
TRH NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
critically NN O I-PAR
ill NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
several NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
supported NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
normocaloric NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
continuously NN O I-PAR
administered NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
and/or NN O I-PAR
enteral NN O I-PAR
feeding NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
were NN O O
studied NN O O
for NN O O
45 NN O O
h. NN O O
They NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
combinations NN O O
of NN O O
peptide NN O O
infusions NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
random NN O O
order NN O O
: NN O O
TRH NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
one NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
TRH NN O O
+ NN O O
GH-releasing NN O O
peptide NN O O
( NN O O
GHRP NN O O
) NN O O
-2 NN O O
and NN O O
GHRP-2 NN O O
; NN O O
TRH NN O O
+ NN O O
GHRH NN O O
+ NN O O
GHRP-2 NN O O
and NN O O
GHRH NN O O
+ NN O O
GHRP-2 NN O O
. NN O O

Peptide NN O I-INT
infusions NN O I-INT
were NN O O
started NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
1-microgram/kg NN O O
bolus NN O O
at NN O O
0900 NN O O
h NN O O
and NN O O
infused NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
microgram/kg.h NN O O
) NN O O
until NN O O
0600 NN O O
h NN O O
the NN O O
next NN O O
morning NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
cortisol NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
T3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
insulin-like NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
IGF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
-I NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
IGF-binding NN O I-OUT
protein-3 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acid-labile NN O I-OUT
subunit NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ALS NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
0900 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
2100 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
0600 NN O O
h NN O O
on NN O O
each NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
2 NN O O
study NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Baseline NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
: NN O O
12.4 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.1 NN O O
micrograms/L NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
independent NN O O
of NN O O
body NN O O
mass NN O O
index NN O O
( NN O O
25 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1 NN O O
kg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
insulin NN O O
( NN O O
18.6 NN O O
+/- NN O O
2.9 NN O O
microIU/mL NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
cortisol NN O O
( NN O O
504 NN O O
+/- NN O O
43 NN O O
mmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
thyroid NN O O
hormones NN O O
( NN O O
T4 NN O O
: NN O O
63 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
, NN O O
T3 NN O O
: NN O O
0.72 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.08 NN O O
nmol/L NN O O
) NN O O
but NN O O
correlated NN O O
positively NN O O
with NN O O
circulating NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
[ NN O O
86 NN O O
+/- NN O O
6 NN O O
micrograms/L NN O O
, NN O O
determination NN O O
coefficient NN O O
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
) NN O O
= NN O O
0.25 NN O O
] NN O O
and NN O O
ALS NN O O
( NN O O
7.2 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.6 NN O O
mg/L NN O O
, NN O O
R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.32 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Infusion NN O O
of NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
or NN O O
TRH NN O I-INT
had NN O O
no NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
GH-secretagogues NN O O
elevated NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
12 NN O O
h. NN O O
Infusion NN O O
of NN O O
GHRP-2 NN O O
alone NN O O
induced NN O O
a NN O O
maximal NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
increase NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
+87 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
GHRH NN O O
+ NN O O
GHRP-2 NN O O
elevated NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
+157 NN O O
% NN O O
after NN O O
24 NN O O
h. NN O O
The NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
within NN O I-OUT
12 NN O I-OUT
h NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.58 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
substantial NN O O
rise NN O O
in NN O O
insulin NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
45 NN O O
h NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
having NN O O
reached NN O O
a NN O O
plateau NN O O
, NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
increased NN O I-OUT
IGF-I NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
R2 NN O O
= NN O O
0.37 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
circulating NN O I-OUT
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
protracted NN O O
critical NN O O
illness NN O O
were NN O O
linked NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
activity NN O O
state NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GH/IGF-I NN O O
axis NN O O
. NN O O

Stimulating NN O O
the NN O O
GH/IGF-I NN O O
axis NN O O
with NN O O
GH-secretagogues NN O O
increased NN O O
leptin NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
12 NN O O
h. NN O O
Because NN O O
leptin NN O O
may NN O O
stimulate NN O O
oxidation NN O O
of NN O O
fatty NN O O
acids NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
because NN O O
GH NN O O
, NN O O
IGF-I NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
insulin NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
protein-sparing NN O O
effect NN O O
, NN O O
GH-secretagogue NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
expected NN O O
to NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
increased NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
fat NN O O
as NN O O
preferential NN O O
substrate NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
restore NN O O
protein NN O O
content NN O O
in NN O O
vital NN O O
tissues NN O O
and NN O O
, NN O O
consequently NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
potential NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
strategy NN O O
to NN O O
reverse NN O O
the NN O O
paradoxical NN O O
metabolic NN O O
condition NN O O
of NN O O
protracted NN O O
critical NN O O
illness NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9751554)

Braced NN O O
for NN O O
impact NN O O
: NN O O
reducing NN O O
military NN O I-PAR
paratroopers NN O I-PAR
' NN O I-PAR
ankle NN O O
sprains NN O O
using NN O O
outside-the-boot NN O I-INT
braces NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Ankle NN O O
injuries NN O O
account NN O O
for NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
60 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
all NN O O
parachuting NN O O
injuries NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
if NN O O
outside-the-boot NN O O
ankle NN O O
braces NN O O
could NN O O
reduce NN O O
ankle NN O O
sprains NN O O
during NN O O
Army NN O I-PAR
paratrooper NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
involved NN O O
777 NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
U.S. NN O I-PAR
Army NN O I-PAR
Airborne NN O I-PAR
School NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Fort NN O I-PAR
Benning NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ga. NN O I-PAR
Of NN O O
this NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
745 NN O I-PAR
completed NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
requirements NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
369 NN O I-PAR
brace-wearers NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
376 NN O I-PAR
non-brace-wearers NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-PAR
Each NN O O
volunteer NN O O
made NN O O
five NN O O
parachute NN O O
jumps NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
3,674 NN O O
jumps NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
inversion NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
sprains NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.9 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
non-brace-wearers NN O O
and NN O O
0.3 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
brace-wearers NN O O
( NN O O
risk NN O O
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
6.9 NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Other NN O O
injuries NN O O
appeared NN O O
unaffected NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
brace NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
5.3 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
non-brace NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
4.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
brace NN O O
group NN O O
experienced NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
one NN O O
injury NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
ratio NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
injured NN O I-OUT
individuals NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
1.2:1 NN O O
( NN O O
non-brace NN O O
to NN O O
brace NN O O
groups NN O O
; NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.65 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Inversion NN O I-OUT
ankle NN O I-OUT
sprains NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-PAR
parachute NN O I-PAR
training NN O I-PAR
can NN O O
be NN O O
significantly NN O O
reduced NN O O
by NN O O
using NN O O
an NN O O
outside-the-boot NN O O
ankle NN O O
brace NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
risk NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
injuries NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9751681)

Atrioventricular NN O I-OUT
conduction NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
It NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
claimed NN O O
that NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
have NN O O
an NN O O
increased NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
developing NN O I-OUT
AV NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
this NN O O
has NN O O
never NN O O
been NN O O
assessed NN O O
prospectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
present NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
AV NN O O
conduction NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Two NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
twenty-five NN O I-PAR
consecutive NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
intact NN O I-PAR
AV NN O I-PAR
conduction NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
undergo NN O O
single-chamber NN O I-INT
atrial NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
110 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
single-chamber NN O I-INT
ventricular NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
( NN O O
115 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Follow-up NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
yearly NN O O
included NN O O
measurement NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
PQ NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
atrial NN O O
pacemakers NN O O
, NN O O
determination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
stimulus-Q NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
100 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
120 NN O I-OUT
bpm NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
occurrence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
AV NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
recorded NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
, NN O O
5.5+/-2.4 NN O O
years NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
PQ NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
atrial NN O I-OUT
stimulus-Q NN O I-OUT
intervals NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
Wenckebach NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
point NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Four NN O O
of NN O O
110 NN O O
patients NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
atrial NN O O
group NN O O
developed NN O O
grade NN O I-OUT
2 NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
3 NN O I-OUT
AV NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
required NN O O
upgrading NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
( NN O O
0.6 NN O O
% NN O O
per NN O O
year NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
4 NN O O
patients NN O O
had NN O O
right NN O I-OUT
bundle-branch NN O I-OUT
block NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
pacemaker NN O O
implantation NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
AV NN O O
conduction NN O O
, NN O O
estimated NN O O
as NN O O
PQ NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
atrial NN O I-OUT
stimulus-Q NN O I-OUT
interval NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
atrial NN O O
pacing NN O O
rates NN O O
of NN O O
100 NN O O
and NN O O
120 NN O O
bpm NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Wenckebach NN O O
block NN O O
point NN O O
, NN O O
remains NN O O
stable NN O O
during NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Thus NN O O
, NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
single-chamber NN O I-INT
atrial NN O I-INT
pacing NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safe NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
recommended NN O O
to NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sick NN O I-PAR
sinus NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
without NN O O
bundle-branch NN O O
block NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9757955)

Compliance NN O O
with NN O O
depot NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
acetate NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
intensive NN O O
reminders NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
enrolled NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
intensive NN O O
reminder NN O O
system NN O O
would NN O O
improve NN O O
compliance NN O O
in NN O O
women NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
depot NN O I-INT
medroxyprogesterone NN O I-INT
injections NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Women NN O O
selecting NN O O
this NN O O
treatment NN O O
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
both NN O O
mail NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
telephone NN O I-INT
reminders NN O I-INT
or NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
second NN O O
group NN O O
that NN O O
received NN O O
only NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
scheduled NN O I-INT
appointment NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
previous NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
continuation NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
on-time NN O I-OUT
injections NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
differ NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
who NN O O
had NN O O
prolonged NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
discontinue NN O O
depot NN O O
medroxyprogesterone NN O O
injections NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9758264)

Epileptogenic NN O O
activity NN O O
of NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
induces NN O O
SLE NN O O
( NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
and NN O O
epilepsy NN O O
) NN O O
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
folic NN O I-INT
acid-containing NN O I-INT
multivitamin NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
in NN O O
epileptic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
during NN O I-PAR
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O O
of NN O O
structural NN O O
birth NN O O
defects NN O O
and NN O O
epilepsy-related NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
First NN O O
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
later NN O O
periconception NN O O
care NN O O
including NN O O
in NN O O
total NN O O
12225 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
60 NN O I-PAR
epileptic NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
periconceptional NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-containing NN O I-INT
multivitamin NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
, NN O O
no NN O O
one NN O O
developed NN O O
epilepsy-related NN O O
side NN O O
effects NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
periconception NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

One NN O O
epileptic NN O O
woman NN O O
delivered NN O O
a NN O O
newborn NN O O
with NN O O
cleft NN O O
lip NN O O
and NN O O
palate NN O O
. NN O O

Another NN O O
patient NN O O
exhibited NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
the NN O O
periconception NN O O
period NN O O
using NN O O
another NN O O
multivitamin NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
22-year-old NN O O
epileptic NN O O
woman NN O O
was NN O O
treated NN O O
continuously NN O O
by NN O O
carbamazepine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
folic NN O I-INT
acid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
-containing NN O I-INT
multivitamin NN O I-INT
from NN O O
the NN O O
20th NN O O
week NN O O
of NN O O
gestation NN O O
. NN O O

She NN O O
developed NN O O
status NN O I-OUT
epilepticus NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
later NN O O
symptoms NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
lupus NN O I-OUT
erythematodes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Her NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
ended NN O O
with NN O O
stillbirth NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
epileptic NN O O
pregnant NN O O
patient NN O O
's NN O O
autoimmune NN O O
disease NN O O
( NN O O
probably NN O O
drug-induced NN O O
lupus NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
damage NN O O
the NN O O
blood-brain NN O I-OUT
barrier NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
triggered NN O O
a NN O O
cluster NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Physiological NN O O
dose NN O O
( NN O O
< NN O O
1 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
folic NN O O
acid NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
epileptic NN O O
women NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
autoimmune NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
increase NN O O
the NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
epileptic NN O I-OUT
seizures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9761783)

Oxidative NN O O
DNA NN O O
damage NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
: NN O O
large NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
sexes NN O O
and NN O O
between NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
correlations NN O O
with NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
mortality NN O O
rates NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
'antioxidant NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
' NN O O
proposes NN O O
that NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
C NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vitamin NN O I-INT
E NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
carotenoids NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
other NN O O
antioxidants NN O I-INT
occurring NN O O
in NN O O
fruit NN O O
and NN O O
vegetables NN O O
afford NN O O
protection NN O O
against NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
and NN O O
cancer NN O O
by NN O O
preventing NN O O
oxidative NN O O
damage NN O O
to NN O O
lipids NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
DNA NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
test NN O O
elements NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
have NN O O
measured NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
levels NN O I-INT
of NN O O
dietary NN O O
antioxidants NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8-oxodeoxyguanosine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
8-oxo-dG NN O O
) NN O O
concentrations NN O O
in NN O O
lymphocyte NN O I-INT
DNA NN O I-INT
, NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
European NN O I-PAR
countries NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
France NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Ireland NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
Netherlands NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
Spain NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
U.K NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Volunteers NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
aged NN O I-PAR
25 NN O I-PAR
45 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
nonsmokers NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
gave NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
a NN O O
12-wk NN O I-INT
carotenoid NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
regime NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Vitamin NN O O
C NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O O
and NN O O
vitamin NN O O
E NN O O
and NN O O
carotenoids NN O O
were NN O O
measured NN O O
in NN O O
serum NN O O
by NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O I-INT
chromatography NN O I-INT
( NN O O
HPLC NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

8-oxo-dG NN O O
was NN O O
assayed NN O O
by NN O O
HPLC NN O O
( NN O O
with NN O O
coulometric NN O O
detection NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
DNA NN O O
isolated NN O O
from NN O O
lymphocytes NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
blood NN O O
samples NN O O
. NN O O

Mean NN O O
values NN O O
were NN O O
calculated NN O O
for NN O O
groups NN O O
of NN O O
volunteers NN O O
at NN O O
each NN O O
sampling NN O O
time NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
country NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
supplementation NN O O
( NN O O
between NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
24 NN O O
individual NN O O
samples NN O O
contributing NN O O
to NN O O
each NN O O
mean NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
found NN O O
that NN O O
8-oxo-dG NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
lymphocyte NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
vary NN O O
significantly NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
sex NN O O
and NN O O
country NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
low NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
8-oxo-dG NN O I-OUT
concentration NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
DNA NN O O
of NN O O
women NN O O
from NN O O
all NN O O
five NN O O
countries NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
of NN O O
men NN O O
from NN O O
France NN O O
and NN O O
Spain NN O O
. NN O O

8-oxo-dG NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
( NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
about NN O O
threefold NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
lymphocyte NN O O
DNA NN O O
from NN O O
men NN O O
in NN O O
Ireland NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
U.K. NN O O
Oxidative NN O I-OUT
DNA NN O I-OUT
damage NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
affected NN O O
by NN O O
carotenoid NN O O
supplementation NN O O
; NN O O
nor NN O O
is NN O O
there NN O O
any NN O O
association NN O O
with NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antioxidants NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
are NN O O
generally NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
countries NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
five NN O O
countries NN O O
sampled NN O O
lie NN O O
on NN O O
an NN O O
axis NN O O
from NN O O
northern NN O O
to NN O O
southern NN O O
Europe NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
steep NN O O
gradient NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
premature NN O O
heart NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
strong NN O O
association NN O O
between NN O O
premature NN O I-OUT
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
men NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
levels NN O O
of NN O O
8-oxo-dG NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
five NN O O
countries NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.95 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Women NN O O
have NN O O
low NN O O
coronary NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
mortality NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
which NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
with NN O O
8-oxo-dG NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
cancer NN O O
deaths NN O O
, NN O O
only NN O O
colorectal NN O O
cancer NN O O
in NN O O
men NN O O
shows NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
positive NN O I-OUT
correlation NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
0.91 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
stomach NN O I-OUT
cancer NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
women NN O O
is NN O O
negatively NN O O
correlated NN O O
with NN O O
DNA NN O O
oxidation NN O O
( NN O O
r NN O O
= NN O O
-0.92 NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9769784)

Efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
dose-intensified NN O O
MEC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O O
for NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
urothelial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
MEC NN O I-INT
and NN O O
M-VAC NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Japanese NN O I-PAR
Urothelial NN O I-PAR
Cancer NN O I-PAR
Research NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T3b NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
T4 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
urothelial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
treated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
MEC NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
M-VAC NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
by NN O O
performing NN O O
a NN O O
multi-center NN O O
randomized NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
From NN O I-PAR
1991 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
89 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
T3b NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
T4 NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
metastatic NN O I-PAR
urothelial NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
epirubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
S-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
29 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
dose-intensified NN O I-INT
MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
combined NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
I-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
methotrexate NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cisplatin NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
arm NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
M-VAC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
At NN O O
the NN O O
registration NN O O
center NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
stratified NN O O
into NN O O
previously NN O O
untreated NN O O
patients NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
recurrence NN O O
after NN O O
radical NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
then NN O O
randomly NN O O
allocated NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
each NN O O
arm NN O O
, NN O O
two NN O O
or NN O O
more NN O O
courses NN O O
of NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
( NN O O
4-week NN O O
cycles NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Of NN O O
the NN O O
88 NN O O
eligible NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
four NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
S-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
and NN O O
two NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
I-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
showed NN O O
CR NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rates NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
CR NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
PR NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
52 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
15/29 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
S-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
, NN O O
76 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
22/29 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
I-MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
and NN O O
47 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
14/30 NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
M-VAC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
I-MEC NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
than NN O O
that NN O O
with NN O O
M-VAC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
leukopenia NN O O
was NN O O
low NN O O
with NN O O
I-MEC NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
thrombocytopenia NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
high NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
MEC NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
used NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
is NN O O
promising NN O O
in NN O O
terms NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
antitumor NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9772108)

Functional NN O O
modification NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
agonist-antagonist NN O I-PAR
electromyographic NN O I-PAR
activity NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
rapid NN O I-PAR
movement NN O I-PAR
inhibition NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Subjects NN O I-PAR
made NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
fast NN O I-PAR
elbow NN O I-PAR
extension NN O I-PAR
movement NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
designated NN O I-PAR
target NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
response NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
go NN O I-INT
signal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
45 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
trials NN O O
a NN O O
stop NN O O
signal NN O O
was NN O O
presented NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
go NN O O
signal NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
which NN O O
subjects NN O O
were NN O O
asked NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
as NN O O
rapidly NN O O
as NN O O
possible NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-INT
interstimulus NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ISI NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
time NN O I-INT
interval NN O I-INT
between NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
go NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
stop NN O I-INT
signals NN O I-INT
, NN O O
was NN O O
randomly NN O O
varied NN O O
between NN O O
0 NN O O
and NN O O
200 NN O O
ms. NN O O
Electromyographic NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
EMG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-INT
recorded NN O I-INT
from NN O I-INT
biceps NN O I-INT
brachii NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
triceps NN O I-INT
brachii NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Subjects NN O O
could NN O O
sometimes NN O O
completely NN O O
inhibit NN O O
initiation NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
movements NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
ISI NN O O
was NN O O
0 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
could NN O O
rarely NN O O
do NN O O
so NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
ISI NN O O
exceeded NN O O
100 NN O O
ms. NN O O
For NN O O
responses NN O O
that NN O O
were NN O O
initiated NN O O
but NN O O
stopped NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
way NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
amplitude NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
linearly NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O O
interval NN O O
( NN O O
=modification NN O O
time NN O O
) NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
stop NN O O
signal NN O O
to NN O O
EMG NN O O
onset NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
peak NN O I-OUT
velocity NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
linearly NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
amplitude NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
tendency NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
previously NN O O
reported NN O O
in NN O O
step-tracking NN O O
movements NN O O
with NN O O
various NN O O
amplitudes NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
spite NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
similarity NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
kinematics NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
movement NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
EMG NN O I-OUT
pattern NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
different NN O O
from NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
step-tracking NN O I-OUT
movement NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
While NN O O
the NN O O
initial NN O I-OUT
agonist NN O I-OUT
burst NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AG1 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
linearly NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
modification NN O O
time NN O O
exceeded NN O O
100 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
antagonist NN O I-OUT
burst NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ANT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
go NN O O
trial NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
modification NN O O
time NN O O
from NN O O
0 NN O O
to NN O O
200 NN O O
ms NN O O
and NN O O
decreased NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
modification NN O O
time NN O O
exceeded NN O O
300 NN O O
ms NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
activation NN O O
is NN O O
analogous NN O O
to NN O O
functional NN O O
modification NN O O
of NN O O
middle-latency NN O O
reflex NN O O
EMG NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
load NN O O
, NN O O
or NN O O
cutaneous NN O O
perturbation NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
suggested NN O O
that NN O O
adaptive NN O O
mechanisms NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
would NN O O
functionally NN O O
modify NN O O
the NN O O
reflex NN O O
responses NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
also NN O O
continuously NN O O
working NN O O
during NN O O
voluntary NN O O
movements NN O O
in NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
sudden NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
environmental NN O O
information NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9778067)

Acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O I-INT
ingestion NN O I-INT
on NN O O
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiograms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
moderate NN O O
caffeine NN O O
ingestion NN O O
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
arrhythmogenic NN O O
, NN O O
caffeine NN O O
toxicity NN O O
can NN O O
cause NN O O
severe NN O O
cardiac NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
, NN O O
including NN O O
atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
. NN O O

Atrial NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
and NN O O
ventricular NN O O
tachycardia NN O O
have NN O O
been NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
prolongation NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
P-wave NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiograms NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
This NN O O
study NN O O
investigated NN O O
acute NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
caffeine NN O O
ingestion NN O O
on NN O O
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
P-wave NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
complexes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
RESULTS NN O O
Signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
electrocardiograms NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
from NN O O
12 NN O I-PAR
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
men NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
ages NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
ingestion NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
caffeine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
5 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
body NN O O
weight NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
fashion NN O O
. NN O O

Electrocardiograms NN O O
for NN O O
signal NN O O
averaging NN O O
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
from NN O O
electrodes NN O O
left NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
constant NN O O
location NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
bandpass NN O O
filtering NN O O
( NN O O
30 NN O O
to NN O O
300 NN O O
Hz NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
amplification NN O O
, NN O O
signals NN O O
were NN O O
sampled NN O O
over NN O O
7.2 NN O O
minutes NN O O
at NN O O
2000 NN O O
Hz NN O O
. NN O O

Signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
P-wave NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
complex NN O I-OUT
durations NN O I-OUT
did NN O O
not NN O O
significantly NN O O
change NN O O
after NN O O
placebo NN O O
ingestion NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
caffeine NN O O
ingestion NN O O
QRS NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
prolonged NN O O
in NN O O
9 NN O O
of NN O O
11 NN O O
subjects NN O O
at NN O O
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/- NN O O
SEM NN O O
= NN O O
0.8+/-0.3 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.02 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
8 NN O O
of NN O O
9 NN O O
after NN O O
3 NN O O
hours NN O O
( NN O O
1.1+/-0.2 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.001 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
significant NN O O
change NN O O
in NN O O
P-wave NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
found NN O O
after NN O O
caffeine NN O O
ingestion NN O O
at NN O O
any NN O O
test NN O O
interval NN O O
. NN O O

Average NN O I-OUT
caffeine NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
saliva NN O I-OUT
90 NN O O
minutes NN O O
after NN O O
ingestion NN O O
was NN O O
6.6+/-1.6 NN O O
( NN O O
SD NN O O
) NN O O
microg/dL NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
probably NN O O
not NN O O
arrhythmogenic NN O O
in NN O O
normal NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
moderate NN O O
caffeine NN O O
ingestion NN O O
does NN O O
produce NN O O
a NN O O
small NN O O
but NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
prolongation NN O O
of NN O O
signal-averaged NN O I-OUT
QRS NN O I-OUT
complexes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Further NN O O
prolongation NN O O
caused NN O O
by NN O O
excessive NN O O
caffeine NN O O
intake NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
factor NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
genesis NN O O
of NN O O
arrhythmias NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
caffeine NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9788422)

Preoperative NN O O
irradiation NN O O
versus NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
nonsteroidal NN O O
anti-inflammatory NN O O
drugs NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
the NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Previous NN O O
studies NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
early NN O O
preoperative NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
) NN O O
irradiation NN O O
for NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
HO NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
procedure NN O O
can NN O O
result NN O O
in NN O O
logistic NN O O
problems NN O O
, NN O O
if NN O O
there NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
great NN O O
distance NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
department NN O O
of NN O O
radiotherapy NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
orthopedic NN O O
clinic NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
avoid NN O O
these NN O O
organizational NN O O
problems NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
analyze NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
preoperative NN O I-OUT
irradiation NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
the NN O O
day NN O O
preceding NN O O
surgery NN O O
( NN O O
16-20 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
AND NN O O
MATERIALS NN O O
Between NN O I-PAR
1995 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1996 NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
100 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-INT
to NN O I-PAR
receive NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
prevention NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
heterotopic NN O I-PAR
ossification NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Forty-six NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
irradiated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
7 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
single NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
16-20 NN O I-INT
h NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
operation NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Fifty-four NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
nonsteroidal NN O I-INT
anti-inflammatory NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSAID NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Voltaren NN O I-INT
resinat NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
scored NN O I-OUT
according NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
Brooker NN O I-OUT
Grading NN O I-OUT
system NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
One NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
receiving NN O I-PAR
no NN O I-PAR
prophylactic NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
hip NN O I-PAR
arthroplasty NN O I-PAR
between NN O I-PAR
1988 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
1992 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
analyzed NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
defined NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
historical NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Incidence NN O O
of NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
47.8 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
7 NN O O
Gy NN O O
preoperative NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Brooker NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
36.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
8.7 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
: NN O O
2.2 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
IV NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
11.1 NN O O
% NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
NSAID NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Brooker NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
I NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
9.3 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
1.8 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
IV NN O O
: NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Regarding NN O O
overall NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
NSAID NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
7 NN O O
Gy NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analyzing NN O O
the NN O O
clinically NN O O
significant NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
Brooker NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
III NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
there NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
treatment NN O O
arms 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
untreated NN O O
historical NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
Brooker NN O I-OUT
Score NN O I-OUT
I NN O O
: NN O O
26 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
II NN O O
: NN O O
15 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
III NN O O
: NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
IV NN O O
: NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Referring NN O O
to NN O O
overall NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
HO NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
greater NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylactically NN O O
treated NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Irradiation NN O O
within NN O O
16-20 NN O O
h NN O O
before NN O O
operation NN O O
and NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
NSAID NN O O
( NN O O
Voltaren NN O O
resinat NN O O
) NN O O
can NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
clinically NN O O
relevant NN O O
heterotopic NN O I-OUT
ossification NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
total NN O O
hip NN O O
replacement NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9793091)

The NN O O
SPEM NN O O
( NN O O
Studio NN O O
Policentrico NN O O
Elettrocateteri NN O O
Membrane NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O O
study NN O O
on NN O O
membrane NN O I-PAR
leads NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
SPEM NN O O
is NN O O
a NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
the NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
chronic NN O I-OUT
electrophysiological NN O I-OUT
behavior NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
three NN O O
different NN O O
ventricular NN O I-PAR
leads NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
an NN O I-INT
ion NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
30-microgram NN O I-INT
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
elution NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
contoured NN O I-INT
activated NN O I-INT
carbon NN O I-INT
tip NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Membrane NN O O
1400T NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
( NN O O
Membrane NN O O
1401T NN O O
, NN O O
24 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
3 NN O O
) NN O O
the NN O I-INT
same NN O I-INT
lead NN O I-INT
design NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
steroid NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
( NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
27 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Twenty-three NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
81 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
women NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
all NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
74 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Parameters NN O O
are NN O O
calculated NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
uni- NN O O
and NN O O
bipolar NN O O
configuration NN O O
at NN O O
implant NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-up NN O O
after NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
15 NN O O
, NN O O
30 NN O O
, NN O O
90 NN O O
, NN O O
180 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
360 NN O O
days NN O O
. NN O O

Implant NN O O
threshold NN O O
( NN O O
chronaxie NN O O
= NN O O
0.413 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.280 NN O O
ms NN O O
, NN O O
rheobase NN O O
= NN O O
0.264 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.099 NN O O
V NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
signal NN O O
amplitude NN O O
( NN O O
13.45 NN O O
+/- NN O O
5.87 NN O O
mV NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
slew NN O O
rate NN O O
( NN O O
2.05 NN O O
+/- NN O O
1.38 NN O O
V/s NN O O
) NN O O
reveal NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
. NN O O

Pacing NN O I-OUT
impedance NN O I-OUT
values NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
at NN O O
implant NN O O
( NN O O
unipolar NN O O
571 NN O O
+/- NN O O
165 NN O O
omega NN O O
; NN O O
bipolar NN O O
605 NN O O
+/- NN O O
123 NN O O
omega NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
( NN O O
unipolar NN O O
480 NN O O
+/- NN O O
72 NN O O
omega NN O O
; NN O O
bipolar NN O O
518 NN O O
+/- NN O O
75 NN O O
omega NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
slightly NN O O
lower NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
unipolar NN O O
configuration NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
15 NN O O
and NN O O
30-day NN O O
follow-ups NN O O
, NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
nonsteroid NN O O
leads NN O O
show NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O O
threshold NN O I-OUT
value NN O O
growth NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
unipolar NN O O
from NN O O
0.16 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.11 NN O O
to NN O O
1.19 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.85 NN O O
microJ NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
bipolar NN O O
from NN O O
0.18 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.13 NN O O
to NN O O
1.24 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.88 NN O O
microJ NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
membrane NN O O
steroid NN O O
leads NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
unipolar NN O O
from NN O O
0.13 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.11 NN O O
to NN O O
0.70 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.39 NN O O
microJ NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
bipolar NN O O
from NN O O
0.23 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.32 NN O O
to NN O O
0.76 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.36 NN O O
microJ NN O O
) NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
threshold NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
nonsteroid NN O O
leads NN O O
decreases NN O O
after NN O O
1-3 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
settles NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
threshold NN O I-OUT
level NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
leads NN O O
with NN O O
membrane NN O O
and NN O O
steroid NN O O
( NN O O
in NN O O
unipolar NN O O
0.60 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.33 NN O O
microJ NN O O
; NN O O
in NN O O
bipolar NN O O
0.55 NN O O
+/- NN O O
0.26 NN O O
microJ NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
which NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
stable NN O O
since NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ion NN O I-INT
exchange NN O I-INT
membrane NN O I-INT
is NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
reducing NN O O
the NN O O
chronic NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
like NN O O
acute NN O O
steroid NN O O
elution NN O O
at NN O O
low NN O O
doses NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
membrane NN O O
alone NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
prevent NN O O
an NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
pacing NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
increase NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
month NN O O
postimplant NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9799143)

Blind NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
open NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
cholecystectomy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Intraabdominal NN O O
structures NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
damaged NN O O
during NN O O
blind NN O O
introduction NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trocar NN O O
for NN O O
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
operations NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
150 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
gallbladder NN O I-PAR
lithiasis NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
laparoscopy 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
a NN O O
blind NN O O
( NN O O
V NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
an NN O O
open NN O O
( NN O O
H NN O O
group NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
order NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
results NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
rate NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
mortality NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
. NN O O

Major NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
3/75 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
V NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
1/75 NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patient NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
H NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Minor NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
5/75 NN O O
( NN O O
6.7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
achievement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pneumoperitoneum NN O I-OUT
required NN O O
4.5+/-0.4 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
V NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
3.2+/-0.2 NN O O
min NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
H NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
< NN O O
0.05 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
open NN O I-INT
laparoscopic NN O I-INT
technique NN O I-INT
is NN O O
safer NN O O
and NN O O
faster NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
blind NN O I-INT
approach NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
is NN O O
proposed NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
approach NN O O
be NN O O
routinely NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
laparoscopic NN O O
procedures NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9806121)

Sunbathing NN O O
and NN O O
sunbed NN O O
use NN O O
related NN O O
to NN O O
self-image NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
sample NN O O
of NN O O
Swedish NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
1996 NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
sample NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
4,020 NN O I-PAR
Swedish NN O I-PAR
adolescents NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
birth NN O I-PAR
cohorts NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
sent NN O O
a NN O O
questionnaire NN O I-INT
consisting NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
items NN O O
concerning NN O O
habitual NN O O
sun-related NN O O
behaviours NN O O
and NN O O
attitudes NN O O
, NN O O
knowledge NN O O
about NN O O
melanoma NN O O
, NN O O
risk NN O O
perception NN O O
and NN O O
self-image NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
2,615 NN O I-PAR
questionnaires NN O I-INT
were NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Girls NN O I-PAR
sunbathed NN O O
and NN O O
used NN O O
sunbeds NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
boys NN O I-PAR
at NN O O
all NN O O
ages NN O O
. NN O O

Sunbathing NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
sunbed NN O I-OUT
use NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Boys NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
satisfied NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
girls NN O O
least NN O I-OUT
satisfied NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
themselves NN O O
sunbathed NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
least NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
themselves NN O O
used NN O I-OUT
sunbeds NN O I-OUT
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
. NN O O

Girls NN O O
reported NN O O
a NN O O
higher NN O I-OUT
perceived NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
melanoma NN O I-OUT
than NN O O
did NN O O
boys NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
susceptibility NN O I-OUT
increased NN O O
with NN O O
age NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
who NN O O
were NN O O
least NN O O
satisfied NN O O
with NN O O
themselves NN O O
reported NN O O
feeling NN O O
most NN O I-OUT
susceptible NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
overall NN O O
main NN O O
reason NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
sunbathing NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
appearance NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
for NN O O
own NN O O
sunbathing NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
even NN O O
higher NN O O
degree NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
supposed NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
other NN O O
adolescents NN O O
' NN O O
behaviour NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
was NN O O
reported NN O O
most NN O O
frequently NN O O
by NN O O
girls NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
older NN O O
age NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
second NN O O
most NN O O
'important NN O O
' NN O O
reason NN O O
for NN O O
sunbathing NN O O
was NN O O
'feeling NN O I-OUT
warm NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
comfortable NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

Preventive NN O O
programmes NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
change NN O O
of NN O O
sun NN O O
related NN O O
behaviours NN O O
among NN O O
Swedish NN O O
adolescents NN O O
have NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
tailored NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
climate NN O O
and NN O O
cultural NN O O
conditions NN O O
and NN O O
must NN O O
take NN O O
into NN O O
account NN O O
that NN O O
having NN O O
a NN O O
tan NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
warmth NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
sun NN O O
, NN O O
are NN O O
highly NN O O
valued NN O O
by NN O O
most NN O O
adolescents NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9808499)

Oral NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
dosing NN O O
in NN O O
transplant NN O I-PAR
recipients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
based NN O O
on NN O O
renal NN O O
function NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
An NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
formulation NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
ganciclovir NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
GCV NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
recently NN O O
approved NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
disease NN O O
in NN O O
solid NN O O
organ NN O O
transplant NN O O
recipients NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
designed NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
GCV NN O I-INT
and NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
dosing NN O O
algorithm NN O O
in NN O O
transplant NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
dialysis NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
different NN O I-PAR
levels NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
function NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
Pharmacokinetic NN O O
studies NN O O
were NN O O
carried NN O O
out NN O O
in NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
recipient NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
an NN O I-PAR
organ NN O I-PAR
transplant NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
on NN O I-PAR
hemodialysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Drug NN O O
dosing NN O O
was NN O O
established NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
following NN O O
algorithm NN O O
based NN O O
on NN O O
calculated NN O O
creatinine NN O O
clearance NN O O
( NN O O
CrCl NN O O
) NN O O
: NN O O
CrCl NN O O
= NN O O
[ NN O O
( NN O O
140-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
Cr NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
0.85 NN O O
for NN O O
women NN O O
that NN O O
is NN O O
, NN O O
CrCl NN O O
> NN O O
50 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
8 NN O O
hr NN O O
; NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
25-50 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
1000 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
24 NN O O
hr NN O O
; NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
10-24 NN O O
ml/ NN O O
min NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
day NN O O
; NN O O
CrCl NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
( NN O O
or NN O O
on NN O O
dialysis NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
500 NN O O
mg NN O O
every NN O O
other NN O O
day NN O O
after NN O O
dialysis NN O O
. NN O O

GCV NN O I-INT
was NN O I-INT
taken NN O I-INT
within NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
meal NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
GCV NN O I-INT
for NN O O
between NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
14 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
specimens NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
hemodialysis NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
obtained NN O O
at NN O O
steady NN O O
state NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
for NN O O
GCV NN O O
concentrations NN O O
by NN O O
high-performance NN O O
liquid NN O O
chromatography NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
transplant NN O O
recipients NN O O
, NN O O
absolute NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
determined NN O O
by NN O O
comparing NN O O
GCV NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
single NN O O
oral NN O O
and NN O O
intravenous NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
GCV NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
following NN O O
GCV NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
mean NN O O
+/-SD NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
determined NN O O
: NN O O
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=70 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
minimum NN O O
steady-state NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
Cmin NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
maximum NN O O
concentration NN O O
( NN O O
Cmax NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
0.78+/-0.46 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
and NN O O
1.42+/-0.37 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
24-hr NN O O
area NN O O
under NN O O
the NN O O
concentration NN O O
time NN O O
curve NN O O
( NN O O
AUC0-24 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
24.7+/-7.8 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
hr/ml NN O O
; NN O O
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
50-69 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Cmin NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
1.93+/-0.48 NN O O
and NN O O
2.57+/-0.39 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
AUC0-24 NN O O
of NN O O
52.1+/-10.1 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
hr/ml NN O O
; NN O O
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
25-50 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Cmin NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
0.41+/-0.27 NN O O
and NN O O
1.17+/-0.32 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
AUC0-24 NN O O
of NN O O
14.6+/-7.4 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
hr/ml NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
one NN O O
patient NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
23.8 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
Cmin NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
0.32 NN O O
and NN O O
0.7 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
AUC0-24 NN O O
of NN O O
10.7 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
hr/ml NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
CrCl NN O O
of NN O O
< NN O O
10 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O O
Cmin NN O O
and NN O O
Cmax NN O O
were NN O O
0.75+/-0.42 NN O O
and NN O O
1.59+/-0.55 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
AUC0-24 NN O O
of NN O O
64.6+/-18.8 NN O O
microg NN O O
x NN O O
hr/ml NN O O
. NN O O

Absolute NN O I-OUT
bioavailability NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
nine NN O O
patients NN O O
so NN O O
analyzed NN O O
, NN O O
was NN O O
7.2+/-2.4 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
those NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
end-stage NN O I-PAR
renal NN O I-PAR
failure NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
GCV NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
fell NN O O
during NN O O
dialysis NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
mean NN O O
of NN O O
1.47+/-0.48 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
before NN O O
dialysis NN O O
to NN O O
0.69+/-0.38 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
after NN O O
dialysis NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
bioavailability NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O I-INT
GCV NN O I-INT
in NN O O
transplant NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
that NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
human NN O I-PAR
immunodeficiency NN O I-PAR
virus-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
levels NN O O
between NN O O
0.5 NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
microg/ml NN O O
( NN O O
within NN O O
the NN O O
IC50 NN O O
of NN O O
most NN O O
cytomegalovirus NN O O
isolates NN O O
) NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
with NN O O
tolerable NN O O
oral NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
proposed NN O O
dosing NN O O
algorithm NN O O
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
adequate NN O O
levels NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
50 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
on NN O O
dialysis NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
CrCl NN O O
between NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
ml/min NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
levels NN O O
achieved NN O O
were NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
these NN O O
patients NN O O
would NN O O
likely NN O O
benefit NN O O
from NN O O
increased NN O O
doses NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9809262)

Treatment NN O O
of NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
a NN O O
caregiver-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
in NN O O
community NN O I-PAR
day-care NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
reports NN O O
on NN O O
the 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
that NN O O
evaluated NN O O
a NN O O
caregiver-based NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
for NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
community NN O I-PAR
day-care NN O I-PAR
centers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Thirty-five NN O I-PAR
preschool NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
DSM NN O I-PAR
III-R NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
autism NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pervasive NN O I-PAR
developmental NN O I-PAR
disorder NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
an NN O O
experimental NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Children NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
enrolled NN O O
in NN O O
day NN O O
care NN O O
and NN O O
their NN O O
parents NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
child NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
workers NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
12-week NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
consisting NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
lectures NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
on-site NN O I-INT
consultations NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
day-care NN O I-INT
centers NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
addition NN O O
, NN O O
supportive NN O O
work NN O O
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
with NN O O
families NN O O
. NN O O

Control NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
day NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
alone NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
greater NN O O
gains NN O O
in NN O O
language NN O I-OUT
abilities NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
significant NN O O
increases NN O O
in NN O O
caregivers NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
knowledge NN O I-OUT
about NN O I-OUT
autism NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
greater NN O O
perception NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
control NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
part NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
mothers NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
greater NN O O
parent NN O I-OUT
satisfaction NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
research NN O O
design NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
superior NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
care NN O O
alone NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9809934)

Accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
perfusion NN O O
defects NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
: NN O O
comparison NN O O
with NN O O
wall NN O I-INT
motion NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
technetium-99m NN O I-INT
sestamibi NN O I-INT
single-photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
Nycomed NN O O
NC100100 NN O O
Investigators NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVES NN O O
We NN O O
sought NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
and NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
myocardial NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MCE NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
using NN O O
standard NN O O
imaging NN O O
approaches NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
perfusion NN O O
defects NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
a 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
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
Myocardial NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
may NN O O
be NN O O
more NN O O
versatile NN O O
than NN O O
perfusion NN O I-INT
scintigraphy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
identifying NN O O
the NN O O
presence NN O O
and NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
perfusion NN O O
defects NN O O
after NN O O
MI NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
reliability NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
is NN O O
unclear NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fundamental NN O O
or NN O O
harmonic NN O O
MCE NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
with NN O O
continuous NN O O
or NN O O
triggered NN O O
imaging NN O O
in NN O O
203 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
previous NN O I-PAR
MI NN O I-PAR
using NN O O
bolus NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
perfluorocarbon-filled NN O I-INT
contrast NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NC100100 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
underwent NN O O
single-photon NN O I-INT
emission NN O I-INT
computed NN O I-INT
tomography NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
injection NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
technetium-99m NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Tc-99m NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
sestamibi NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
rest NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Quantitative NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
semiquantitative NN O I-INT
SPECT NN O I-INT
, NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
and NN O O
digitized NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
interpreted NN O O
independently NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
accuracy NN O O
of NN O O
MCE NN O I-INT
was NN O O
assessed NN O O
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
segments NN O O
and NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
moderate NN O O
and NN O O
severe NN O O
sestamibi-SPECT NN O O
defects NN O O
, NN O O
as NN O O
well NN O O
as NN O O
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
extensive NN O O
perfusion NN O O
defects NN O O
( NN O O
> NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
left NN O O
ventricle NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
segments NN O O
with NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
MCE NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
segmental NN O I-OUT
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
ranged NN O O
from NN O O
14 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
65 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
specificity NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
from NN O O
78 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
depending NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
contrast NN O O
agent NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
both NN O O
segment- NN O O
and NN O O
patient-based NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
greatest NN O O
accuracy NN O O
and NN O O
proportion NN O O
of NN O O
interpretable NN O O
images NN O O
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
using NN O O
harmonic NN O O
imaging NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
triggered NN O O
mode NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
the NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
extensive NN O O
defects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
sensitivity NN O I-OUT
varied NN O O
from NN O O
13 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
48 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
specificity NN O O
from NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
100 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

Harmonic NN O O
imaging NN O O
remained NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
accurate NN O O
approach NN O O
. NN O O

Time NN O I-OUT
since NN O I-OUT
MI NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
SPECT NN O I-OUT
defect NN O I-OUT
location NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
all NN O O
determinants NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MCE NN O O
response NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
extent NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
MCE NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
either NN O O
abnormal NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
or NN O O
SPECT NN O O
abnormalities NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
combination NN O O
of NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
and NN O O
MCE NN O O
assessment NN O O
gave NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
balance NN O O
of NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
( NN O O
46 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
55 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
specificity NN O O
( NN O O
82 NN O O
% NN O O
to NN O O
83 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Although NN O O
MCE NN O O
is NN O O
specific NN O O
, NN O O
it NN O O
has NN O O
limited NN O O
sensitivity NN O O
for NN O O
detection NN O O
of NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
or NN O I-OUT
severe NN O I-OUT
perfusion NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
it NN O O
underestimates NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
SPECT NN O I-OUT
defects NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
best NN O O
results NN O O
are NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
integration NN O O
with NN O O
wall NN O O
motion NN O O
. NN O O

More NN O O
sophisticated NN O O
methods NN O O
of NN O O
acquisition NN O O
and NN O O
interpretation NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
to NN O O
enhance NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
technique NN O O
in NN O O
routine NN O O
practice NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9818688)

Recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
following NN O O
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
have NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
ability NN O O
to NN O O
mobilize NN O O
peripheral NN O O
blood NN O O
stem NN O O
cells NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
availability NN O O
of NN O O
hematopoietic NN O O
growth NN O O
factors NN O O
has NN O O
greatly NN O O
facilitated NN O O
the NN O O
mobilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
collection NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
peripheral NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
stem NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PBSC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
It NN O O
was NN O O
the NN O O
aim NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
double-blind NN O O
study NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
PBSC-mobilizing NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
recombinant NN O I-INT
human NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
post-chemotherapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Twenty-six NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
relapsed NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease 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

Their NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
was NN O I-PAR
31 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
22-59 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
pretreated NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
eight NN O I-PAR
cycles NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
cytotoxic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
while NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
undergone NN O I-PAR
extended NN O I-PAR
field NN O I-PAR
irradiation NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
dexamethasone NN O I-INT
24 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
1-7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
BCNU NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
day NN O I-INT
3 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
75 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
4-7 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
Ara-C NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
days NN O I-INT
4-7 NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
Dexa-BEAM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O O

Twelve NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
5/microg/kg/day NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
and NN O O
14 NN O O
patients NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
5 NN O I-INT
microg/kg/day NN O I-INT
GM-CSF NN O I-INT
, NN O O
both NN O O
administered NN O O
subcutaneously NN O O
starting NN O O
on NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
Dexa-BEAM NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Primary NN O O
endpoints NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
were NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
harvested NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
kg NN O I-OUT
body NN O I-OUT
weight NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
occasion NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
six NN O I-OUT
consecutive NN O I-OUT
leukaphereses NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
hematological NN O I-OUT
reconstitution NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
autografting NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Twenty-one NN O O
patients NN O O
completed NN O O
PBSC NN O O
collection NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
six NN O O
patients NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
nine NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
group NN O O
were NN O O
autografted NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
with NN O O
respect NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
yield NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
CFU-GM NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD34+ NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
: NN O I-OUT
32.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
vs NN O O
31.3 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
CFU-GM NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7.6 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
vs NN O O
5.6 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
CD34+ NN O O
cells NN O O
, NN O O
for NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
GM-CSF NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
( NN O O
U NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P= NN O O
0.837 NN O O
and NN O O
0.696 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

High-dose NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
consisted NN O O
of NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
1.7 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
, NN O O
BCNU NN O I-INT
150 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
, NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
400 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
days NN O O
1-4 NN O O
. NN O O

All NN O O
patients NN O O
transplanted NN O O
with NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
CD34+ NN O O
cells/kg NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
20 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/l NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
6 NN O O
and NN O O
11 NN O O
days NN O O
and NN O O
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
0.5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
9 NN O O
) NN O O
/1 NN O O
) NN O O
between NN O O
9 NN O O
and NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
patients NN O O
transplanted NN O O
with NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
5 NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
delayed NN O I-OUT
reconstitution NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
regardless NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
kind NN O O
of NN O O
growth NN O O
factor NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
PBSC NN O O
mobilization NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
conclusion NN O O
, NN O O
our NN O O
data NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
G-CSF NN O O
and NN O O
GM-CSF NN O O
given NN O O
after NN O O
salvage NN O O
chemotherapy NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
not NN O O
different NN O O
in NN O O
their NN O O
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
mobilize NN O I-OUT
PBSC NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
needed NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
hematological NN O I-OUT
reconstitution NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
autografted NN O O
following NN O O
high-dose NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9818888)

Long-term NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
migraine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
predictive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
frontotemporal NN O I-INT
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
test NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
We NN O O
evaluated NN O O
whether NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
migraine-induction NN O O
test NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
nitroglycerin NN O I-INT
ointment NN O I-INT
applied NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
frontotemporal NN O O
head NN O O
region NN O O
could NN O O
predict NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
antimigraine NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Forty-two NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
aura NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
test NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
months NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
antimigraine NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Two NN O O
and NN O O
4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
treatment NN O O
withdrawal NN O O
, NN O O
most NN O O
subjects NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
post-treatment NN O O
test NN O O
maintained NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
benefit NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
benefit NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
lost NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
early NN O I-OUT
onset NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9819368)

Yohimbine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
neurally NN O I-PAR
mediated NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Pathophysiological NN O O
implications NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
this NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
evaluated NN O O
if NN O O
increased NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
stimulation NN O O
is NN O O
an NN O O
essential NN O O
requirement NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
neurally NN O O
mediated NN O O
syncope NN O O
( NN O O
NMS NN O O
) NN O O
by NN O O
manipulating NN O O
overall NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
outflow NN O O
in NN O O
subjects NN O I-PAR
susceptible NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
tilt-induced NN O I-PAR
syncope NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eight NN O I-PAR
previously NN O I-PAR
characterized NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
NMS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
34+/-2 NN O I-PAR
yr NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Vanderbilt NN O I-PAR
Syncope NN O I-PAR
Unit NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
eight NN O I-PAR
age-matched NN O I-PAR
controls NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O O
initial NN O O
administration NN O O
of NN O O
clonidine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CLO NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
yohimbine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
YHO NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
, NN O O
prospectively NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
determine NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
agents NN O O
that NN O O
would NN O O
increase NN O O
or NN O O
decrease NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
norepinephrine NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
> NN O O
/= NN O O
30 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

On NN O O
a NN O O
different NN O O
day NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
subjects NN O O
we NN O O
determined NN O O
intraarterial NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
EKG NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
muscle NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
nerve NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
supine NN O O
and NN O O
during NN O O
upright NN O O
tilt NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
this NN O O
, NN O O
subjects NN O O
randomly NN O O
received NN O O
either NN O O
CLO NN O I-INT
or NN O O
YHO NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
h NN O O
later NN O O
another NN O O
tilt NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
1 NN O O
wk NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
procedure NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
drug NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
. NN O O

During NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
basal NN O O
tilts NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
subjects NN O O
completed NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
whereas NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
NMS NN O O
patients NN O O
developed NN O O
syncope NN O O
. NN O O

Reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
tone NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
CLO NN O I-INT
resulted NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
decreased NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
tilt NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
three NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
controls NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
NMS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
contrast NN O O
, NN O O
YHO NN O O
not NN O O
only NN O O
increased NN O O
basal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
NorEpi NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
MSNA NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
also NN O O
prevented NN O O
syncope NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
seven NN O O
out NN O O
of NN O O
eight NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
selected NN O O
population NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
increased NN O O
sympathetic NN O I-OUT
activity NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
not NN O O
a NN O O
prerequisite NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
development NN O O
of NN O O
syncope NN O O
. NN O O

Yohimbine-induced NN O O
enhancement NN O O
of NN O O
sympathetic NN O O
tone NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
NMS NN O I-PAR
improves NN O O
orthostatic NN O O
tolerance NN O O
and NN O O
raises NN O O
the NN O O
possibility NN O O
that NN O O
this NN O O
drug NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
useful NN O O
agent NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
NMS NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9820191)

Basal NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
carcinoma NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
face NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
radiotherapy NN O I-INT
? NN O O
Results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9825232)

Succinate NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
evaluation NN O O
by NN O O
Doppler NN O O
echocardiography NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Recent NN O O
reports NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
sumatriptan NN O O
administration NN O O
increases NN O O
blood NN O I-OUT
pressure NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vascular NN O I-OUT
resistance NN O I-OUT
both NN O O
in NN O O
systemic NN O O
and NN O O
pulmonary NN O O
circulation NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
study NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
by NN O O
echo-Doppler NN O O
technique NN O O
the NN O O
hemodynamic NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
subcutaneous NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
administration NN O O
. NN O O

Forty-one NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
26 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
36-39 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
20 NN O I-PAR
healthy NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
14 NN O I-PAR
males NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
mean NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
36 NN O I-PAR
+/- NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
range NN O I-PAR
36-39 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
( NN O O
double-blind NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
receiving NN O O
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
A NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
B NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
After NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
2-week NN O I-INT
complete NN O I-INT
pharmacological NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
clinical NN O I-INT
examination NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
electrocardiogram NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
Doppler NN O I-INT
echocardiography NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
performed NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
baseline NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
30 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
60 NN O I-INT
min NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
administration NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
regarding NN O O
Doppler NN O O
echocardiographic NN O O
parameters NN O O
( NN O I-OUT
aortic NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
pulmonary NN O I-OUT
integral NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
end-systolic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
end-diastolic NN O I-OUT
diameters NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
heart NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
only NN O O
a NN O O
slight NN O O
but NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
arterial NN O O
blood NN O O
pressure NN O O
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
group NN O O
A NN O O
. NN O O

Our NN O O
data NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
succinate NN O I-INT
sumatriptan NN O I-INT
can NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
with NN O O
safety NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
other NN O I-PAR
cardiovascular NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (9825384)

High-intensity NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O O
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
A NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
training NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
land NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
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
whether NN O O
inactive NN O I-PAR
asthmatic NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
could NN O O
perform NN O O
high-intensity NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
equally NN O O
well NN O O
on NN O I-INT
land NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
water NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
these NN O O
training NN O O
forms NN O O
. NN O O

Thirty-two NN O I-PAR
adults NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
asthma NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
underwent NN O O
a NN O O
10-week NN O I-INT
supervised NN O I-INT
rehabilitation NN O I-INT
program NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
emphasis NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
All NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
training NN O O
form NN O O
, NN O O
were NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
exercise NN O O
to NN O O
maximal NN O O
intensity NN O O
( NN O O
80-90 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
estimated NN O O
maximal NN O O
heart NN O O
rate NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
asthmatic NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
connection NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
sessions NN O O
. NN O O

Respiratory NN O I-OUT
variables NN O I-OUT
remained NN O O
almost NN O O
unchanged NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
asthma NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
declined NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
period NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
needed NN O O
less NN O O
acute NN O O
asthma NN O O
care NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
cardiovascular NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
improved NN O O
significantly NN O O
and NN O O
similarly NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Ten NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
each NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
had NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
the NN O O
start NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
. NN O O

Only NN O O
3 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
water NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
land NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
had NN O O
exercise-induced NN O I-OUT
asthma NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
10 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
indoor NN O O
training NN O O
, NN O O
either NN O O
on NN O O
land NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
water NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
effects NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
these NN O O
two NN O O
training NN O O
forms NN O O
are NN O O
almost NN O O
equivalent NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9828635)

[ NN O I-INT
Radiotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
choroidal NN O O
neovascularization NN O O
in NN O O
age-related NN O O
macular NN O O
degeneration NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
pilot NN O O
study NN O O
using NN O O
low- NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
high-dose NN O I-INT
photon NN O I-INT
bean NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
] NN O I-INT
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
Several NN O O
pilot NN O O
studies NN O O
have NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
low-dose NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
might NN O O
have NN O O
a NN O O
beneficial NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
choroidal NN O O
neovascularization NN O O
( NN O O
CNV NN O O
) NN O O
in NN O O
age-related NN O I-PAR
macular NN O I-PAR
degeneration NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
AMD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
to NN O O
ascertain NN O O
whether NN O O
such NN O O
treatment NN O O
might NN O O
halt NN O O
the NN O O
progression NN O O
of NN O O
neovascular NN O O
AMD NN O O
and NN O O
whether NN O O
a NN O O
low NN O O
or NN O O
a NN O O
high NN O O
radiation NN O O
dose NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
applied NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
The NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
comprised NN O I-PAR
some NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
0 NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
vs NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
radiation NN O I-INT
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
change NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
became NN O I-PAR
necessary NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
others NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
participated NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
prospective NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
controlled NN O I-PAR
non-randomized NN O I-PAR
pilot NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Enclosed NN O O
were NN O O
eyes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
visual NN O I-PAR
acuity NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.1 NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
< NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
0.6 NN O I-PAR
revealing NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
juxta-subfoveal NN O I-PAR
CNV NN O I-PAR
either NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
occult NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
classic NN O I-PAR
type NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
isolated NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
as NN O I-PAR
part NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
predominantly NN O I-PAR
occult NN O I-PAR
lesion NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
RESULTS NN O O
Eyes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
occult NN O O
CNV NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
12 NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
subject NN O O
to NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
41.6 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
cases NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
38.5 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
n NN O O
= NN O O
13 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

For NN O O
eyes NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
because NN O O
of NN O O
classic NN O O
CNV NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
corresponding NN O O
figures NN O O
were NN O O
33 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
18 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
57 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
14 NN O O
) NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

At NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
of NN O O
follow-up NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
percentages NN O O
were NN O O
63 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Fluorescein NN O I-OUT
angiographic NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
classic NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
occult NN O I-OUT
CNV NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
halted NN O O
by NN O O
10 NN O O
Gy NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
a NN O O
temporary NN O I-OUT
growth NN O I-OUT
retardation NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
irradiated NN O O
with NN O O
36 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
CONCLUSION NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
presented NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
natural NN O O
course NN O O
of NN O O
occult NN O O
CNV NN O O
could NN O O
not NN O O
be NN O O
improved NN O O
by NN O O
irradiation NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
36 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
In NN O O
cases NN O O
of NN O O
classic NN O O
CNV NN O O
, NN O O
low-dose NN O O
irradiation NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
postponed NN O O
severe NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
loss NN O I-OUT
by NN O O
a NN O O
maximum NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
months NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
positive NN O O
treatment NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
also NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
cases NN O O
irradiated NN O O
with NN O O
36 NN O I-INT
Gy NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
however NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
25 NN O O
% NN O O
incidence NN O O
of NN O O
radiation NN O O
retinopathy NN O O
seems NN O O
unacceptable NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9833745)

Mexiletine NN O I-INT
for NN O O
HIV-infected NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O O
, NN O O
crossover NN O O
treatment NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
an NN O O
antiarrhythmic NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
anesthetic NN O O
properties NN O O
, NN O O
has NN O O
been NN O O
reported NN O O
to NN O O
relieve NN O O
discomfort NN O O
in NN O O
diabetic NN O O
neuropathy NN O O
, NN O O
its NN O O
usefulness NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
HIV-related NN O I-PAR
painful NN O I-PAR
peripheral NN O I-PAR
neuropathy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
PPN NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
has NN O O
not NN O O
been NN O O
determined NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
tolerance NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
HIV-related NN O O
PPN NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O I-INT
mexiletine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
maximum NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
600 NN O I-INT
mg/day NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
placebo NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-INT
by NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
alternative NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
6 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
1-week NN O I-INT
washout NN O I-INT
period NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
response NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
assessed NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
visual NN O I-OUT
analogue NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
card NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-INT
19 NN O I-INT
patients NN O I-INT
who NN O I-INT
received NN O I-INT
at NN O I-INT
least NN O I-INT
2 NN O I-INT
weeks NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
drug NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
whom NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
crossed-over NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
receive NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
alternate NN O I-INT
agent NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
No NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
order NN O O
in NN O O
which NN O O
the NN O O
agents NN O O
were NN O O
received NN O O
. NN O O

Comparing NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
individual NN O I-OUT
daily NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
each NN O O
phase NN O O
of NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
receiving NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
5 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
31 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
had NN O O
significantly NN O O
less NN O O
pain NN O I-OUT
while NN O O
receiving NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
was NN O O
noted NN O O
in NN O O
6 NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
38 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Crossover NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
multivariate NN O I-OUT
analyses NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
repeated NN O O
measures NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
apparent NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
response NN O O
to NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
versus NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Dose-limiting NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
those NN O O
receiving NN O O
mexiletine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
but NN O O
only NN O O
1 NN O O
patient NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
discontinued NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Mexiletine NN O I-INT
was NN O O
only NN O O
modestly NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
despite NN O O
its NN O O
relatively NN O O
brief NN O O
period NN O O
of NN O O
administration NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
no NN O O
evidence NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
to NN O O
support NN O O
its NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
HIV-related NN O O
PPN NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
a NN O O
first-drug NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
not NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
powerful NN O O
placebo NN O O
effect NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
some NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9834207)

Marginal NN O O
benefit/disadvantage NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
therapy NN O I-INT
after NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-PAR
blood NN O I-PAR
stem NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
transplantation NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
Japanese NN O I-PAR
Cooperative NN O I-PAR
Study NN O I-PAR
Group NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
PBSCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
this NN O O
prospective NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
74 NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
scheduled NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
undergo NN O I-PAR
high-dose NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
followed NN O I-PAR
by NN O I-PAR
autologous NN O I-INT
peripheral NN O I-INT
blood NN O I-INT
stem NN O I-INT
cell NN O I-INT
transplantation NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
PBSCT NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
randomized NN O O
at NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
exogenous NN O O
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
) NN O O
treatment NN O O
in NN O O
accelerating NN O O
hematopoietic NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
PBSCT NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O I-PAR
diagnosis NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
lymphoblastic NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
ALL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
27 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
neuroblastoma NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
29 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
miscellaneous NN O I-PAR
solid NN O I-PAR
tumors NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Eligibility NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-INT
PBSCT NN O I-INT
, NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
2 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
chemotherapy-responsive NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
3 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
collected NN O I-PAR
cell NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
colony-forming NN O I-PAR
unit-granulocyte-macrophage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
CFU-GM NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
/kg NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
1 NN O I-PAR
x NN O I-PAR
10 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
CD34 NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
cells/kg NN O I-PAR
patient NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
body NN O I-PAR
weight NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
After NN O O
applying NN O O
the NN O O
above NN O O
criteria NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
excluded NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
progression NN O I-PAR
before NN O I-PAR
PBSCT NN O I-INT
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
low NN O I-PAR
number NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
harvested NN O I-PAR
cells NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
5 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
leaving NN O I-PAR
63 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
32 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
300 NN O O
microg/m2 NN O O
of NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O O
over NN O O
1 NN O O
hour NN O O
from NN O O
day NN O O
1 NN O O
of NN O O
PBSCT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O O
31 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O I-INT
group NN O I-INT
without NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
distinct NN O O
disease-oriented NN O O
high-dose NN O I-INT
regimens NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
total NN O I-INT
body NN O I-INT
irradiation NN O I-INT
consisted NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
the NN O I-INT
MCVAC NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
ranimustine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MCNU NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
450 NN O I-INT
mg/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
16 NN O I-INT
g/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
1.6 NN O I-INT
g/m2 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
100 NN O O
mg/kg NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
ALL NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
Hi-MEC NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
melphalan NN O I-INT
( NN O O
180 NN O O
mg/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
etoposide NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
carboplatinum NN O I-INT
( NN O O
1.6 NN O O
g/m2 NN O O
) NN O O
for NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
solid NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

Five NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
two NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
treatment NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
three NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
control NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
subsequently NN O I-PAR
removed NN O I-PAR
due NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
violations NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
All NN O O
patients NN O O
survived NN O I-OUT
PBSCT NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
median NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
transfused NN O I-OUT
mononuclear NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
MNC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD34 NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
+ NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
cells NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CFU-GM NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
, NN O O
4.5 NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
to NN O O
19 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
, NN O O
8.0 NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
25 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
3.7 NN O O
( NN O O
1.2 NN O O
to NN O O
23 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
n NN O O
= NN O O
30 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
2.9 NN O O
( NN O O
0.8 NN O O
to NN O O
21 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
8 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
, NN O O
6.3 NN O O
( NN O O
1.1 NN O O
to NN O O
34 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
6 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
5.5 NN O O
( NN O O
1.3 NN O O
to NN O O
37 NN O O
) NN O O
x NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
) NN O O
/kg NN O O
, NN O O
respectively 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
n NN O O
= NN O O
28 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
PBSCT NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
achieve NN O I-OUT
an NN O I-OUT
absolute NN O I-OUT
neutrophil NN O I-OUT
count NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
ANC NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
0.5 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
/L NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
was NN O O
less 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
median NN O O
, NN O O
11 NN O O
v NN O O
12 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
log-rank NN O O
test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.046 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
although NN O O
the NN O O
last NN O O
day NN O O
of NN O O
red NN O O
blood NN O O
cell NN O O
( NN O O
RBC NN O O
) NN O O
transfusion NN O O
( NN O O
day NN O O
11 NN O O
v NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
febrile NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
> NN O O
38 NN O O
degrees NN O O
C NN O O
) NN O O
after NN O O
PBSCT NN O O
( NN O O
4 NN O O
v NN O O
4 NN O O
days NN O O
) NN O O
were NN O O
identical NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
recovery NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
20 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
/L NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
than NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
26 NN O O
v NN O O
16 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.009 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
> NN O O
50 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
tended NN O O
to NN O O
take NN O O
longer NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
group NN O O
( NN O O
29 NN O O
v NN O O
26 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.126 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
platelet NN O I-OUT
transfusion-dependent NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
27 NN O O
v NN O O
13 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
t-test NN O O
, NN O O
P NN O O
=.037 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

When NN O O
patients NN O O
were NN O O
divided NN O O
into NN O O
two NN O O
different NN O O
disease NN O O
cohorts NN O O
, NN O O
ALL NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
engraftment NN O I-OUT
kinetics NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
G-CSF NN O O
treatment NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
, NN O O
while NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
those NN O O
with NN O O
solid NN O O
tumors NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
concluded NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
marginal NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
1 NN O O
day NN O O
earlier NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
granulocytes NN O I-OUT
could NN O O
be NN O O
offset NN O O
by NN O O
the NN O O
delayed NN O O
recovery NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
platelets NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
We NN O O
recommend NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
routine NN O O
application NN O O
of NN O O
costly NN O O
G-CSF NN O I-PAR
therapy NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
PBSCT NN O I-PAR
should NN O O
be NN O O
seriously NN O O
reconsidered NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9842079)

[ NN O O
Clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
tobacco NN O O
use NN O O
cessation NN O I-INT
interventions NN O I-INT
in NN O O
primary NN O O
care NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
to NN O O
stop NN O O
tobacco NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
DESIGN NN O O
Randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Primary NN O O
care NN O O
centre NN O O
. NN O O

PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
OTHER NN O O
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Smokers NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
among NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
centre NN O I-PAR
users NN O I-PAR
through NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
preventive NN O I-PAR
activities NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
promotion NN O I-PAR
programme NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTIONS NN O O
INDEPENDENT NN O I-INT
VARIABLE NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
intervention NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
General NN O O
variables NN O O
: NN O O
age NN O O
, NN O O
sex NN O O
, NN O O
marital NN O O
status NN O O
, NN O O
educational NN O O
level NN O O
, NN O O
work NN O O
situation NN O O
, NN O O
cohabitation NN O O
with NN O O
children NN O O
, NN O O
smokers NN O O
at NN O O
home NN O O
, NN O O
number NN O O
of NN O O
years NN O O
smoking NN O O
, NN O O
type NN O O
of NN O O
tobacco NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
two NN O O
types NN O O
of NN O O
intervention NN O O
: NN O O
a NN O O
) NN O O
Minimal NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
MI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

b NN O O
) NN O O
Advanced NN O I-INT
Intervention NN O I-INT
( NN O O
AI NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

54 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
6 NN O I-PAR
losses NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
21 NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
assigned NN O O
at NN O O
random NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
MI NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
27 NN O I-PAR
to NN O O
the NN O O
AI NN O I-INT
group NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Progress NN O O
was NN O O
measured NN O O
at NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
month NN O O
, NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
and NN O O
a NN O O
year NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
MI NN O O
, NN O O
23.8 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
abstinent NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
percentage NN O O
at NN O O
one NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
19 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
14.3 NN O O
% NN O O
remained NN O O
abstinent NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
In NN O O
the NN O O
AI NN O O
, NN O O
51.9 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
abstinent NN O I-OUT
at NN O O
15 NN O O
days NN O O
; NN O O
48.1 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
both NN O O
one NN O O
and NN O O
3 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
25.9 NN O O
% NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
; NN O O
and NN O O
22.2 NN O O
% NN O O
were NN O O
still NN O O
not NN O I-OUT
smoking NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
year NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
interventions NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
observations NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
These NN O O
data NN O O
do NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
that NN O O
one NN O O
intervention NN O O
is NN O O
better NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
other NN O O
. NN O O

With NN O O
the NN O O
passage NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
intervention NN O O
decreased NN O O
in NN O O
both NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9850026)

BEACOPP NN O O
, NN O O
a NN O O
new NN O O
dose-escalated NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
accelerated NN O I-INT
regimen NN O I-INT
, NN O O
is NN O O
at NN O O
least NN O O
as NN O O
effective NN O O
as NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O I-INT
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
advanced-stage NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
lymphoma NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
interim NN O O
report NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
trial NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
German NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O O
's NN O O
Lymphoma NN O O
Study NN O O
Group NN O O
. NN O O

PURPOSE NN O O
The NN O O
HD9 NN O O
trial NN O O
aims NN O O
to NN O O
evaluate NN O O
whether NN O O
moderate NN O O
dose NN O O
escalation NN O O
and/or NN O O
acceleration NN O O
of NN O O
standard NN O I-INT
polychemotherapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
beneficial NN O O
for NN O O
advanced-stage NN O I-PAR
Hodgkin NN O I-PAR
's NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
HD NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Two NN O O
variants NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
novel NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
scheme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
standard NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
escalated NN O I-INT
dose NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
are NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
procarbazine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
COPP NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
/doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
bleomycin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
vinblastine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
dacarbazine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ABVD NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
PATIENTS NN O O
AND NN O O
METHODS NN O O
The NN O I-PAR
randomized NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
three-arm NN O I-PAR
trial NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IIB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IIIA NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
risk NN O I-PAR
factors NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stages NN O I-PAR
IIIB NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
IV NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BEACOPP NN O O
in NN O O
baseline NN O O
dose NN O O
contains NN O O
all NN O O
drug NN O O
dosages NN O O
of NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O I-INT
( NN O O
except NN O O
vincristine NN O O
and NN O O
procarbazine NN O O
) NN O O
rearranged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
shorter NN O O
, NN O O
3-week NN O O
cycle NN O O
. NN O O

Escalated NN O O
BEACOPP NN O O
uses NN O O
higher NN O O
doses NN O O
of NN O O
cyclophosphamide NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
doxorubicin NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
etoposide NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
granulocyte NN O I-INT
colony-stimulating NN O I-INT
factor NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
G-CSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
support NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
eight NN O O
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
cycles NN O O
, NN O O
initial NN O O
bulky NN O O
and NN O O
residual NN O O
disease NN O O
is NN O O
irradiated NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
trial NN O O
is NN O O
monitored NN O O
and NN O O
analyzed NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
sequential NN O O
strategy NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
An NN O O
interim NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
505 NN O I-PAR
assessable NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
a NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
of NN O O
23 NN O O
months NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
inferiority NN O O
( NN O O
according NN O O
to NN O O
sequential NN O O
monitoring NN O O
strategy NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O I-INT
regimen NN O O
in NN O O
progression NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
freedom NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
FFTF NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
compared NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
pooled NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
both NN O O
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
variants NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
24-month NN O I-OUT
FFTF NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
75 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O O
and NN O O
84 NN O O
% NN O O
for NN O O
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
pooled NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
.034 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
12 NN O O
% NN O O
progressive NN O I-OUT
disease NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
% NN O O
with NN O O
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
pooled NN O O
. NN O O

Differences NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
significant NN O O
in NN O O
sequential NN O O
analysis NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
acute NN O I-OUT
toxicity NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
baseline NN O I-OUT
BEACOPP NN O I-OUT
resembled NN O O
that NN O O
of NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
escalated NN O O
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
increased NN O O
but NN O O
manageable NN O O
hematologic NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
Combined NN O O
with NN O O
local NN O O
irradiation NN O O
, NN O O
BEACOPP NN O I-INT
in NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
both NN O O
variants NN O O
shows NN O O
superior NN O O
disease NN O O
control NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
COPP/ABVD NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
acceptable NN O O
acute NN O O
toxicity NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
follow-up NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
dosage NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
on NN O O
survival NN O O
and NN O O
late NN O O
toxicities NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9855086)

Optimization NN O O
of NN O O
acid NN O O
suppression NN O O
for NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
an NN O O
intragastric NN O O
pH-metry NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
study NN O O
whether NN O O
an NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
) NN O O
during NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
subsequently NN O O
reduced NN O O
with NN O O
maintained NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

Second NN O O
, NN O O
to NN O O
study NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
oral NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
given NN O O
once NN O O
or NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
up NN O O
to NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
, NN O O
after NN O O
cessation NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
3-day NN O O
intravenous NN O O
infusion NN O O
( NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
partly NN O O
blinded NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twelve NN O I-PAR
Helicobacter NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
+ NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
12 NN O I-PAR
H. NN O I-PAR
pylori NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
- NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
subjects NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
part NN O O
I NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
received NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
, NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
, NN O O
during NN O O
24 NN O O
h NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
8 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
or NN O O
2 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
part NN O O
II NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
received NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
during NN O O
3 NN O O
days NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
orally NN O O
, NN O O
once NN O O
or NN O O
twice NN O O
daily NN O O
until NN O O
day NN O O
10 NN O O
. NN O O

Intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
measured NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
All NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
( NN O O
+ NN O O
) NN O O
patients NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
increase NN O O
of NN O O
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
mean NN O I-OUT
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
6.7 NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
day NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
the NN O O
subsequent NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
to NN O O
6.1-6.2 NN O O
. NN O O

Patients NN O O
continuing NN O O
on NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
showed NN O O
the NN O O
best NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

Likewise NN O O
, NN O O
all NN O O
H. NN O O
pylori NN O O
( NN O O
- NN O O
) NN O O
subjects NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
rapid NN O O
and NN O O
sustained NN O O
reduction NN O O
of NN O O
intragastric NN O I-OUT
acidity NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
the NN O O
infusion NN O O
. NN O O

Subsequent NN O O
dose NN O O
reduction NN O O
to NN O O
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
led NN O O
to NN O O
a NN O O
stable NN O O
fraction NN O O
of NN O O
time NN O O
with NN O O
pH NN O O
> NN O O
3 NN O O
of NN O O
72 NN O O
% NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Omeprazole NN O I-INT
given NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
continuous NN O O
infusion NN O O
of NN O O
80 NN O O
mg NN O O
+ NN O O
8 NN O O
mg/h NN O O
for NN O O
72 NN O O
h NN O O
followed NN O O
by NN O O
omeprazole NN O I-INT
20 NN O O
mg NN O O
once NN O O
daily NN O O
raised NN O O
the NN O O
intragastric NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
to NN O O
and NN O O
above NN O O
levels NN O O
alleged NN O O
to NN O O
allow NN O O
haemostasis NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
peptic NN O I-PAR
ulcer NN O I-PAR
bleeding NN O I-PAR
and NN O O
subsequent NN O O
healing NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
ulcer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9862848)

The NN O O
economic NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
esophageal NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
cost-effectiveness NN O O
implications NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
therapy NN O O
. NN O O

Esophageal NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-PAR
hemorrhage NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
EVH NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
is NN O O
a NN O O
serious NN O O
and NN O O
expensive NN O O
sequela NN O O
of NN O O
chronic NN O O
liver NN O O
disease NN O O
, NN O O
leading NN O O
to NN O O
increased NN O O
utilization NN O O
of NN O O
resources NN O O
. NN O O

Today NN O O
, NN O O
endoscopic NN O I-INT
sclerotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
ES NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
endoscopic NN O I-INT
ligation NN O I-INT
( NN O O
EL NN O O
) NN O O
are NN O O
the NN O O
accepted NN O O
, NN O O
community NN O O
standards NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
EVH NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
are NN O O
no NN O O
published NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
economic NN O O
costs NN O O
of NN O O
treating NN O O
EVH NN O O
using NN O O
these NN O O
interventions NN O O
. NN O O

As NN O O
part NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
comparing NN O O
ES NN O O
and NN O O
EL NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
EVH NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
estimated NN O O
the NN O O
direct NN O I-OUT
costs NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
health NN O I-OUT
care NN O I-OUT
utilization NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cost-effectiveness NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
prevention NN O O
of NN O O
variceal NN O O
rebleeding NN O O
and NN O O
patient NN O O
survival NN O O
at NN O O
1-year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
. NN O O

Treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
were NN O O
similar NN O O
in NN O O
incidence NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-OUT
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
41.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
42.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
variceal NN O I-OUT
obliteration NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
41.9 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
40.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
hospital NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
transfusions NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
shunt NN O I-OUT
requirements NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
71.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
vs. NN O I-PAR
60.0 NN O I-PAR
% NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
significantly NN O O
more NN O O
treatment NN O I-OUT
failures NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
active NN O I-OUT
bleeding NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
EL NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
0 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.027 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
esophageal NN O I-OUT
stricture NN O I-OUT
formation NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
the NN O O
ES-treated NN O O
patients NN O O
( NN O O
19.4 NN O O
% NN O O
vs. NN O O
2.9 NN O O
% NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
= NN O O
0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Median NN O I-OUT
total NN O I-OUT
direct NN O I-OUT
cost NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
groups NN O O
( NN O O
EL NN O O
= NN O O
$ NN O O
9,696 NN O O
and NN O O
ES NN O O
= NN O O
$ NN O O
13,197 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
=.46 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

EL NN O O
and NN O O
ES NN O O
had NN O O
similar NN O O
cost/variceal NN O I-OUT
rebleeding NN O I-OUT
prevented NN O O
( NN O O
$ NN O O
28,678 NN O O
vs. NN O O
$ NN O O
29,093 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
cost/survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
27,313 NN O O
vs. NN O O
$ NN O O
23,804 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
subgroup NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O O
bleeders NN O O
, NN O O
ES NN O O
had NN O O
a NN O O
substantially NN O O
lower NN O O
cost/survival NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
$ NN O O
28,523 NN O O
vs. NN O O
$ NN O O
51,696 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
was NN O O
similar NN O O
between NN O O
treatment NN O O
groups NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
choice NN O O
of NN O O
endoscopic NN O O
therapy NN O O
for NN O O
EVH NN O O
must NN O O
still NN O O
rely NN O O
on NN O O
clinical NN O O
grounds NN O O
. NN O O

Further NN O O
studies NN O O
comparing NN O O
costs NN O O
and NN O O
resource NN O O
utilization NN O O
in NN O O
this NN O O
patient NN O O
population NN O O
are NN O O
needed NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9864127)

The NN O O
tolerability NN O O
of NN O O
lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
and NN O O
BSS NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
for NN O O
ocular NN O O
irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
Morgan NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
lens NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
two NN O O
solutions NN O O
, NN O O
lactated NN O I-INT
Ringer NN O I-INT
's NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
LR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
balanced NN O I-INT
salt NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O O
BSS NN O O
Plus NN O O
, NN O O
Alcon NN O O
Laboratories NN O O
, NN O O
Ft. NN O O
Worth NN O O
, NN O O
TX NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
compared NN O O
with NN O O
normal NN O O
saline NN O I-INT
solution NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSS NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O O
for NN O O
ocular NN O O
irrigation NN O O
in NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
adult NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
Morgan NN O I-PAR
therapeutic NN O I-PAR
lens NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
MTL NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
This NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
of NN O O
healthy NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
least NN O I-PAR
18 NN O I-PAR
years NN O I-PAR
of NN O I-PAR
age NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Exclusion NN O O
criteria NN O O
included NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
analgesics NN O O
within NN O O
four NN O O
hours NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
complete NN O O
ophthalmologic NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
completion NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

Following NN O O
randomization NN O O
and NN O O
prior NN O O
to NN O O
any NN O O
intervention NN O O
, NN O O
baseline NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
obtained NN O O
by NN O O
means NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
verbally NN O O
administered NN O O
, NN O O
horizontal NN O O
, NN O O
100-mm NN O O
, NN O O
unnumbered NN O O
analog NN O O
discomfort NN O O
scale NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O I-PAR
eyes NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
each NN O I-INT
volunteer NN O I-INT
were NN O I-INT
irrigated NN O I-INT
simultaneously NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
15 NN O I-INT
minutes NN O I-INT
, NN O O
with NN O O
additional NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
being NN O O
recorded NN O O
every NN O O
5 NN O O
minutes NN O O
using NN O O
the NN O O
same NN O O
100-mm NN O O
, NN O O
unnumbered NN O I-OUT
analog NN O I-OUT
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scale NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
global NN O O
evaluation NN O O
to NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
irrigation NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
solutions NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
irrigation NN O O
was NN O O
completed NN O O
by NN O O
both NN O O
the NN O O
physician NN O O
blinded NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O I-PAR
groups NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
continuously NN O O
monitored NN O O
for NN O O
any NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
resulting NN O O
from NN O O
the NN O O
irrigation NN O O
solutions NN O O
or NN O O
MTL NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Sixty-three NN O I-PAR
volunteers NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
recruited NN O I-PAR
into NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
study NN O I-PAR
, NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
61 NN O I-PAR
entered NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
final NN O I-PAR
analysis NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Age NN O O
and NN O O
gender NN O O
were NN O O
balanced NN O O
within NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
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
all NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
decreased NN O O
over NN O O
time NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.008 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
lens-solution NN O O
interaction NN O O
was NN O O
identified NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
LR NN O O
being NN O O
the NN O O
most NN O O
tolerated NN O I-OUT
when NN O O
administered NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
MTL NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
statistically NN O O
higher NN O O
ocular NN O I-OUT
pH NN O I-OUT
difference NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
seen NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
pre- NN O O
and NN O O
postirrigation NN O O
readings NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
eye NN O O
in NN O O
volunteers NN O O
irrigated NN O O
with NN O O
MTL NN O O
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.046 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
global NN O O
evaluations NN O O
for NN O O
each NN O O
group NN O O
revealed NN O O
no NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
distributions NN O O
of NN O O
physician NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
volunteer NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
No NN O O
adverse NN O I-OUT
event 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
There NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
any NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
discomfort NN O I-OUT
scores NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
the NN O O
ocular NN O O
irrigation NN O O
fluids NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
without NN O O
the NN O O
MTL NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MTL NN O O
appears NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
by NN O O
healthy NN O O
, NN O O
adult NN O O
volunteers NN O O
. NN O O

However NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
does NN O O
appear NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
lens-solution NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
on NN O O
volunteers NN O O
' NN O O
discomfort NN O O
scores NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
LR NN O O
having NN O O
significantly NN O O
lower NN O O
discomfort NN O O
scores NN O O
when NN O O
used NN O O
for NN O O
ocular NN O O
irrigation NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
MTL NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
authors NN O O
conclude NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
MTL NN O O
for NN O O
ocular NN O O
irrigation NN O O
is NN O O
well NN O O
tolerated NN O O
and NN O O
recommend NN O O
using NN O O
LR NN O O
as NN O O
the NN O O
irrigation NN O O
solution NN O O
for NN O O
maximal NN O O
patient NN O O
comfort NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9885327)

Comparative NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
carbasalate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
ergotamine NN O I-INT
tartrate NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
caffeine 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
migraine NN O I-PAR
attacks NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
This NN O O
randomized NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
double-dummy NN O O
, NN O O
multicenter NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
parallel-group NN O O
study NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
comparing NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O O
and NN O O
safety NN O O
of NN O O
calcium NN O I-INT
carbasalate NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
equivalent NN O I-INT
to NN O I-INT
900 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
aspirin NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
metoclopramide NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CM NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
ergotamine NN O I-INT
tartrate NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
caffeine NN O I-INT
100 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
EC NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
administered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
2 NN O O
acute NN O O
migraine NN O O
attacks NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
296 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
fulfilling NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
International NN O I-PAR
Headache NN O I-PAR
Society NN O I-PAR
diagnostic NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
migraine NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
enrolled NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
In NN O O
total NN O O
, NN O O
one NN O O
or NN O O
two NN O O
migraine NN O O
attacks NN O O
were NN O O
treated NN O O
in NN O O
268 NN O O
and NN O O
235 NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
primary NN O O
endpoint NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
treated NN O O
attack NN O O
was NN O O
headache NN O O
relief NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
intensity NN O O
decreasing NN O O
from NN O O
moderate NN O O
or NN O O
severe NN O O
to NN O O
mild NN O O
or NN O O
absent NN O O
2 NN O O
h NN O O
after NN O O
drug NN O O
intake NN O O
. NN O O

Usual NN O O
secondary NN O O
efficacy NN O O
endpoints NN O O
were NN O O
assessed NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
superiority NN O O
of NN O O
CM NN O I-INT
over NN O O
EC NN O I-INT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
for NN O O
both NN O O
treated NN O O
attacks NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
main NN O O
endpoint NN O O
: NN O O
success NN O O
in NN O O
54 NN O O
versus NN O O
36 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.003 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
attack NN O O
and NN O O
60 NN O O
versus NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
, NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.02 NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
second NN O O
attack NN O O
. NN O O

CM NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
also NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
superior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
complete NN O I-OUT
headache NN O I-OUT
relief NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
20 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
8 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.006 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
42 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
63 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
007 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
willingness NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
take NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
drug NN O I-OUT
again NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
90 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
80 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.043 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
rated NN O I-OUT
by NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
investigators NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
favorable NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
CM NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.02 NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
second NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
' NN O I-OUT
evaluation NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
first NN O I-OUT
attack NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.002 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O I-OUT
global NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
adverse NN O I-OUT
events NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
45 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
though NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
significant NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
32 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
22 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.075 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
They NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
most NN O I-OUT
often NN O I-OUT
unspecific NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
mild NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
moderate NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
intensity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
were NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
less NN O I-OUT
frequent NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
CM NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
7 NN O I-OUT
vs. NN O I-OUT
21 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
p NN O I-OUT
= NN O I-OUT
0.001 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Thus NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CM NN O I-OUT
is NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
effective NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
has NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
better NN O I-OUT
gastrointestinal NN O I-OUT
safety NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
EC NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
acute NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
migraine NN O I-OUT
attacks NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9892252)

A NN O O
placebo-controlled NN O I-INT
trial NN O O
of NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
added NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
neuroleptics NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
BACKGROUND NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
preliminary NN O O
dose-finding NN O O
study NN O O
, NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
agonist NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
glycine NN O O
modulatory NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
glutamatergic NN O O
N-methyl-D-aspartate NN O O
( NN O O
NMDA NN O O
) NN O O
receptor NN O O
, NN O O
improved NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
and NN O O
cognitive NN O O
function NN O O
when NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
conventional NN O O
neuroleptics NN O O
at NN O O
a NN O O
dose NN O O
of NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Forty-seven NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
schizophrenia NN O I-PAR
meeting NN O I-PAR
criteria NN O I-PAR
for NN O I-PAR
deficit NN O I-PAR
syndrome NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomized NN O O
to NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
, NN O O
50 NN O O
mg/d NN O O
( NN O O
n=23 NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
n=24 NN O O
) NN O O
added NN O O
to NN O O
their NN O O
conventional NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
for NN O O
an NN O O
8-week NN O O
, NN O O
double-blind NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
assessments NN O O
were NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
6 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

Serum NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
D-cycloserine NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
relevant NN O I-OUT
amino NN O I-OUT
acids NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
homovanillic NN O I-OUT
acid NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
assayed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
cognitive NN O I-OUT
battery NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
performed NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
and NN O O
at NN O O
week NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
Thirty-nine NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
completed NN O O
the NN O O
8-week NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

Seven NN O O
dropouts NN O O
occurred NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
group NN O O
and NN O O
1 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
negative NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
( NN O O
23 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
with NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
( NN O O
7 NN O O
% NN O O
) NN O O
as NN O O
calculated NN O O
by NN O O
slopes NN O O
representing NN O O
Scale NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
Assessment NN O O
of NN O O
Negative NN O O
Symptoms NN O O
( NN O O
SANS NN O O
) NN O O
total NN O O
scores NN O O
. NN O O

Improvement NN O O
of NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
was NN O O
predicted NN O O
by NN O O
low NN O O
neuroleptic NN O O
dose NN O O
and NN O O
low NN O O
baseline NN O O
SANS NN O O
total NN O O
score NN O O
. NN O O

No NN O O
differences NN O O
were NN O O
found NN O O
in NN O O
performance NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
any NN O I-OUT
cognitive NN O I-OUT
test NN O I-OUT
between NN O O
groups NN O O
or NN O O
in NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
any NN O O
other NN O O
clinical NN O O
measure NN O O
. NN O O

Clinical NN O O
response NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
correlate NN O O
significantly NN O O
with NN O O
serum NN O O
amino NN O O
acid NN O O
concentrations NN O O
at NN O O
baseline NN O O
or NN O O
with NN O O
concentrations NN O O
of NN O O
D-cycloserine NN O I-INT
at NN O O
weeks NN O O
4 NN O O
and NN O O
8 NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSION NN O O
These NN O O
results NN O O
support NN O O
the NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
agents NN O O
acting NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
glycine NN O O
modulatory NN O O
site NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
NMDA NN O O
receptor NN O O
improve NN O O
primary NN O O
negative NN O O
symptoms NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9894936)

Herpes NN O I-INT
simplex NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
recurrent NN O I-PAR
herpetic NN O I-PAR
ocular NN O I-PAR
infection NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PURPOSE NN O O
To NN O O
evaluate NN O O
the NN O O
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
an NN O O
antiherpetic NN O I-INT
vaccine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
recurrent NN O O
herpetic NN O O
ocular NN O O
infections NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Twenty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
herpes NN O I-PAR
simplex NN O I-PAR
virus NN O I-PAR
1-related NN O I-PAR
recurrent NN O I-PAR
keratitis/keratouveitis NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
prospectively NN O O
enrolled NN O O
and NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
receive NN O O
either NN O O
a NN O O
specific NN O I-INT
vaccination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
heat NN O I-INT
shock-inactivated NN O I-INT
herpes NN O I-INT
simplex NN O I-INT
virus NN O I-INT
type NN O I-INT
1 NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
or NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
observed NN O I-INT
as NN O I-INT
controls NN O I-INT
( NN O O
10 NN O O
patients NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
anatomic NN O I-OUT
localization NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
recorded NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
12 NN O O
months NN O O
before NN O O
inclusion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
and NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
similar NN O O
period NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
assignment NN O O
of NN O O
each NN O O
subject NN O O
to NN O O
vaccine NN O O
or NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
vaccine NN O O
group NN O O
, NN O O
we NN O O
observed NN O O
a NN O O
reduction NN O O
both NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.016 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.050 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
recurrences NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
whereas 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
significant NN O O
change NN O O
was NN O O
found NN O O
comparing NN O O
a NN O O
12-month NN O O
period NN O O
before NN O O
and NN O O
after NN O O
inclusion NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
comparison NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
groups NN O O
highlighted NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
reduction NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.013 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
average NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p NN O O
= NN O O
0.051 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
relapses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
treated NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
who NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
any NN O O
significant NN O I-OUT
vaccine-induced NN O I-OUT
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
The NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
vaccination NN O I-INT
with NN O O
heat NN O O
shock-inactivated NN O O
herpes NN O O
simplex NN O O
virus NN O O
1 NN O O
seems NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
able NN O O
to NN O O
reduce NN O O
the NN O O
number NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
duration NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
relapses NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
herpes NN O O
simplex NN O O
virus NN O O
1-related NN O O
keratitis/keratouveitis NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9895371)

Total NN O I-INT
parenteral NN O I-INT
nutrition NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
dipeptide NN O I-INT
shortened NN O O
hospital NN O I-OUT
stays NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
improved NN O O
immune NN O I-OUT
status NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
nitrogen NN O I-OUT
economy NN O I-OUT
after NN O I-PAR
major NN O I-PAR
abdominal NN O I-PAR
surgery NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR


-DOCSTART- (991148)

Study NN O O
of NN O O
cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSC-63878 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
synchronization NN O I-INT
plus NN O I-INT
vincristine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSC-67574 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSC-10023 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
L-asparaginase NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NSC-109229 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
remission NN O O
induction NN O O
in NN O O
advanced NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
children NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Cytosine NN O I-INT
arabinoside NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
utilized NN O O
in NN O O
efforts NN O O
to NN O O
synchronize NN O O
leukemic NN O O
cells NN O O
in NN O O
DNA NN O O
synthesis NN O O
for NN O O
treatment NN O O
with NN O O
vincristine NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
prednisone NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
L-asparaginase NN O I-INT
in NN O O
children NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
acute NN O I-PAR
leukemia NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
relapse NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
results NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
indicate NN O O
any NN O O
therapeutic NN O I-OUT
advantage NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
patients NN O O
treated NN O O
with NN O O
this NN O O
combination NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
those NN O O
treated NN O O
without NN O O
any NN O O
attempt NN O O
at NN O O
CA NN O I-INT
synchronization NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT


-DOCSTART- (9917050)

Effects NN O O
of NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
scopolamine NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
emetic NN O I-OUT
symptoms NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-PAR
otoplasty NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
assess NN O O
the NN O O
effects NN O O
of NN O O
unilateral NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
bilateral NN O I-INT
otoplasty NN O I-INT
on NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
nausea NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
vomiting NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
the NN O O
efficiency NN O O
of NN O O
transdermal NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
STUDY NN O O
DESIGN NN O O
Post NN O O
hoc NN O O
assessment NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
from NN O O
a NN O O
double-blind NN O O
, NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Fifty NN O I-PAR
otoplasty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
studied NN O I-PAR
; NN O I-PAR
half NN O O
of NN O O
them NN O O
received NN O O
randomly NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
double-blind NN O O
fashion NN O O
a NN O O
transdermal NN O O
therapeutic NN O O
system NN O O
( NN O O
patch NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
scopolamine NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TTS-scopolamine NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
as NN O O
prophylaxis NN O O
against NN O O
PONV NN O O
before NN O O
general NN O O
anesthesia NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
placebo NN O I-INT
group NN O O
received NN O O
atropine NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
microg NN O I-INT
x NN O I-INT
kg NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
-1 NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
intravenously NN O I-INT
during NN O O
induction NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
The NN O O
scopolamine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
suffered NN O O
more NN O O
from NN O O
moderate NN O I-OUT
peroperative NN O I-OUT
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
8/25 NN O O
; NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
than NN O O
the NN O O
atropine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
( NN O O
1/25 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
patients NN O O
wearing NN O O
a NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TTS-scopolamine NN O I-INT
patch NN O O
needed NN O O
intravenous NN O I-OUT
atropine NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
unilateral NN O O
otoplasty NN O O
, NN O O
none NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TTS-scopolamine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
50 NN O O
% NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atropine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
PONV NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
After NN O O
bilateral NN O O
operation NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
respective NN O O
incidences NN O O
were NN O O
39 NN O O
% NN O O
and NN O O
81 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.01 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

After NN O O
unilateral NN O O
otoplasty NN O O
no NN O O
patient NN O O
needed NN O O
droperidol NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
after NN O O
bilateral NN O O
otoplasty NN O O
, NN O O
12 NN O O
of NN O O
19 NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
atropine-treated NN O I-INT
and NN O O
4 NN O O
of NN O O
18 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
scopolamine-treated NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
needed NN O O
droperidol NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
numbers NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
doses NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
droperidol NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
0.8+/-0.9 NN O O
and NN O O
0.3+/-0.6 NN O O
( NN O O
P NN O O
< NN O O
.05 NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
. NN O O

Two NN O O
additional NN O O
patients NN O O
, NN O O
wearing NN O O
half NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TTS-scopolamine NN O I-INT
patch NN O O
, NN O O
suffered NN O O
from NN O O
mild NN O I-OUT
central NN O I-OUT
anticholinergic NN O I-OUT
syndrome NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
TTS-scopolamine NN O I-INT
offers NN O O
effective NN O O
prophylaxis NN O I-OUT
against NN O I-OUT
PONV NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
auriculoemetic NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
but NN O O
does NN O O
not NN O O
protect NN O O
from NN O O
bradycardia NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
auriculocardiac NN O I-OUT
reflex NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
otoplasty NN O O
. NN O O

Cutting NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
TTS-scopolamine NN O I-INT
patch NN O O
may NN O O
lead NN O O
to NN O O
undesirable NN O O
side NN O I-OUT
effects NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9926538)

Network NN O O
support NN O O
for NN O O
drinking NN O O
, NN O O
Alcoholics NN O O
Anonymous NN O O
and NN O O
long-term NN O O
matching NN O O
effects NN O O
. NN O O

AIMS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
To NN O O
examine NN O O
the NN O O
matching NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
Twelve NN O I-INT
Step NN O I-INT
Facilitation NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
TSF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
Motivational NN O I-INT
Enhancement NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
MET NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
for NN O O
alcohol-dependent NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
with NN O O
networks NN O O
highly NN O O
supportive NN O O
of NN O O
drinking NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
to NN O O
test NN O O
a NN O O
causal NN O O
chain NN O O
providing NN O O
the NN O O
rationale NN O O
for NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
. NN O O

DESIGN NN O O
Outpatients NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
re-interviewed NN O O
3 NN O O
years NN O O
following NN O O
treatment NN O O
. NN O O

ANCOVAs NN O O
tested NN O O
the NN O O
matching NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
. NN O O

SETTING NN O O
Outpatients NN O I-PAR
from NN O I-PAR
five NN O I-PAR
clinical NN O I-PAR
research NN O I-PAR
units NN O I-PAR
distributed NN O I-PAR
across NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
United NN O I-PAR
States NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
PARTICIPANTS NN O O
Eight NN O I-PAR
hundred NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
six NN O I-PAR
alcohol-dependent NN O I-PAR
clients NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
INTERVENTION NN O O
Clients NN O O
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
one NN O O
of NN O O
three NN O O
12-week NN O O
, NN O O
manually-guided NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
individual NN O I-INT
treatments NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
TSF NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
MET NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
Cognitive NN O I-INT
Behavioral NN O I-INT
Coping NN O I-INT
Skills NN O I-INT
Therapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CBT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
MEASUREMENTS NN O O
Network NN O I-OUT
support NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
prior NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
Alcoholics NN O I-OUT
Anonymous NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
following NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
percentage NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
days NN O I-OUT
abstinent NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
drinks NN O I-OUT
per NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
day NN O I-OUT
during NN O I-OUT
months NN O I-OUT
37-39 NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
FINDINGS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
The NN O O
a NN O O
priori NN O O
matching NN O O
hypothesis NN O O
that NN O O
TSF NN O O
is NN O O
more NN O O
effective NN O O
than NN O O
MET NN O O
for NN O O
clients NN O O
with NN O O
networks NN O O
supportive NN O O
of NN O O
drinking NN O O
was NN O O
supported NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
3 NN O O
year NN O O
follow-up NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
AA NN O O
involvement NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
partial NN O O
mediator NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
effect NN O O
; NN O O
clients NN O O
with NN O O
networks NN O O
supportive NN O O
of NN O O
drinking NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
TSF NN O O
were NN O O
more NN O O
likely NN O O
to NN O O
be NN O O
involved NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
AA NN O I-OUT
involvement NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
associated NN O O
with NN O O
better NN O O
3-year NN O I-OUT
drinking NN O I-OUT
outcomes NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
such NN O O
clients NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
( NN O O
1 NN O O
) NN O O
In NN O O
the NN O O
long-term NN O O
TSF NN O O
may NN O O
be NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
for NN O O
alcohol-dependent NN O O
clients NN O O
with NN O O
networks NN O O
supportive NN O O
of NN O O
drinking NN O O
; NN O O
( NN O O
2 NN O O
) NN O O
involvement NN O O
in NN O O
AA NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
given NN O O
special NN O O
consideration NN O O
for NN O O
clients NN O O
with NN O O
networks NN O O
supportive NN O O
of NN O O
drinking NN O O
, NN O O
irrespective NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
therapy NN O O
they NN O O
will NN O O
receive NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9931687)

[ NN O O
Effect NN O O
of NN O O
alanyl-glutamine NN O I-INT
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
total NN O O
parenteral NN O O
nutrition NN O O
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
immunosuppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
morbidity NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Preliminary NN O O
results NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
study NN O O
] NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
glutamine NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
on NN O O
postoperative NN O O
immunosuppression NN O O
and NN O O
morbidity NN O O
was NN O O
investigated NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
surgical NN O I-PAR
interventions NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
total NN O I-PAR
parenteral NN O I-PAR
nutrition NN O I-PAR
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
analyze NN O O
immune NN O O
competence NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
expression NN O O
of NN O O
CD3 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
CD4 NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD8 NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
lymphocytes NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
HLA-DR NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
CD14 NN O I-OUT
on NN O I-OUT
monocytes NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
well NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
IL-6 NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
IL-10 NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
evaluated NN O O
before NN O O
, NN O O
1 NN O O
, NN O O
2 NN O O
, NN O O
4 NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
7 NN O O
days NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
total NN O O
of NN O O
34 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
have NN O I-PAR
been NN O I-PAR
included NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
n NN O I-INT
= NN O I-INT
18 NN O I-INT
; NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
glutamine NN O I-INT
: NN O I-INT
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
Patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
glutamine NN O I-INT
substitution NN O I-INT
showed NN O O
decreased NN O I-OUT
systemic NN O I-OUT
inflammation NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
significant NN O O
faster NN O O
compensation NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
immunosuppression NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
incidence NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
postoperative NN O I-OUT
complications NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Patients NN O O
without NN O O
postoperative NN O O
complications NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
postoperative NN O O
immunosuppression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9931796)

[ NN O I-INT
Plasma NN O I-INT
separation NN O I-INT
combined NN O O
with NN O O
CVVHF NN O I-INT
in NN O O
septic NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
SIRS NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
non-randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
59 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
sepsis NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
43 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
SIRS NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
n NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
16 NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
treated NN O O
on NN O O
a NN O O
surgical NN O O
intensive NN O O
care NN O O
unit NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
22 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
plasmapheresis NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
combination NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
continuous NN O I-INT
venovenous NN O I-INT
hemofiltration NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
CVVHF NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
was NN O O
administered NN O O
. NN O O

Lethality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
56 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
; NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
lethality NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
plasmapheresis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
even NN O I-OUT
though NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
this NN O I-OUT
population NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
organic NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Finally NN O O
the NN O I-OUT
dependency NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lethality NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
age NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
similar NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
both NN O I-OUT
groups NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Lethality NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
22 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
plasmapheresis NN O I-OUT
group NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
double NN O I-OUT
organ NN O I-OUT
failure NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O I-OUT
lower NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
P NN O I-OUT
> NN O I-OUT
0.01 NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
than NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
controls NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Reduction NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
lethality NN O I-OUT
seemed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
be NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
high NN O I-OUT
as NN O I-OUT
18 NN O I-OUT
% NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
sepsis NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
while NN O I-OUT
patients NN O I-OUT
with NN O I-OUT
SIRS NN O I-OUT
did NN O I-OUT
not NN O I-OUT
profit NN O I-OUT
from NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
additional NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
A NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
trial NN O O
in NN O O
sepsis NN O O
and NN O O
double NN O O
organic NN O O
failure NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
projected NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9931911)

[ NN O I-INT
Intra-arterial NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU/FA NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
FUDR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
versus NN O I-INT
systemic NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
5-FU/FA NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
of NN O O
non-resectable NN O I-OUT
colorectal NN O I-OUT
liver NN O I-OUT
metastases NN O I-OUT
] NN O I-OUT
. NN O O

The NN O O
relative NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
of NN O O
HAI NN O I-INT
FUDR NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
HAI NN O I-INT
5-FU/FA NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
i.v NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
5-FU/FA NN O I-INT
chemotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
unresectable NN O I-PAR
colorectal NN O I-PAR
liver NN O I-PAR
metastases NN O I-PAR
was NN O O
compared NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomized NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
response NN O I-OUT
rate NN O I-OUT
after NN O O
HAI NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
higher NN O O
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

treatment NN O O
with NN O O
no NN O O
statistical NN O O
benefit NN O O
regarding NN O O
survival NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
time NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
progression NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
HAI NN O I-INT
FUDR NN O I-INT
treatment NN O O
was NN O O
inferior NN O I-OUT
as NN O O
compared NN O O
to NN O O
HAI NN O I-INT
or NN O O
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

5-FU/FA NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
i.v NN O O
. NN O O

5-FU/FA-therapy NN O I-INT
is NN O O
therefore NN O O
the NN O O
method NN O O
of NN O O
choice NN O O
outside NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9932558)

Videotaped NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
alcohol NN O I-INT
counseling NN O I-INT
for NN O O
obstetric NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomized NN O O
controlled NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

OBJECTIVE NN O O
To NN O O
determine NN O O
the NN O O
feasibility NN O O
of NN O O
videotaped NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
for NN O I-INT
obstetric NN O I-INT
care NN O I-INT
practitioners NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
skills NN O I-INT
that NN O O
could NN O O
be NN O O
used NN O O
in NN O O
brief NN O O
patient NN O O
consultations NN O O
on NN O O
problem NN O O
drinking NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
health NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
participated NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
using NN O O
a NN O O
20-minute NN O I-INT
videotape NN O I-INT
to NN O O
instruct NN O O
them NN O O
in NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
. NN O O

Participants NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
pretest NN O O
roleplay NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
actress NN O O
playing NN O O
a NN O O
drinking NN O O
pregnant NN O O
woman NN O O
. NN O O

Those NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
condition NN O O
watched NN O O
the NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
videotape NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Control NN O I-INT
condition NN O O
participants NN O O
watched NN O O
a NN O O
20-minute NN O I-INT
docudrama NN O I-INT
of NN O O
a NN O O
pregnant NN O O
problem NN O O
drinker NN O O
. NN O O

Both NN O O
groups NN O O
then NN O O
engaged NN O O
in NN O O
a NN O O
post-test NN O O
roleplay NN O O
similar NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
pretest NN O O
. NN O O

Behavioral NN O I-OUT
ratings NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
roleplays NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
participant NN O I-OUT
evaluations NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
motivational NN O I-OUT
interviewing NN O I-OUT
video NN O I-OUT
constituted NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
outcome NN O I-OUT
measures NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
RESULTS NN O O
Participant NN O O
evaluations NN O O
indicated NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O I-INT
video NN O I-INT
was NN O O
clear NN O O
in NN O O
explaining NN O O
and NN O O
demonstrating NN O O
the NN O O
principles NN O O
and NN O O
skills NN O O
of NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
. NN O O

Change NN O O
in NN O O
behavioral NN O O
ratings NN O O
from NN O O
pretest NN O O
to NN O O
post-test NN O O
showed NN O O
significant NN O O
differences NN O O
in NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
skills NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
experimental NN O O
and NN O O
control NN O O
groups NN O O
. NN O O

Obstetric NN O I-PAR
care NN O I-PAR
practitioners NN O I-PAR
who NN O O
viewed NN O O
the NN O O
training NN O O
video NN O O
were NN O O
rated NN O O
as NN O O
showing NN O O
greater NN O O
empathy NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
minimizing NN O O
patient NN O I-OUT
defensiveness NN O I-OUT
, NN O O
and NN O O
supporting NN O I-OUT
women NN O I-OUT
's NN O I-OUT
beliefs NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
their NN O I-OUT
ability NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
change NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSION NN O O
Obstetric NN O O
care NN O O
practitioners NN O O
can NN O O
improve NN O O
their NN O O
alcohol NN O O
intervention NN O O
skills NN O O
through NN O O
the NN O O
use NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
20-minute NN O O
videotaped NN O I-INT
instruction NN O I-INT
in NN O I-INT
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
Clinicians NN O O
who NN O O
improve NN O O
their NN O O
skills NN O O
in NN O O
motivational NN O O
interviewing NN O O
can NN O O
intervene NN O O
more NN O O
effectively NN O O
with NN O O
their NN O O
drinking NN O O
pregnant NN O O
patients NN O O
. NN O O

Using NN O O
motivational NN O I-INT
interviewing NN O I-INT
with NN O O
this NN O O
population NN O O
holds NN O O
promise NN O O
for NN O O
helping NN O O
prevent NN O O
alcohol-related NN O O
health NN O O
problems NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9935005)

The NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
using NN O O
biphasic NN O O
waveforms NN O O
in NN O O
humans 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
prospectively NN O O
investigate NN O O
the NN O O
influence NN O O
of NN O O
ventricular NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
( NN O O
VF NN O O
) NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
defibrillation NN O I-OUT
threshold NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
DFT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
during NN O O
implantable NN O O
cardioverter-defibrillator NN O O
( NN O O
ICD NN O O
) NN O O
implantation NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Although NN O O
the NN O O
DFT NN O I-OUT
using NN O I-OUT
monophasic NN O I-OUT
waveforms NN O I-OUT
has NN O O
been NN O O
shown NN O O
to NN O O
increase NN O O
with NN O O
VF NN O O
duration NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O O
duration NN O O
on NN O O
defibrillation NN O O
efficacy NN O O
using NN O O
biphasic NN O O
waveforms NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
known NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
Thirty NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
undergoing NN O I-PAR
primary NN O I-PAR
ICD NN O I-PAR
implantation NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
pulse NN O I-PAR
generator NN O I-PAR
replacement NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
randomly NN O O
assigned NN O O
to NN O O
have NN O O
the NN O O
DFT NN O I-INT
determined NN O I-INT
using NN O I-INT
biphasic NN O I-INT
shocks NN O I-INT
at NN O O
two NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O I-INT
each NN O O
( NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
s NN O O
, NN O O
10 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
or NN O O
5 NN O O
and NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

RESULTS NN O O
There NN O O
was NN O O
no NN O O
statistically NN O O
significant NN O O
difference NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
DFT NN O I-OUT
comparing NN O O
VF NN O O
durations NN O O
of NN O O
5 NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
9.5+/-6.0 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
10 NN O O
s NN O O
( NN O O
10.8+/-7.0 NN O O
J NN O O
) NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.4 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
mean NN O I-OUT
DFT NN O I-OUT
significantly NN O O
increased NN O O
from NN O O
10.9+/-6.1 NN O O
J NN O O
at NN O O
10 NN O O
s NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O O
to NN O O
12.6+/-5.6 NN O O
J NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.03 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
from NN O O
7.0+/-3.5 NN O O
J NN O O
at NN O O
5 NN O O
s NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O O
to NN O O
10.5+/-6.3 NN O O
J NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.04 NN O O
) NN O O
at NN O O
20 NN O O
s NN O O
of NN O O
VF NN O O
. NN O O

An NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DFT NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
observed NN O O
in NN O O
14 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
as NN O O
VF NN O O
duration NN O O
increased NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
were NN O O
no NN O O
clinical NN O O
characteristics NN O O
that NN O O
differentiated NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
and NN O O
without NN O O
an NN O O
increase NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
DFT NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
CONCLUSIONS NN O O
Defibrillation NN O I-OUT
efficacy NN O I-OUT
decreases NN O O
with NN O O
increasing NN O O
VF NN O O
duration NN O O
using NN O O
biphasic NN O O
waveforms NN O O
in NN O O
humans NN O O
. NN O O

Ventricular NN O O
fibrillation NN O O
durations NN O O
greater NN O O
than NN O O
10 NN O O
s NN O O
may NN O O
negatively NN O O
affect NN O O
the NN O O
effectiveness NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
ICD NN O I-OUT
therapy NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9935021)

Morphological NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
early NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
apical NN O I-PAR
hypertrophic NN O I-PAR
cardiomyopathy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
long NN O O
term NN O O
analysis NN O O
with NN O O
nuclear NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
OBJECTIVES NN O O
A NN O O
long-term NN O O
follow-up NN O O
study NN O O
with NN O O
nuclear NN O I-INT
magnetic NN O I-INT
resonance NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
NMR NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
was NN O O
undertaken NN O O
to NN O O
detect NN O O
the NN O O
morphological NN O O
onset NN O O
and NN O O
to NN O O
establish NN O O
the NN O O
early NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
in NN O O
apical NN O O
hypertrophic NN O O
cardiomyopathy NN O O
( NN O O
HCM NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
A NN O O
spadelike NN O O
configuration NN O O
on NN O O
left NN O I-OUT
ventriculogram NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
LVG NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
is NN O O
regarded NN O O
as NN O O
a NN O O
diagnostic NN O O
criterion NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
classical NN O O
apical NN O O
HCM NN O O
. NN O O

There NN O O
also NN O O
exists NN O O
a NN O O
segmented NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
apical NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
without NN O O
indicating NN O O
the NN O O
spadelike NN O O
features NN O O
( NN O O
a NN O O
nonspade NN O O
configuration NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

To NN O O
detect NN O O
the NN O O
hypertrophied NN O O
myocardium NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
nonspade NN O O
configuration NN O O
, NN O O
circumferential NN O O
scrutiny NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
apex NN O O
is NN O O
required NN O O
. NN O O

Although NN O O
both NN O O
configurations NN O O
can NN O O
be NN O O
underlying NN O O
causes NN O O
of NN O O
giant NN O O
negative NN O O
T NN O O
waves NN O O
, NN O O
etiological NN O O
relationship NN O O
between NN O O
the NN O O
two NN O O
is NN O O
not NN O O
clarified NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
The NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
spadelike NN O O
configuration NN O O
defined NN O O
on NN O O
left NN O O
ventricular NN O O
short-axis NN O O
NMR NN O I-INT
images NN O I-INT
were NN O O
as NN O O
follows NN O O
: NN O O
( NN O O
apical NN O O
maximal NN O O
thickness NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
15 NN O O
mm NN O O
) NN O O
, NN O O
( NN O O
apical NN O O
anterior NN O O
thickness NN O O
over NN O O
basal NN O O
anterior NN O O
thickness NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
= NN O O
1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
( NN O O
apical NN O O
posterior NN O O
thickness NN O O
over NN O O
basal NN O O
posterior NN O O
thickness NN O O
> NN O O
or NN O O
=1.3 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Thirteen NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
who NN O I-PAR
had NN O I-PAR
predominant NN O I-PAR
hypertrophy NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
> NN O I-PAR
or NN O I-PAR
= NN O I-PAR
15 NN O I-PAR
mm NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
at NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
apical NN O I-PAR
level NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
spadelike NN O I-PAR
configuration NN O I-PAR
underwent NN O I-PAR
NMR NN O I-INT
imaging NN O I-INT
twice NN O I-INT
before NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
after NN O I-INT
54+/-10 NN O I-INT
months NN O I-INT
' NN O I-INT
follow-up NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
RESULTS NN O O
Apical NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
had NN O O
been NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O O
wall NN O O
in NN O O
four NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
anterior-lateral NN O O
wall NN O O
in NN O O
two NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
the NN O O
septal-anterior NN O O
wall NN O O
in NN O O
one NN O O
developed NN O O
to NN O O
become NN O O
circumferential NN O I-OUT
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
that NN O O
fulfilled NN O O
the NN O O
criteria NN O O
for NN O O
the NN O O
spadelike NN O O
configuration NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
follow-up NN O O
period NN O O
. NN O O

CONCLUSIONS NN O O
The NN O O
spadelike NN O O
configuration NN O O
can NN O O
begin NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
nonspade NN O O
configuration NN O O
and NN O O
therefore NN O O
, NN O O
both NN O O
can NN O O
constitute NN O O
a NN O O
single NN O O
disease NN O O
entity NN O O
of NN O O
apical NN O O
HCM NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
early NN O O
diagnosis NN O O
of NN O O
apical NN O I-OUT
HCM NN O I-OUT
can NN O O
be NN O O
achieved NN O O
by NN O O
identifying NN O O
the NN O O
hypertrophy NN O I-OUT
frequently NN O O
confined NN O O
to NN O O
the NN O O
lateral NN O O
wall NN O O
at NN O O
the NN O O
apical NN O O
level NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9950438)

Active NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
for NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
III NN O I-PAR
human NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
is NN O O
curable NN O O
by NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
but NN O O
cure NN O O
rate NN O O
depends NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
extent NN O O
of NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
investigated NN O O
whether NN O O
adjuvant NN O O
active NN O I-INT
specific NN O I-INT
immunotherapy NN O I-INT
( NN O O
ASI NN O O
) NN O O
with NN O O
an NN O O
autologous NN O O
tumour NN O O
cell-BCG NN O O
vaccine NN O O
with NN O O
surgical NN O O
resection NN O O
was NN O O
more NN O O
beneficial NN O O
than NN O O
resection NN O O
alone NN O O
in NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
and NN O O
III NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O

METHODS NN O O
In NN O O
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
, NN O O
254 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
postoperative NN O I-INT
ASI NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
no NN O I-INT
adjuvant NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
ASI NN O O
was NN O O
three NN O O
weekly NN O O
vaccinations NN O O
starting NN O O
4 NN O O
weeks NN O O
after NN O O
surgery NN O O
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
booster NN O O
vaccination NN O O
at NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
with NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
irradiated NN O O
autologous NN O I-INT
tumour NN O I-INT
cells NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
first NN O O
vaccinations NN O O
contained NN O O
10 NN O O
( NN O O
7 NN O O
) NN O O
BCG NN O O
organisms NN O O
. NN O O

We NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
patients NN O O
for NN O O
time NN O O
to NN O O
recurrence NN O O
, NN O O
and NN O O
recurrence-free NN O O
and NN O O
overall NN O O
survival NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
was NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
The NN O O
5.3 NN O O
year NN O O
median NN O O
follow-up NN O O
( NN O O
range NN O O
8 NN O O
months NN O O
to NN O O
8 NN O O
years NN O O
11 NN O O
months NN O O
) NN O O
showed NN O O
44 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
7-66 NN O O
) NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
recurrence-free NN O O
period NN O O
in NN O O
all NN O O
patients NN O O
receiving NN O O
ASI NN O I-INT
( NN O O
p=0.023 NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

Overall NN O O
, NN O O
there NN O O
were NN O O
40 NN O O
recurrences NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
control NN O O
group NN O O
and NN O O
25 NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
ASI NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

Analysis NN O O
by NN O O
stage NN O O
showed NN O O
no NN O O
significant NN O O
benefit NN O O
of NN O O
ASI NN O I-OUT
in NN O O
stage NN O O
III NN O O
disease NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
major NN O O
impact NN O O
of NN O O
ASI NN O O
was NN O O
seen NN O O
in NN O O
patients NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
disease NN O I-PAR
, NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
period NN O I-OUT
( NN O O
p=0.011 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
61 NN O O
% NN O O
( NN O O
18-81 NN O O
) NN O O
risk NN O I-OUT
reduction NN O I-OUT
for NN O I-OUT
recurrences NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Recurrence-free NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
was NN O O
significantly NN O O
longer NN O O
with NN O O
ASI NN O O
( NN O O
42 NN O O
% NN O O
risk NN O O
reduction NN O O
for NN O O
recurrence NN O O
or NN O O
death NN O O
[ NN O O
0-68 NN O O
] NN O O
, NN O O
p=0.032 NN O O
) NN O O
and NN O O
there NN O O
was NN O O
a NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
improved NN O O
overall NN O I-OUT
survival NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
INTERPRETATION NN O O
ASI NN O O
gave NN O O
significant NN O O
clinical NN O O
benefit NN O O
in NN O O
surgically NN O O
resected NN O O
patients NN O O
with NN O O
stage NN O I-PAR
II NN O I-PAR
colon NN O I-PAR
cancer NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
ASI NN O O
has NN O O
minimal NN O O
adverse NN O O
reactions NN O O
and NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
considered NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
management NN O O
of NN O O
stage NN O O
II NN O O
colon NN O O
cancer NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (998549)

Adequacy NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
a NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
. NN O O

This NN O O
prospective NN O O
study NN O O
assesses NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
2.5 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
4 NN O I-INT
, NN O I-INT
and NN O I-INT
10 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
during NN O I-INT
pregnancy NN O I-INT
on NN O I-INT
maternal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
fetal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
pyridoxal NN O I-OUT
5'-phosphate NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
degree NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
coenzyme NN O I-OUT
saturation NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
activation NN O I-OUT
factor NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
aspartate NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alanine NN O I-OUT
aminotransferase NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-OUT
alphaEGOT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alphaEGPT NN O I-OUT
) NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
erythrocytes NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
More NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O I-INT
mg NN O I-INT
of NN O I-INT
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
supplementation NN O I-INT
daily NN O I-INT
was NN O O
required NN O O
for NN O O
most NN O O
pregnancies NN O O
to NN O O
maintain NN O O
maternal NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
levels NN O I-OUT
within NN O O
the NN O O
range NN O O
observed NN O O
during NN O O
the NN O O
first NN O O
trimester NN O O
and NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
nonpregnant NN O O
state NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
concentrations NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
maternal NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
cord NN O I-OUT
blood NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
highly NN O O
correlated NN O O
and NN O O
indicated NN O O
a NN O O
dependence NN O O
of NN O O
fetal NN O O
vitamin NN O O
B6 NN O O
nutrition NN O O
on NN O O
maternal NN O O
circulating NN O O
PLP NN O O
. NN O O

Measurements NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
alphaEGOT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alphaEGPT NN O I-OUT
were NN O O
not NN O O
as NN O O
reproducible NN O O
as NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
assays NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
were NN O O
less NN O O
sensitive NN O O
and NN O O
quantitative NN O O
indicators NN O O
. NN O O

In NN O O
the NN O O
majority NN O O
of NN O O
subjects NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O I-OUT
in NN O I-OUT
alphaEGOT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
alphaEGPT NN O I-OUT
with NN O O
time NN O O
correlated NN O O
poorly NN O O
with NN O O
the NN O O
changes NN O O
in NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
However NN O O
, NN O O
when NN O O
the NN O O
data NN O O
were NN O O
analyzed NN O O
without NN O O
regard NN O O
for NN O O
their NN O O
dependence NN O O
on NN O O
time NN O O
, NN O O
they NN O O
demonstrated NN O O
a NN O O
negative NN O O
, NN O O
linear NN O O
correlation NN O O
between NN O O
alphaEGOT NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
log NN O O
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
and NN O O
between NN O O
alphaEGPT NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
log NN O I-OUT
plasma NN O I-OUT
PLP NN O I-OUT
for NN O O
the NN O O
group NN O O
on NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
pyridoxine NN O I-INT
and NN O O
for NN O O
all NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
combined NN O O
. NN O O

Finally NN O O
, NN O O
the NN O O
dietary NN O O
records NN O O
showed NN O O
that NN O O
most NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
subjects NN O O
consumed NN O O
less NN O O
than NN O O
2 NN O O
mg NN O O
of NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
daily NN O O
from NN O O
their NN O O
food NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
results NN O O
indicate NN O O
that NN O O
the NN O O
current NN O O
Recommended NN O O
Dietary NN O O
Allowance NN O O
for NN O O
vitamin NN O I-INT
B6 NN O I-INT
during NN O O
pregnancy NN O O
( NN O O
2.5 NN O O
mg NN O O
) NN O O
is NN O O
too NN O O
low NN O O
and NN O O
that NN O O
supplementation NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
vitamin NN O O
in NN O O
an NN O O
amount NN O O
more NN O O
than NN O O
4 NN O O
mg NN O O
daily NN O O
is NN O O
recommended NN O O
. NN O O



-DOCSTART- (9987969)

[ NN O O
The NN O O
efficacy NN O O
of NN O O
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
rehabilitation NN O O
of NN O O
hypertension NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
] NN O I-PAR
. NN O O

85 NN O I-PAR
females NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
borderline NN O I-PAR
mental NN O I-PAR
disorders NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
essential NN O I-PAR
hypertension NN O I-PAR
were NN O O
followed NN O O
up NN O O
for NN O O
a NN O O
month NN O O
and NN O O
6 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
( NN O I-INT
hypotensive NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
+ NN O I-INT
psychotherapy NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
biofeedback NN O I-INT
or NN O I-INT
hypotensive NN O I-INT
drugs NN O I-INT
only NN O I-INT
-- NN O I-INT
45 NN O I-INT
patients NN O O
and NN O O
40 NN O O
controls NN O I-INT
, NN O O
respectively NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
addition NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychotherapy NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
drugs NN O I-OUT
contributed NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
a NN O I-OUT
higher NN O I-OUT
hypotensive NN O I-OUT
effect NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
long-term NN O I-OUT
improvement NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
psychic NN O I-OUT
condition NN O I-OUT
, NN O I-OUT
more NN O I-OUT
active NN O I-OUT
attitude NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
treatment NN O I-OUT
process NN O I-OUT
and NN O I-OUT
psychic NN O I-OUT
adaptation NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Better NN O I-OUT
quality NN O I-OUT
of NN O I-OUT
life NN O I-OUT
was NN O I-OUT
achieved NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT


-DOCSTART- (9989713)

Effectiveness NN O O
of NN O O
active NN O I-INT
physical NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
as NN O O
treatment NN O O
for NN O O
long-standing NN O I-PAR
adductor-related NN O I-PAR
groin NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
: NN O I-PAR
randomised NN O O
trial NN O O
. NN O O

BACKGROUND NN O O
Groin NN O O
pain NN O O
is NN O O
common NN O O
among NN O O
athletes NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
major NN O O
cause NN O O
of NN O O
long-standing NN O O
problems NN O O
is NN O O
adductor-related NN O I-PAR
groin NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
The NN O O
purpose NN O O
of NN O O
this NN O O
randomised NN O O
clinical NN O O
trial NN O O
was NN O O
to NN O O
compare NN O O
an NN O O
active NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
programme NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
AT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
with NN O I-INT
a NN O I-INT
physiotherapy NN O I-INT
treatment NN O I-INT
without NN O I-INT
active NN O I-INT
training NN O I-INT
( NN O I-INT
PT NN O I-INT
) NN O I-INT
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
adductor-related NN O I-PAR
groin NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
. NN O I-PAR
METHODS NN O O
68 NN O I-PAR
athletes NN O I-PAR
with NN O I-PAR
long-standing NN O I-PAR
( NN O I-PAR
median NN O I-PAR
40 NN O I-PAR
weeks NN O I-PAR
) NN O I-PAR
adductor-related NN O I-PAR
groin NN O I-PAR
pain NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
after NN O I-PAR
examination NN O I-PAR
according NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
a NN O I-PAR
standardised NN O I-PAR
protocol NN O I-PAR
-- NN O I-PAR
were NN O I-PAR
randomly NN O I-PAR
assigned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
AT NN O I-INT
or NN O I-PAR
PT NN O I-INT
. NN O I-INT
The NN O O
treatment NN O O
period NN O O
was NN O O
8-12 NN O O
weeks NN O O
. NN O O

4 NN O O
months NN O O
after NN O O
the NN O O
end NN O O
of NN O O
treatment NN O O
a NN O O
standardised NN O O
examination NN O O
was NN O O
done NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
examining NN O O
physician NN O O
was NN O O
unaware NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
allocation NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
ultimate NN O O
outcome NN O O
measure NN O O
was NN O O
full NN O I-OUT
return NN O I-OUT
to NN O I-OUT
sports NN O I-OUT
at NN O I-OUT
the NN O I-OUT
same NN O I-OUT
level NN O I-OUT
without NN O I-OUT
groin NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
. NN O I-OUT
Analyses NN O O
were NN O O
by NN O O
intention NN O O
to NN O O
treat NN O O
. NN O O

FINDINGS NN O O
23 NN O I-PAR
patients NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
AT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
and NN O I-PAR
four NN O I-PAR
in NN O I-PAR
the NN O I-PAR
PT NN O I-PAR
group NN O I-PAR
returned NN O I-PAR
to NN O I-PAR
sports NN O I-PAR
without NN O I-PAR
groin NN O I-OUT
pain NN O I-OUT
( NN O I-PAR
odds NN O I-PAR
ratio NN O O
, NN O O
multiple-logistic-regression NN O O
analysis NN O O
, NN O O
12.7 NN O O
[ NN O O
95 NN O O
% NN O O
CI NN O O
3.4-47.2 NN O O
] NN O O
) NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
subjective NN O O
global NN O O
assessments NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
effect NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
treatments NN O O
showed NN O O
a NN O O
significant NN O O
( NN O O
p=0.006 NN O O
) NN O O
linear NN O O
trend NN O O
towards NN O O
a NN O O
better NN O O
effect NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
AT NN O O
group NN O O
. NN O O

A NN O O
per-protocol NN O O
analysis NN O O
did NN O O
not NN O O
show NN O O
appreciably NN O O
different NN O O
results NN O O
. NN O O

INTERPRETATION NN O O
AT NN O O
with NN O O
a NN O O
programme NN O O
aimed NN O O
at NN O O
improving NN O O
strength NN O O
and NN O O
coordination NN O O
of NN O O
the NN O O
muscles NN O O
acting NN O O
on NN O O
the NN O O
pelvis NN O O
, NN O O
in NN O O
particular NN O O
the NN O O
adductor NN O O
muscles NN O O
, NN O O
is NN O O
very NN O O
effective NN O O
in NN O O
the NN O O
treatment NN O O
of NN O O
athletes NN O O
with NN O O
long-standing NN O O
adductor-related NN O O
groin NN O O
pain NN O O
. NN O O

The NN O O
potential NN O O
preventive NN O O
value NN O O
of NN O O
a NN O O
short NN O O
programme NN O O
based NN O O
upon NN O O
the NN O O
principles NN O O
of NN O O
AT NN O O
should NN O O
be NN O O
assessed NN O O
in NN O O
future NN O O
, NN O O
randomised NN O O
, NN O O
clinical NN O O
trials NN O O
. NN O O



